Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 15, 2006, 06:39:29 AM
Viva Piñata <-- Translated
The site is in dutch, so you might want to translate it, but it is definately aimed at a younger audience.
Post by: Arbok on March 15, 2006, 07:15:09 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 15, 2006, 07:45:58 AM
This game although graphically appealing, just looks so BLAH.
Rare has completely lost its touch...perhaps it never had its touch and Nintendo's assistance is really what made the older games great.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 15, 2006, 07:47:14 AM
Post by: capamerica on March 15, 2006, 07:53:48 AM
Thou they do get points from making me want to hit everything it that world with a large bat. But that can be taken as a good and bad thing.
I wonder how many more mediocre games will Microsoft allow Rare to make before they just dissolve the company in and sell off their assets to recop the money the lost buying them. I'm pretty sure MS has yet to make their money back on them. I'm also surprized that MS isn't forcing them to make a game that they know would sell like 'Perfect Dark Zero 2'
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 15, 2006, 08:05:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
I'm also surprized that MS isn't forcing them to make a game that they know would sell like 'Donkey Kong 360 or Star Fox Adventures 2'
Is Perfect Dark Zero even selling now? Why would they want a sequel so soon?
Post by: capamerica on March 15, 2006, 08:22:44 AM
Not sure how well Perfect Dark Zero is selling, Its no Halo I'll tell you that much.
Reason they should start working on a sequal now for Perfect Dark Zero is because it will take them at least 2 years to get it done. =P
Post by: Ian Sane on March 15, 2006, 08:42:02 AM
Even if you think Rare isn't anything special now I still consider their leaving as a loss to Nintendo. Maybe Rare required Nintendo to make those classic games but that doesn't change anything. That partnership is gone and it benefited Nintendo. Rare's only Gamecube game sucked (and part of it was because Nintendo shoehorned Star Fox into it) and everyone thinks that Rare's useless. We'll just ignore the fact that Conker's Bad Fur Day was awesome as was Perfect Dark. So Rare was making great games in 2000 and 2001 but in 2002 they released one game and it was a stinker so then Rare sucked and was worth losing. To me that sounds more like Nintendo fanboys making up excuses to justify an iffy move on the part of Nintendo. I definately fail to see how Nintendo is better off now without Rare.
At the very least if Rare was still with Nintendo we would have gotten a few other games out of it that could have been good. We didn't get any more games from them leaving so no matter what Nintendo is worse off. You can rag on Rare's MS efforts but for all you know those games with a bit of Nintendo polish could have been classics. And it's not like Kuju and N-Space are busting out anything better.
Post by: ShyGuy on March 15, 2006, 08:46:05 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 15, 2006, 08:54:03 AM
No. All the kiosks I see always have some boring army game running on them. Or a boring racing game. It's your pick.
If Kameo sucks it doesn't mean losing Rare was good. Nintendo's advantage was their partnership with Rare. They created great games by working together. That collaboration is gone and I think Nintendo is worse off as a result. You can't say "well their Xbox games suck so it's a good thing Nintendo dropped them" because those games under the guidance of Nintendo would be different.
Post by: jasonditz on March 15, 2006, 08:54:08 AM
Post by: jasonditz on March 15, 2006, 08:57:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Hey Ian, have you tried Kameo at a Xbox 360 Kiosk?"
No. All the kiosks I see always have some boring army game running on them. Or a boring racing game. It's your pick.
If Kameo sucks it doesn't mean losing Rare was good. Nintendo's advantage was their partnership with Rare. They created great games by working together. That collaboration is gone and I think Nintendo is worse off as a result. You can't say "well their Xbox games suck so it's a good thing Nintendo dropped them" because those games under the guidance of Nintendo would be different.
In all fairness it's not as though they were just "lost", Nintendo got hundreds of millions of dollars out of the deal. Hopefully they did so with an eye at starting some more first party studios, or hooking up with some other second party studios that hadn't lost the bulk of the programming talent that made their most successful games.
Nintendo plus anybody is going to be at least a pretty good game. Look at Geist. Ok, it wasn't some magical experience, but considering the company that made it was best known for making Olsen Twins games before that, it was quite a leap forward.
Post by: Pale on March 15, 2006, 09:07:43 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 15, 2006, 09:08:57 AM
And how do we gamers benefit from that? How is the Cube in a better position because of that? In the console market Nintendo's in a big pit and are a footnote when people talk about the console market. Maybe things would be different if they still had Rare. At least Rare would have contributed something. At least they would provide something different to Nintendo's lineup then another Mario spinoff. It's the old profit vs marketshare debate again. I don't see anything you can point at and say "this is what Nintendo did with their Rare sale money and their console benefitted from it."
The Rare sale is like Nintendo dumping a high salary by trading a player to another team. The player didn't do too well on the Microsoft team but that team made the playoffs regardless and Nintendo didn't.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 15, 2006, 09:12:06 AM
Post by: capamerica on March 15, 2006, 09:31:20 AM
Rare really seemed to have started going down hill around the time of Banjo-Tooie. I really blame it on the fact that they lost most of their good staff to Free Radical. IF you take out Perfect Dark after Banjo-Kazooie there really weren't any good Rare games. I mean sure Conker's Bad Fur Day was funny as hell but overall it wasn't that great of a game and the jokes became very dated with the Xbox version.
Between the Release of Killer Instinct Gold - 1996 (Their First N64 Game) and Perfect Dark Zero/Kameo - 2005 (Xbox360) Rare has created 24 games among 6 consoles. Maybe at most 4 of them were decent games.
Post by: Kairon on March 15, 2006, 09:38:56 AM
Diddy Kong Racing, Banjo-Kazooie, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong 64, Star Fox Adventures, and yes, even Jet Force Gemini and Blast corp to lesser extents, all convinced me as a Nintendo fan that Rare was overhyped by fanboys and that they were nothing special. Kameo sounded dead-in-the-water from the moment I read about it in Nintendo power, and my perception hasn't changed now that it's been released 4-5 years later and hundreds of thousands of dollars later.
Seriously, I found their platforming endeavors to be vastly inferior to Mario 64, I found their FPS' to be merely sensible though in a genre normally crippled, KI was a throwback, DK64 was horrific, and Jet Force Gemini convinced Miyamoto himself that 3rd person shooters were not feasable.
The only time I ever loved a Rare game was Conker's BFD, a game where they finally ditched the facade of gameplay and instead poured on their british humour, sensibilities, and imagination. Ironically, this game was met with lukewarm critics and lackluster sales. Only when Rare fully exploits that true sense of itself as seen in Conker will I be convinced that they are anything but another developer, luckily boosted by hanging onto Nintendo's coattails.
Seriously, I don't know what anyone saw in DKR or BK to begin with.
...Now back on topic!
I will say this for Pinata: the concept sounds decent (unlike Kameo's paper-thin concept) and the visual style they're employing is heads and shoulders above what Kameo impressed upon me. For that alone, I'm willing to take a wait-and-see-approach.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on March 15, 2006, 09:42:57 AM
Post by: jasonditz on March 15, 2006, 09:57:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"In all fairness it's not as though they were just "lost", Nintendo got hundreds of millions of dollars out of the deal."
And how do we gamers benefit from that? How is the Cube in a better position because of that? In the console market Nintendo's in a big pit and are a footnote when people talk about the console market. Maybe things would be different if they still had Rare. At least Rare would have contributed something. At least they would provide something different to Nintendo's lineup then another Mario spinoff. It's the old profit vs marketshare debate again. I don't see anything you can point at and say "this is what Nintendo did with their Rare sale money and their console benefitted from it."
The Rare sale is like Nintendo dumping a high salary by trading a player to another team. The player didn't do too well on the Microsoft team but that team made the playoffs regardless and Nintendo didn't.
To follow that analogy, lets say Nintendo spends the money they saved on some young prospects who eventually pan out. We might not have seem the dividends from it yet, but we didn't have to sit through Grabbed by the Ghoulies either.
Lets say Nintendo kept Rare and Kameo and PD0 came out for the Cube instead of the 360... what would it have changed? Those games obviously could've been made for the Cube (trimmed down graphics aside), would they have sold systems? Would they have made the Cube a contender?
We're not the New York Yankees, we can't afford to overpay for high priced, dubious talent just to keep them off our division rivals' teams.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 15, 2006, 10:21:39 AM
Nintendo's input would probably have helped both titles so they arguably would have been better. Would they have sold systems? Probably not since they wouldn't have come out prior to Christmas 2002 and by then Nintendo had made such a lousy impression with the Cube that pretty much nothing would have sold systems. But they could have sold some. At least they could have filled in a dead spot in the lineup or provided some variety. The lack of variety is Nintendo's big problem and they didn't address it when they sold Rare. Rare provided variety to the N64 lineup. Once they left Nintendo went sequel crazy and fed us a bunch of Mario spinoffs. As they've lost other developers (Silicon Knights, Factor 5) their lineup has become more of the same.
I would feel better about the Rare sale if Nintendo had made an effort to address the gap in their lineup that Rare's departure created. But they didn't. They either didn't recognize the positive contributions Rare did bring to them or they just didn't care. They still haven't replaced Rare and Nintendo's console offerings are the most uninteresting they've ever been. At least if Rare was still around I'd have more to choose from than Mario sports games.
"We're not the New York Yankees, we can't afford to overpay for high priced, dubious talent just to keep them off our division rivals' teams."
I wasn't thinking of keeping Rare away from others but rather using them as an asset due to their typically good chemistry with Nintendo.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 15, 2006, 10:25:54 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 15, 2006, 11:57:01 AM
Other than that, I thought Golden-Eye was overrated, JFG was pretty awful, but I thought that StarFox Adventures was just fine: it was a decent Zelda clone with pretty visuals but not terribly memorable.
Having played PD0 all the way through, I have to say that it's pretty bad. The game is par, meaning that any decent FPS will be better but that it passes for being a FPS. From what little I played of Kameo, it was cliched and sh*tty. Grabbed by the Ghoulies was laughably bad.
Rare had a few decent games out, but all in all, they ARE an over-hyped company. Why do you think that, when they advertised Grabbed by the Ghoulies, the commercial proudly proclaimed "From the makers of Donkey Kong Country!"?
I though the first DKC was pretty good, but the sequels were just beating a dead horse...
EDIT: Oh, and as for this newest game: it looks like some shader equation went awry, the texture team noticed that the result made the graphic look like a piñata, and they decided to just run with it.
This, like Grabbed by the Ghoulies before it, is not the type of game which will sell well on a console aimed almost strictly at a "mature" demographic.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 15, 2006, 01:13:46 PM
I believe the game was originally going to be for the N64...Uh oh!
And hey, I still love Rare in their current mediocrity, but seriously, it was NOT a huge loss for Nintendo...They've put out nothing but mediocre games for Microsoft and that's not what Ninty wanted...
For me, Retro is the new Rare...And you can't forget other additions that were made post-Rare like Tokyo EAD...Ninty didn't lose anything...
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 15, 2006, 01:25:53 PM
Quote
And how do we gamers benefit from that?
Free Radical.
Post by: Kairon on March 15, 2006, 01:27:28 PM
And I'm not about to underestimate what happens when you blitzkrieg 7 year old kids with a game, a cartoon, AND merchandising. I mean...god, just like at Bey Blade! It's TOPs for gods sake! They're making children think TOPS are hip and edgy and the chosen weapons of anime heroes everywhere!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 15, 2006, 01:35:30 PM
Like I said, wrong demographic for the concept. It sounds like "Sim Life" or an educational game, neither of which are a FPS.
Post by: blackfootsteps on March 15, 2006, 01:50:23 PM
As for the loss of Rare: There are many variables to consider when trying to determine the effect that it had on Nintendo's future. For example a lot of my Super NES - N64 owning mates got an XBOX for the sole reason that Perfect Dark would be coming out on it. If they had known that it would be on XBOX 360 they may have got a GameCube instead.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 15, 2006, 01:53:16 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 15, 2006, 02:52:35 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 15, 2006, 03:37:33 PM
I also suspect he doesn't play his DS online because his country's phone lines are entirely composed of bailing twine and spittle.
EDIT: I should be clear that I think the GC could have used more 3rd party support, but I DON'T think Rare would have added a hell of a lot to that support. The next two games out of Rare were Grabbed by the Ghoulies and Conker Live and Reloaded. Even if those efforts had been put into a game like a new Donkey Kong or something, they still would have been sub-par. Remember SFA was largely shiat upon by critics and the amount of time and money that went into it did NOT pay off for Nintendo as the game never recouped its losses. Rare is a cash-sink, and even with a behemoth like MS pouring money into them, they still produce below-average games.
It seems like now, more than ever, developing games is one huge joke to Rare, like getting them to perform is akin to forcing a belligerent child to do his homework.
Rare is not what we remember it to be and, looking at what we've seen from the company as of late, losing them would not have hurt Nintendo very much at all.
Post by: Djunknown on March 15, 2006, 04:26:39 PM
Quote
“With Rare and 4Kids Entertainment we will best showcase the vibrant world of ‘Viva Piñata,’ enabling a mass audience to have an immersive experience via the animated television series, the Xbox 360 title and related merchandise.”
source
Sounds like Viva Pinata's wants to be the new Pokemon. Ambitious, but is it nessecary? They have the tech heads 'on-lock' as they say.
I'm sure MS is cracking the whip so that Rare can shape up. Its a clean slate now, they have to prove their 350 million dollars worth...
Post by: wandering on March 15, 2006, 07:01:33 PM
Post by: cmoney on March 16, 2006, 02:41:04 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 16, 2006, 06:22:23 AM
We used to have Retro AND Rare though. Now we didn't really get any time where we got to enjoy both companies output since Rare left shortly after Retro's first game came out. But if Rare didn't leave we still would have got games from Retro. I don't really know who Tokyo EAD is. What games have they made?
"Why am I under the impression Ian conveniently forgets the contributions of other 3rd party publishers while insisting on a 'lack of variety' due to Rare's loss?"
I'm talking about a lack of variety in Nintendo's own output. It's far too samey these days. First party variety is important because that's the only support that's constant. Plus that's not a trade off. We should be getting variety in both first party and third party titles. Those third parties would have been there ANYWAY even if Rare stayed. It's not like Nintendo selling Rare brought about all this third party support. If Nintendo didn't sell Rare we probably would have got the exact same stuff only we would get a few Rare games out of it as well. Rare games that probably would have turned out better with Nintendo's involvement.
You can't convince me that dropping a talented developer to a competitor is a good idea. Nintendo apologists used to say the same thing about Square during the Playstation days.
Post by: jasonditz on March 16, 2006, 06:31:11 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 16, 2006, 07:01:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
But how talented is Rare anymore? The people responsible for all those great games in their heyday are long gone... the games MSFT got out of them have been positively forgettable. Sure, Nintendo's help probably would've improved them at least a little, but at what cost? There are only so many hours in the day, and Nintendo's only got the ability to hold so many hands at any given time.
Exactly.
I need to see an expense chart of Rare's work during StarFox Adventures.
Ever seen "My Fair Lady"? Rare reminds me of Mr. Dolittle, whose most famous song is, "With a little bit o' luck, someone else will do the blinkin' work!"
I'm dead serious. Rare is notorious for games having 5 YEAR development cycles. Meanwhile, someone has to pay the salary for these workers and that blood is being leeched from MS now in exchange for the occasional sub-par game.
Rare's top talent left a long time ago.
Quote
You can't convince me that dropping a talented developer to a competitor is a good idea. Nintendo apologists used to say the same thing about Square during the Playstation days.
That's about the most ignorant thing I've ever heard you say.
The next game Rare developed after leaving Nintendo: Grabbed by the Ghoulies.
The next game Square developed after leaving Nintendo: Final Fantasy 7.
Can you see a difference, here? Maybe?
I largely suspect that the leaders at Rare were looking to cash in quick and cash out the same way. They made themselves known with DKC and some decent FPSs, then everything beyond that started to suck. They bailed, leaving the company as little more than a name with some franchises attached to it.
Square produces games that reach the 2 million mark within a week of launch. Rare produces games which reek of failure and incompetence. Please don't ever compare the two again.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 16, 2006, 07:35:29 AM
From the reports I've heard you're better off in one of EA's worst studios than working for Rare.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 16, 2006, 07:39:52 AM
Post by: IceCold on March 16, 2006, 05:03:02 PM
QuoteJungle Beat. And whether you liked it or not doesn't matter; you can't deny that they have potential..
I don't really know who Tokyo EAD is. What games have they made?
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 16, 2006, 05:47:25 PM
Except in this case it does...If you don't like it you just hate games...
Post by: TrueNerd on March 16, 2006, 09:49:37 PM
Was there a slew of crazy, inventive games made by Rare that I missed out on?
Post by: Arbok on March 16, 2006, 10:29:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TrueNerd
Donkey Kong Country, a decent, unoriginal platformer overhyped due to it's cutting edge visuals...
...and awesome gameplay. The Donkey Kong Country games remain some of the best platformers out there. Was it as good as Super Mario World or Yoshi's Island? Perhaps not that finely tuned, but when you contrast anything to the near best games in the genre then of course they won't look as good.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 17, 2006, 05:41:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
...and awesome gameplay. The Donkey Kong Country games remain some of the best platformers out there. Was it as good as Super Mario World or Yoshi's Island? Perhaps not that finely tuned, but when you contrast anything to the near best games in the genre then of course they won't look as good.
Seconded. The only flaw in Donkey Kong Country was that the graphics made the edges of platforms indistinct. In my opinion, Rare learned the wrong lesson from that series, though. They began to concentrate almost solely on graphics. The gameplay in their N64 games steadily declined with each new release, while they continued to push the N64 beyond its limits. The framerates in Rare's games got so bad that I eventually couldn't stand to play them anymore. I never finished Perfect Dark, and I couldn't even bring myself to play Banjo-Tooie or Donkey Kong 64. By the time the hardware caught up with their desire for pretty colored lighting and lens flares, they had forgotten how to make a game fun. 'Tis a pity.
It's especially a pity because this game looks interesting, but I have zero confidence in Rare being able to pull it off well.
(edit: accidentally posted before finishing my thought)
Post by: Ian Sane on March 17, 2006, 06:16:15 AM
A lot of it was the style. The graphics weren't so bright and colourful and there was a unique sense of humour present that you didn't see in EAD's games. Today they have Camelot working on Mario Golf/Tennis, Hudson working on Mario Party, Konami working on DDR Mario Mix, and Namco working on Mario Baseball and they all have the exact same style and feel. All those games are made by different companies but their style is no different than EAD's. Rare games you could always recognize as different than Nintendo at first glance.
Plus they made some games that Nintendo would never have made themselves. Killer Instinct, Blast Corps, Jet Force Gemini, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker. You might not like some of them but Nintendo never makes games like those. Plus even something like Donkey Kong Country, which has a Nintendo character in it, has a different style then Nintendo's. If EAD made Donkey Kong Country it would have been totally different.
Different developers provide their own little touches that provide variety to a lineup. Lately Nintendo has robbed games of those touches by having talented third parties working on Nintendo franchises instead of something that lets their own uniqueness stand out. It may be just a fluke coincidence that Rare's leaving and Nintendo going franchise crazy coincide. If Nintendo didn't do insane things like having Sega and Namco work on Nintendo games or having Silicon Knights work on remakes them maybe I wouldn't care so much about Rare leaving. When Nintendo had Rare there was some variety in Nintendo's games. Since Rare left almost everything has this bland homogenous look, feel, and style. Maybe the problem is not a lack of Rare but just Nintendo having no idea what the purpose of third party support is.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 17, 2006, 07:41:35 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 17, 2006, 08:52:24 AM
Plus Retro has only made two games and one is a sequel to the other so it's not like with their release schedule they're going to consistently keep Nintendo's lineup varied.
Post by: Kairon on March 17, 2006, 09:30:04 AM
There's no question that we miss the spice that Rare's style added. Heck, I LURV Conker's Bad Fur Day on that basis alone. Can you imagine that? Me, a hardcore Miyamoto-give-me-game-control-or-give-me-death fanboi liking Conker?!?!?! I still maintain that if Rare concentrated on the strengths made evident in the Conker game they'd be a better company for it, similar to how DMA concentrated on the strengths of Body harvest and came up with GTA3.
But the bottomline is that most of us are convinced that Rare has become a bit of a deadweight. How can you get any stylistic variation benefits from a company that can't even reliably produce games of decent quality or reliable sales? That would basically turn Rare into a white-elephant for Nintendo.
They were a competent and occasionally break-out developer in the N64 days who benefitted greatly from Nintendo's branding, but lengthening development times for a company that was 250+ in size at the end of the N64 era, poor output, and a lack of truly innovative concepts have truly served to make us question their current worth. "Rare" itself is just a name, but given a 4-5 year long effective absence from major releases it should be perfectly sensible to question whether there's anything left of value at Rare aside from that name. Hmm... Viva Pinata may redeem them, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
In fact, in hindsight, I'm led to believe that Nintendo was very savvy, level-headed and ultimately justified in their pawning off of Rare to Microsoft. And also, this casts Microsoft in a strange light, as if they're eagerly tryiny to replicate Nintendo's formula, first overpaying for developer scraps from Nintendo's table and then trying to do a full-package replication of Nintendo's Pokemon with Viva Pinata.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 17, 2006, 09:56:29 AM
It's starting to look like what some people miss isn't anything to do with Rare exactly, but the British humour they put in their games. All Nintendo needs to do is find another British developer that likes fart jokes and sexual innuendo (nudge nudge), and nobody will even remember Rare.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 17, 2006, 10:41:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If Nintendo didn't do insane things like having Sega and Namco work on Nintendo games or having Silicon Knights work on remakes them maybe I wouldn't care so much about Rare leaving.
F-Zero GX, Donkey Konga and MGS:TS were all excellent games and credits to the cube's lineup. I won't say the same for SF:Armada, though.
Post by: King of Twitch on March 17, 2006, 10:45:41 AM
Fun facts:
96, 98, and 01, Rare only released one N64 game each. 99 saw two Rare games, and only 00 and 97 saw three Rare N64 games. Last year 2 were out on 360 which is better than N64's first holiday (though both were in development for several years), and now three are currently known to be in development. They certainly pace themselves.
Retro had 4 games in development up to mid-01, all 4 were cancelled and people were fired to release one game in 2002 and another in 2004. Who knows when the other 4 would've been released. Retro doesn't replace Rare, even with their slowness.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 17, 2006, 11:14:10 AM
Well I don't think it's very fair to count 1996 or 2001 since ther were switchover years from one console to the other. The N64 only existed for a few months in 1996 and in 2001 Conker was one of the only N64 games released period. I don't think EAD released any N64 games in 2001 for example.
"F-Zero GX, Donkey Konga and MGS:TS were all excellent games and credits to the cube's lineup."
I agree but none of those games really demonstrated the unique abilities of each developer. They were all assigned what otherwise would have someone else's work.
I think what I'm really missing is Rare when they were good. Deep down I'm pretty pissed off that when I purchased a Cube, Rare's support contributed to my decision but I didn't get what I was more or less promised. It's kind of like quality games from Rare was part of my "terms" for continuing to support Nintendo for another generation. I think I would have prefered to discover that Rare wasn't any good anymore myself, rather then have this "what if?" scenario where they might have released some good Cube stuff but we'll never know because Nintendo sold them and their Xbox output isn't an accurate representation of what they could have accomplished with Nintendo's help. Hell Star Fox Adventures has so many outside factors like switching platforms and Nintendo shoehorning an unrelated franchise into it that that might not even be a good representation. Who knows how Dinosaur Planet as an N64 game would have turned out?
Post by: capamerica on March 17, 2006, 11:35:40 AM
Anyone can pump out cruddy game after cruddy game every year. But I much rather have a company that takes their time and creates an AAA title in 2 years.
Retro has easily replaced Rare, Unlike Rare Retro's games have turned a profit and development cost were a fraction of any of Rare's games, while Rare on the other hand barely broke even.
The Rare you knew is long dead. Its time you finally come to terms with this. Rare's last 21 games for a lack of a better word, Sucked! They were not great games, The only game that was somewhat special was Perfect Dark, But it was just a rehash of Goldeneye. Rare hasn't done anything special since 1998.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 17, 2006, 11:44:26 AM
After seeing the Viva Piñata trailer, I say their sense of comedy hasn't been intact for quite some time (think of the aweful CG animated kid's films in the past few years; I don't think the Rare of old didn't settle for the obvious and lame like that).
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 17, 2006, 11:55:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think I would have prefered to discover that Rare wasn't any good anymore myself, rather then have this "what if?" scenario where they might have released some good Cube stuff but we'll never know because Nintendo sold them and their Xbox output isn't an accurate representation of what they could have accomplished with Nintendo's help. Hell Star Fox Adventures has so many outside factors like switching platforms and Nintendo shoehorning an unrelated franchise into it that that might not even be a good representation. Who knows how Dinosaur Planet as an N64 game would have turned out?
So Nintendo's influence would have improved Rare's games, even though Nintendo's influence is part of the reason Rare's last Nintendo game sucked?
Another of Nintendo's influences on Rare was forcing them to make Disney licensed games when they didn't want to.
Post by: jasonditz on March 17, 2006, 12:35:05 PM
Maudlinly looking back on the Rare that was is silly... it was gone long before Nintendo cut them loose, and I find it really hard to believe Nintendo's influence could've turned the second stringers that remained at the company into anything more than a considerly more expensive n-Space.
Post by: Hocotate on March 17, 2006, 01:52:32 PM
Post by: IceCold on March 17, 2006, 01:54:59 PM
QuoteWe've gone over this before, Ian.. Nintendo gave their franchises away to improve third party relationships. The licence would guarantee sales, and now the third parties are a lot more friendly towards Nintendo. Namco (Star Fox & Mario Baseball), SEGA (F-Zero), Capcom (Minish Cap) are all closer to Nintendo as a result. And going into the Revolution era, don't you think that their support is crucial?
Different developers provide their own little touches that provide variety to a lineup. Lately Nintendo has robbed games of those touches by having talented third parties working on Nintendo franchises instead of something that lets their own uniqueness stand out.
Post by: jasonditz on March 17, 2006, 02:05:23 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 17, 2006, 02:08:23 PM
Their support is only worthwhile if they then go and make their own stuff. If they continue making Nintendo stuff their support doesn't mean anything. But we have to wait and see on that. One other problem though is that Nintendo's overemphasis on franchises is training some of their fanbase to only accept sequels or spinoffs. Plus market share is what gets third parties on board and this practice didn't help that. Plus third parties have to feel confident their own games will sell. Right now they're all afraid that they have to have Mario associated with them or they won't sell.
Post by: jasonditz on March 17, 2006, 02:22:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"We've gone over this before, Ian.. Nintendo gave their franchises away to improve third party relationships. The licence would guarantee sales, and now the third parties are a lot more friendly towards Nintendo. Namco (Star Fox & Mario Baseball), SEGA (F-Zero), Capcom (Minish Cap) are all closer to Nintendo as a result. And going into the Revolution era, don't you think that their support is crucial?"
Their support is only worthwhile if they then go and make their own stuff. If they continue making Nintendo stuff their support doesn't mean anything. But we have to wait and see on that. One other problem though is that Nintendo's overemphasis on franchises is training some of their fanbase to only accept sequels or spinoffs. Plus market share is what gets third parties on board and this practice didn't help that. Plus third parties have to feel confident their own games will sell. Right now they're all afraid that they have to have Mario associated with them or they won't sell.
And?
Namco gave us Tales, Baten Kaitos, and so on...
Sega gave us Sonic games, Super Monkey ball, etc.
and do I even need to get into everything Capcom gave us?
In fact, looking at our third party library for the Cube it seems like almost the whole of the meaningful contribution of third party exclusives came from the companies Nintendo rewarded with those licensed titles.
Post by: IceCold on March 17, 2006, 02:27:15 PM
Post by: wandering on March 17, 2006, 08:03:02 PM
Quote
It may be just a fluke coincidence that Rare's leaving and Nintendo going franchise crazy coincide. If Nintendo didn't do insane things like having Sega and Namco work on Nintendo games or having Silicon Knights work on remakes them maybe I wouldn't care so much about Rare leaving. When Nintendo had Rare there was some variety in Nintendo's games. Since Rare left almost everything has this bland homogenous look, feel, and style. Maybe the problem is not a lack of Rare but just Nintendo having no idea what the purpose of third party support is.
It's not a coincidence. Nintendo has been hurting with the GameCube. They've tried out all kinds of original games, but franchise games have been the only things that have sold. GameCube has not the system to start new franchises on - Nintendo doesn't have enough troops to try and conquer new territory, they need to regroup and build up their army. And get rid of any worthless moneysinks that they can. Worthless moneysinks like Rare.
If the DS is any indication, the rev will be different.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 19, 2006, 10:43:37 AM
I don't get the argument. Rare would have added to Nintendo's lineup? Just like the last 3-4 games they made for Nintendo platforms, which were StarFox Adventures, DK64, Banjo-Tooie and Conker.
None of them earned Nintendo much in the way of sales, praise or recognition.
I think, Ian, that this is your natural desire to see everything which Nintendo does in a negative light which is interfering with your ability to note the painfully obvious. The painfully obvious being that Rare's work went downhill LONG before they were sold off like the dead weight that they are.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 19, 2006, 07:25:33 PM
If Conker's BFD taught me anything, it's that Rare relishes the act of making people watch something unpleasant. The game mentions attracting the right predators to scare away the wrong ones, and supposedly "chocolate coins" were mentioned which would likely constitute the innards of these creatures.
I don't think the graphic depiction of a Fox piñata tearing up a rabbit piñata is too much of a stretch for Rare. It's the same logic Cartoon Network used in Samurai Jack when he came upon villages of slaughtered robots with electronic parts and oil strewn everywhere. It's not technically the entrails of a living thing, but it's still the innards of something which emulates life.
Post by: wandering on March 19, 2006, 07:29:48 PM
Quote
If Conker's BFD taught me anything, it's that Rare relishes the act of making people watch something unpleasant.
haha, and that's what I love about them. Remember in JFG, when the spaceship landed on dancing tribals?
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 19, 2006, 07:35:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
haha, and that's what I love about them. Remember in JFG, when the spaceship landed on dancing tribals?
I only rented the game, but yes, I do.
I mention it in this case because this game is supposed to pander to children. I think it'd be interesting to watch Rare try to explain to angry parents whose children are scarred for life that the fox and rabbit are both made of papier-mâché so it doesn't matter that one is tearing the other to pieces.
Post by: wandering on March 19, 2006, 07:42:49 PM
...I don't know if that's good or not. I was raised on technically-clean-but-actually-quite-dark entertainment, and I turned out just fine!
Well. Maybe not fine. But I haven't gone on any murderous rampages or anything.
Post by: Nephilim on March 19, 2006, 11:48:26 PM
I doubt it will have many twisted moments
alot of 3D toons are hit and miss these days, about 3/4 seem to be a mainstream failure in the last year
hudson seems lame, hes a 3d version of johnny bravo that hangs around dorky animals
donkey kong had a 3d series, didnt heap donkey kong 64 sell well... im sure rare are aware they could be making the same mistake twice thu
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2006, 07:39:37 AM
Which original games are we talking about? Pikmin and Eternal Darkness are the only ones I can think of prior to Nintendo going sequel nuts. Animal Crossing I suppose counts as well since it was new for North America. If Nintendo can't market worth a damn then they're never going to sell a non-franchise game ever again. Nintendo can't say that non-franchise games don't sell when their advertising is complete horsesh!t. Nor can they say that when if they train their fanbase to only accept franchise games.
"I don't get the argument. Rare would have added to Nintendo's lineup? Just like the last 3-4 games they made for Nintendo platforms, which were StarFox Adventures, DK64, Banjo-Tooie and Conker."
Technically those aren't the last four games Rare made with Nintendo. You conveniently forgot Perfect Dark which came out well after DK64. You forgot Mickey's Speedway USA as well though I imagine few of us would count that. If we do then I would say that of Rare's last five games three of them were fantastic. Of the two ones I didn't like both of them had outside factors affecting development. Mickey's Speedway was just a contractally required title due to a deal Nintendo had with Disney. Thus I can be expected that Rare had no real passion in the product. Star Fox Adventures switched platforms partially through development and had the Star Fox franchise shoehorned into it. Those two factors likely contributed to the end result. I know if Nintendo forced me to use a franchise I didn't want to use the resulting game probably wouldn't be my best work either.
1999 was probably the only year on the N64 that I would say Rare had an off year and DK64 and JFG seemed well meaning but just didn't turn out that well. I would consider them decent games still. Dk64 was too ambitious and JFG was a concept that just didn't turn out that well (though playing it now I think it would work fantastically with twin analog sticks). EAD has had off years before but no one would suggest dumping them. Of their initial Cube offerings I thought Luigi's Mansion was weak, Pikmin was great, and Super Mario Sunshine was underwhelming. So only 1/3 titles delivered. I'd say EAD overall actually had a pretty weak output on the Cube. Even Wind Waker wasn't quite the masterpiece one expects from that developer. Pikmin 1&2 are probably the only Cube games made by EAD that I felt were up to their N64 standards. But they're still worthwhile and they're still a valuable asset and it's still believable that they can bust out something amazing. So I didn't think Rare was finished just because their one Cube game sucked but most of their last few N64 games didn't.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 08:22:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
You conveniently forgot Perfect Dark which came out well after DK64.
Actually, I didn't know that it came out after, but I don't see what was so special about it. In fact, the FPS which gamers remember is Goldeneye which was done much earlier in their cycle.
And you ignored the other half of the point: what has Rare made after leaving Nintendo? Answer: garbage. Grabbed by the Ghoulies sucked and sucked hard. PD0 was a "tide-you-over-til-Halo3-arrives" FPS, with Call of Duty 2 being called a better FPS than PD0. Kameo was a big sack of "meh" from everything I hear. Conker was a port and the multiplayer sucked.
I cannot see Rare as a loss when they only produced ONE game for the GC (but promised around 4) and are producing garbage for MS with predictability you could set your watch to.
Post by: jasonditz on March 20, 2006, 08:32:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"They've tried out all kinds of original games, but franchise games have been the only things that have sold."
Which original games are we talking about? Pikmin and Eternal Darkness are the only ones I can think of prior to Nintendo going sequel nuts. Animal Crossing I suppose counts as well since it was new for North America. If Nintendo can't market worth a damn then they're never going to sell a non-franchise game ever again. Nintendo can't say that non-franchise games don't sell when their advertising is complete horsesh!t. Nor can they say that when if they train their fanbase to only accept franchise games.
How about Geist, Odama and Chibi Robo? Technically you could count games like Donkey Konga and Battlion Wars too: just because there's a recognizable franchise attached to the game doesn't mean it's not original. Of course anyone who says original games can't sell well on the Cube forgot about Viewtiful Joe
Quote
1999 was probably the only year on the N64 that I would say Rare had an off year and DK64 and JFG seemed well meaning but just didn't turn out that well. I would consider them decent games still. Dk64 was too ambitious and JFG was a concept that just didn't turn out that well (though playing it now I think it would work fantastically with twin analog sticks). EAD has had off years before but no one would suggest dumping them. Of their initial Cube offerings I thought Luigi's Mansion was weak, Pikmin was great, and Super Mario Sunshine was underwhelming. So only 1/3 titles delivered. I'd say EAD overall actually had a pretty weak output on the Cube. Even Wind Waker wasn't quite the masterpiece one expects from that developer. Pikmin 1&2 are probably the only Cube games made by EAD that I felt were up to their N64 standards. But they're still worthwhile and they're still a valuable asset and it's still believable that they can bust out something amazing. So I didn't think Rare was finished just because their one Cube game sucked but most of their last few N64 games didn't.
You forgot both Animal Crossing and Mario Kart: DD.
And say what you will about Luigi's Mansion and Mario Sunshine, they sold... and sold in big numbers. When Rares failures start selling millions and millions of copies I'll agree Nintendo should've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them.
Post by: blackfootsteps on March 20, 2006, 12:14:40 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2006, 12:48:38 PM
I specfied as prior to Nintendo going sequel crazy which I feel coincides with Nintendo selling Rare. Those came out much later.
"You forgot both Animal Crossing and Mario Kart: DD."
I wasn't specifically mentioning every EAD release for the Cube. I was just using those three as an example since they were the first three on the Cube.
"And you ignored the other half of the point: what has Rare made after leaving Nintendo?"
I didn't ignore it. I just didn't mention it because I've already given my answer for it. I think a key part of what made Rare great was that collaboration with Nintendo. Since the MS era Rare games don't have any Nintendo involvement I don't see them as a representation of what Rare would have created had they remained with Nintendo. Plus even then Rare had to deal with switching consoles partway through a generation which can affect game development. Kameo switched from the Cube to the Xbox to the Xbox 360. Games that hop around from platform to platform like that don't usually turn out that good. Would PD0 have been a "tide-you-over-til-Halo3-arrives" FPS if there it was on a Nintendo console with no Halo 3 to tide you over til?
"I don't see what was so special about it. In fact, the FPS which gamers remember is Goldeneye which was done much earlier in their cycle."
Goldeneye is more remembered because more people played it and since PD is a direct followup Goldeneye was also more original. PD is basically a sequel so it naturally won't have the same impact and it was released towards the end of the N64's life when not kid friendly games had no chance in hell of selling worth a damn. The only flaw you can really fault PD for is the framerate goes wonky in certain situations like co-op or if you have too many bots. But even then I like the fact that Rare through those extras in anyway and if I choose to deal with a low framerate for non-essential extras I can. However you can play the one player game and deathmatch with four players with virtually no problems. It's a damn crime that Halo is highly praised when it's only at best a competent FPS while Perfect Dark has faded into obscurity despite being probably the best console FPS ever made and for doing things in 2000 that Halo 2 pretended was brand new.
If Perfect Dark was a 2001 Cube title instead of a 2000 N64 title Nintendo would have crushed the Xbox.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 12:55:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane If Perfect Dark was a 2001 Cube title instead of a 2000 N64 title Nintendo would have crushed the Xbox.
That's debatable.
It was the LAN parties which made Halo so popular. PD0 wouldn't have had those, and I've played PD0 all the way through: par, at best.
As for the collaboration, it didn't save SFA, JFG, DK64, or Banjo-Tooie. Rare clearly works harder on games THEY want to make. I don't think Nintendo's help made all that much of a difference because Nintendo's franchises turn out poorly when made by Rare (DK64 and SFA).
The last good game Rare made with a Nintendo license was DKC3 or so. Everything else which is largely considered a "good" game is made under a different license or one of Rare's own concepts.
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 20, 2006, 01:07:35 PM
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 01:19:00 PM
That itself is enough for me to watch Bungie with interest.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2006, 01:23:31 PM
Well I did like Banjo-Tooie. When I talk about "collaboration" I don't mean Nintendo telling Rare to force this franchise in here or make a sequel to that.
Maybe Rare does suck now. I still didn't get what I was promised when the Cube first came out. Deep down I think I'm more pissed that Nintendo didn't seem to care at all that Rare was gone and made no attempt to fill the hole their absence made. That's probably the real issue. Something that made the N64 special wasn't there on the Cube and Nintendo didn't give a sh!t as long as I bought their redundant cash-in Mario spinoffs.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 01:33:24 PM
However, I DO think they need more of that, and if the DS is any indication, Nintendo has become much better at wooing 3rd parties. Let's hope that know-how carries to the Rev.
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 01:33:50 PM
I...regret to say that I...didn't... I keep saying I'll buy Mario Super Strikers, or maybe the next Mario Party...but I...don't.... I... didn't even buy Mario Tennis or Golf for the N64...
*GASP* Ian's more faithful to Nintendo than I am! I'm...I'm...I'm UNWORTHY! /cry
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on March 20, 2006, 01:40:40 PM
No I didn't. Sorry if what I wrote wasn't clear.
Well I did buy DDR Mario Mix.
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 01:44:52 PM
/cry
I'm a bad fanboy! Bad!
/cry
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 01:49:48 PM
Bowser's Castle on the hardest setting is about an 8-9 foot song, and they don't get much harder than that. 90% of DDR songs are awful and nearly painful to listen to so Mario DDR was a breath of fresh air. I don't outright HATE any of the songs, and that's saying a lot more than it might seem.
Also, I predicted the creation of Mario DDR after Konami was given Silicon Knights to make MGS for the cube. Not important, but I figured I'd get that out there.
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 01:54:51 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 01:57:20 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 20, 2006, 03:24:51 PM
Who said it was going to be easy (for Nintendo)?
As I see it, Nintendo basically spent the past few years "buying drinks" for all these 3rd parties, trying to approach them as partners rather than competitors. Probably a difficult thing when: they ARE competitors, and their console isn't a runnaway success/#1. I believe they have been moderately successful, and I think I've gotten a healthy handful of significant games from those deals. I've personally gotten more games and more VALUE out of these 3rd parties than what Rare offered me on N64 -- and I seriously doubt most of these games would've come our way if Nintendo just sat back and let the 3rd parties be the "financially and creatively sound" entities they are.
It's apparent that Nintendo and the GameCube simply didn't have a lot to offer to those 3rd parties at the time. So productivity was slow and thin at best, but it seems to have built a better collaborative platform for hopping onto Rev (and DS), which stills looks more promising than the the jump from the N64 to the GameCube.
Pre-GameCube, I was excited about your standard potential Nintendo/Rare franchises everyone else was excited about, plus Rogue Leader.
Pre-Revolution, I'm not mainly excited about the familiar Ninty franchises we "can't live without." I'm excited about Suda51's game, I'm excited about the funky unknown new Nintendo property, I'm excited about whoever is willing to dare.
Post by: jasonditz on March 20, 2006, 03:55:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"How about Geist, Odama and Chibi Robo?"
I specfied as prior to Nintendo going sequel crazy which I feel coincides with Nintendo selling Rare. Those came out much later.
Oh, I see... so more than half of Nintendo's original titles for the Cube came out AFTER they went sequel crazy and stopped making original titles?
To me, it seems pretty arbitrary to pick that point as some sort of great turning point. Look at the first party titles for the N64. Hell, look at the first party titles for the SNES. The vast majority of them are sequels. The percentage of sequels and licensed titles to original titles doesn't seem to have changed markedly for Nintendo in the past 15 years.
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 06:48:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Was one of those "logically follows" conclusions, right?
Hey! Quit raining on my parade!
Well, now you've done it. I want it known that whenever people would talk about what developer Nintendo should buy next in the period before the gamecube, I always listed DMA as my top choice. DMA eventually made GTA 3.
Ah, vanity...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: IceCold on March 20, 2006, 06:54:02 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 07:08:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Hey! Quit raining on my parade!
I was serious.
Konami getting a remade MGS on the GC with Nintendo's resources was a sweet deal for them. The conclusion that a DDR Mario game would be out is pretty obvious, if you think about it.
What game have they NOT put Mario into?
Post by: Kairon on March 20, 2006, 07:10:39 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 20, 2006, 07:31:43 PM
I myself await the day they combine DDR with Silent Scope and we get "Sniper Sniper Revolution".
Post by: IceCold on March 20, 2006, 09:05:19 PM
REvolution
Konami and Capcom would be insane not to cash in on these..
