251
General Gaming / PAL LCDs?
« on: March 04, 2004, 07:35:03 PM »
Well, I've seen reviews of the screens available in the US, but are there some of the ones available in Europe? I doubt an NTSC LCD works with a PAL GC.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
252
Nintendo Gaming / Mario vs. Donkey Kong
« on: February 25, 2004, 04:11:33 AM »
Since there is no Talkback thread on this I think it's valid to start a thread here.
Finally they realized what they should use the connectivity for. Nice idea to allow for custom maps, too. Only thing that bugs me is their choice to go with render graphics, that looks just plain ugly. But hell, it's the sequel to the Best Game Ever! If that's not a chance for quality what is?
Finally they realized what they should use the connectivity for. Nice idea to allow for custom maps, too. Only thing that bugs me is their choice to go with render graphics, that looks just plain ugly. But hell, it's the sequel to the Best Game Ever! If that's not a chance for quality what is?
253
Nintendo Gaming / Baten Kaitos: Since nobody posted it...
« on: February 02, 2004, 09:53:20 PM »
... the game is planned for a US release this year.
Cube-Europe
They even stated an EU date, but that seems to be made up.
Cube-Europe
They even stated an EU date, but that seems to be made up.
254
General Gaming / Microsoft cloning N?
« on: February 01, 2004, 08:16:01 PM »
After seeing all those rumors and official statements about the XBox Next it seems to me the device will be a lot closer to the GC instead of the XB:
-No HD
-Smaller size
-Proprietary disks
-IBM/ATI chips
...
Also, Microsoft has miscalculated some things and decided to market the XB to kids (their former enemies
) as well (official press release shortly after the release of Grabbed by the Ghoulies).
The XB2 is said to have three of those IBM processors, while the N5 will likely have two (DS was declared a "sample of what's to come with Nintendo's next console").
Perhaps they just envy Nintendo's bottom line?
-No HD
-Smaller size
-Proprietary disks
-IBM/ATI chips
...
Also, Microsoft has miscalculated some things and decided to market the XB to kids (their former enemies
) as well (official press release shortly after the release of Grabbed by the Ghoulies).The XB2 is said to have three of those IBM processors, while the N5 will likely have two (DS was declared a "sample of what's to come with Nintendo's next console").
Perhaps they just envy Nintendo's bottom line?
256
General Chat / Listening to the fans - pro or contra?
« on: December 23, 2003, 10:49:54 AM »
Since I saw a lot of articles (ok, two: GameSpy's S/CS and CubeEurpe's Roundtable) on the topic of whether fan input should be listened to or whether it should be ignored I felt the need to talk about that stuff a bit, if just to get my thoughts written down.
PRO
Fans are the people who will buy the game. That's pretty obvious. They usually have played the game (or its precedessor) to death and know every single weak point of the balancing. Unlike developers they aren't blinded by the development process (creating a piece makes you blind for its faults, only after taking a long break from it you can make somewhat objective decisions about it) and can see the flaws the devs might no longer be able to see.
CONTRA (my position)
Fans are often blinded as well. They love a certain part of a game and want to defend it against any change they don't think of as favourable. They don't play the development builds, they have no idea how the change influences the experience.
I can cite Trackmania as an example: The game (racing/puzzle) has no collision with other cars. While that seems like a major fault at first, the devs explained their decision to remove car collision: It was impossible to drive a perfect race and got really frustrating after 5 minutes. Would an outside person have known this? No. They'd complain loudly.
Not every obvious change would have been a change for the better.
Some (or maybe most) fans don't know that much about the balancing in the reference game and will want features that would seriously imbalance the game just because they seem logical (say, enabling walking on certain material or jumping at certain places).
Also, fans are contradicting and slightly conservative. Some want more powerful weapons, others want weaker weapons. Some want more realism, others don't. Who would you prefer over the other?
Imagine Sunshine had no waterpack. You think it'd be better? Be honest, wouldn't you have shouted at Nintendo for "rehashing" an older game? Sunshine has puzzles around the waterpack. Those wouldn't work with the SM64 gameplay.
In one article they said many people just want additional content for the first game to lengthen the good experience they had. But ask yourself, would that work? Every gameplay has its limits and those might have been reached by the first game. If they tried another game with the same mechanics they might run out of ideas for the levels. You'd shout at them for becoming repetitive. A game cannot be stretched to any length. Maybe they didn't have any ideas for more levels for Pikmin? Would you have liked them to just repeat the same levels over and over again (*cough*Halo*cough*)?
I guess that block could have been reduced to less than half while still saying the same. I'm too tired, though. Night.
PRO
Fans are the people who will buy the game. That's pretty obvious. They usually have played the game (or its precedessor) to death and know every single weak point of the balancing. Unlike developers they aren't blinded by the development process (creating a piece makes you blind for its faults, only after taking a long break from it you can make somewhat objective decisions about it) and can see the flaws the devs might no longer be able to see.
CONTRA (my position)
Fans are often blinded as well. They love a certain part of a game and want to defend it against any change they don't think of as favourable. They don't play the development builds, they have no idea how the change influences the experience.
I can cite Trackmania as an example: The game (racing/puzzle) has no collision with other cars. While that seems like a major fault at first, the devs explained their decision to remove car collision: It was impossible to drive a perfect race and got really frustrating after 5 minutes. Would an outside person have known this? No. They'd complain loudly.
Not every obvious change would have been a change for the better.
Some (or maybe most) fans don't know that much about the balancing in the reference game and will want features that would seriously imbalance the game just because they seem logical (say, enabling walking on certain material or jumping at certain places).
Also, fans are contradicting and slightly conservative. Some want more powerful weapons, others want weaker weapons. Some want more realism, others don't. Who would you prefer over the other?
Imagine Sunshine had no waterpack. You think it'd be better? Be honest, wouldn't you have shouted at Nintendo for "rehashing" an older game? Sunshine has puzzles around the waterpack. Those wouldn't work with the SM64 gameplay.
In one article they said many people just want additional content for the first game to lengthen the good experience they had. But ask yourself, would that work? Every gameplay has its limits and those might have been reached by the first game. If they tried another game with the same mechanics they might run out of ideas for the levels. You'd shout at them for becoming repetitive. A game cannot be stretched to any length. Maybe they didn't have any ideas for more levels for Pikmin? Would you have liked them to just repeat the same levels over and over again (*cough*Halo*cough*)?
I guess that block could have been reduced to less than half while still saying the same. I'm too tired, though. Night.
257
NWR Feedback / We need a doom-o-meter!
« on: December 21, 2003, 09:03:27 PM »
Exactly what the title says: A bar indicating what percentage of active threads in Gamecube Discussion are doom&gloom/defense threads! Perhaps even with monthly statistics!
Sorry, just a random thought after seeing that maybe half of the threads in that forum are about doom...
Sorry, just a random thought after seeing that maybe half of the threads in that forum are about doom...
258
General Gaming / First signs of the crash
« on: December 07, 2003, 09:39:57 AM »
Well, since so many people talk about some upcoming videogame industry crash, I think I'll share my thoughts on that.
The consoles are nicely serviced. The GC is getting a fair share of innovative games, even though it seems a bit GDR like, as in "There's one good game per genre and you play that!". However, the true problem is the PC.
On the PC there are tons of titles coming out every month/year/whatevertimeperiodyoufindappropriate. Problem is, those are (of course) 90% crap and of those 10% a further 95% are unoriginal clones. There are very few upcoming titles on PC I really care about (X2 - The Threat and Sam & Max Freelance Police). Many of the upcoming "top" titles are sequels. Okay, my favourite ones too, but they fall into more obscure genres. The main bunch of PC games is made up of egoshooters. The most wanted games, according to PC Games, are:
1. Half-Life 2
2. Doom 3
3. Far Cry
4. Deus Ex 2
5. Need For Speed: Underground
6. Baldur's Gate 3
7. Battlefield Vietnam
8. World of Warcraft
9. STALKER
10. The Sims 2
Six (1 2 3 4 7 9) of them are egoshooters, one is racing, one is an MMORPG, one is a Sims game and one is an RPG that wasn't even announced yet. None of those games were ever called innovative. And, frankly, I don't care about any of them. The only more recent game I bought for the PC was SpellForce (to be released in the US in February). Granted, that's a good game, but it doesn't really sting out between all the other games. And it isn't really innovative. The PC market has become one large piece of mud, consisting of games you can only tell apart with a microscope. I don't care about the PC anymore, I don't bother with getting PC games anymore and I think those are the same things people felt before Nintendo entered the market. I've read an article claiming the PC to be on its decline and predicting consoles to be the only game systems on the market soon.
The only positive thing to be said about the PC is: The freeware games are really good. Rarely do you find games as innovative as, say, Frequon Invaders (who thought games could implement six dimensions that nicely?). However, few freeware games get much exposure. Publishing is too expensive. Good freeware games are just as far in between as good commerial games. And freeware alone can't keep the PC alive.
I will still apply upgrades to my system, I need at least a new graphics card to be able to work with Blender again. That's the disadvantage of consoles: You can't develop on them. And they have no Cho Ren. No game system should be without Cho Ren Sha!
The consoles are nicely serviced. The GC is getting a fair share of innovative games, even though it seems a bit GDR like, as in "There's one good game per genre and you play that!". However, the true problem is the PC.
On the PC there are tons of titles coming out every month/year/whatevertimeperiodyoufindappropriate. Problem is, those are (of course) 90% crap and of those 10% a further 95% are unoriginal clones. There are very few upcoming titles on PC I really care about (X2 - The Threat and Sam & Max Freelance Police). Many of the upcoming "top" titles are sequels. Okay, my favourite ones too, but they fall into more obscure genres. The main bunch of PC games is made up of egoshooters. The most wanted games, according to PC Games, are:
1. Half-Life 2
2. Doom 3
3. Far Cry
4. Deus Ex 2
5. Need For Speed: Underground
6. Baldur's Gate 3
7. Battlefield Vietnam
8. World of Warcraft
9. STALKER
10. The Sims 2
Six (1 2 3 4 7 9) of them are egoshooters, one is racing, one is an MMORPG, one is a Sims game and one is an RPG that wasn't even announced yet. None of those games were ever called innovative. And, frankly, I don't care about any of them. The only more recent game I bought for the PC was SpellForce (to be released in the US in February). Granted, that's a good game, but it doesn't really sting out between all the other games. And it isn't really innovative. The PC market has become one large piece of mud, consisting of games you can only tell apart with a microscope. I don't care about the PC anymore, I don't bother with getting PC games anymore and I think those are the same things people felt before Nintendo entered the market. I've read an article claiming the PC to be on its decline and predicting consoles to be the only game systems on the market soon.
The only positive thing to be said about the PC is: The freeware games are really good. Rarely do you find games as innovative as, say, Frequon Invaders (who thought games could implement six dimensions that nicely?). However, few freeware games get much exposure. Publishing is too expensive. Good freeware games are just as far in between as good commerial games. And freeware alone can't keep the PC alive.
I will still apply upgrades to my system, I need at least a new graphics card to be able to work with Blender again. That's the disadvantage of consoles: You can't develop on them. And they have no Cho Ren. No game system should be without Cho Ren Sha!
259
Nintendo Gaming / Is the mass market simple-minded?
« on: November 29, 2003, 06:59:03 AM »
Article on Totalgames (Thanks, Slashdot)
Abstract: The most selling games of the recent time are focussed on violence and simple gameplay. While many people think only the blood matters, it seems like the casual gamer wants simple, easy to learn games, of couse with a "cool" theme.
Sounds like Nintendo has a big chance left. Simple, easy to learn games are their speciality. I doubt they (Nintendo itself, not some second party) will ever deliver a "mature" theme, but they should at least once try to make a game with more realism-oriented graphics (that is not a sports-title) and - more important - a good story. Doesn't even need violence or abusive language. If they were to make a really great game like that they could show the world that they aren't a "kids only" company - and that good games can be done without violence.
Abstract: The most selling games of the recent time are focussed on violence and simple gameplay. While many people think only the blood matters, it seems like the casual gamer wants simple, easy to learn games, of couse with a "cool" theme.
Sounds like Nintendo has a big chance left. Simple, easy to learn games are their speciality. I doubt they (Nintendo itself, not some second party) will ever deliver a "mature" theme, but they should at least once try to make a game with more realism-oriented graphics (that is not a sports-title) and - more important - a good story. Doesn't even need violence or abusive language. If they were to make a really great game like that they could show the world that they aren't a "kids only" company - and that good games can be done without violence.
260
Nintendo Gaming / EAD not good enough for 3D?
« on: November 26, 2003, 04:15:13 AM »
It seems to me that EAD is incapable of working with current-gen graphics. Their graphics were top-of-the-line back in the 2d-era. They could keep up with the N64's small textures. But now these restrictions no longer apply and EAD doesn't seem to have come over it yet. Blurry, undetailed textures everywhere. Characters are mostly shaped by the mesh, the texture barely contributes anything. HAL has demonstrated how even undetailed characters like Mario can benefit from modern technology. Ever compared the non-HAL and HAL-models in SSBM's trophy-collection? Take Yoshi: Zoom in on the standard trophy, you will see his textures are pretty much just flat colors. Zoom in on the smash-version, however, the textures have things like noise (helps making flat colors more iregular ingame). HAL seems to have better texture artists than EAD. There are thousands of people out there who could do better than EAD, why don't they just hire some?
261
General Gaming / Interview with a Phantom
« on: October 26, 2003, 05:10:41 AM »
Link
Abstract: The first public Q&A session with Infinium Labs, the makers of the Phantom console, was held. While Infineon dodged many questions, what came out still looked grim.
Okay, another wannabe in the console arena who just begs for a sample of the harshness of the market.
Pro: Well, they actually managed to build something that at least looks like what they promised, even though it currently seems more like a fancy case mod.
Contra: This thing is the manifested Evil (even moreso than the iQue!)! Full of DRM tech, designed to help the publishers in their war against the customer!
Oh, and they actually went as far as to believe the same bulls### Bill Gates does: That every single household in the world has unmetered broadband access. Somebody please kick them back into reality!
Hm, maybe MS buy's them out and/or incooperates their tech into the Xenon. Maybe the Xenon will be pretty similar to the Phantom.
Bottom line? Uh, I don't want one. Even if it released with good exclusives I wouldn't want one. I am unwilling to pay for immaterial goods (i.e. software only available for download). I am unwilling to pay for DRM'ed content. This thing is against every single of my principles.
Abstract: The first public Q&A session with Infinium Labs, the makers of the Phantom console, was held. While Infineon dodged many questions, what came out still looked grim.
Okay, another wannabe in the console arena who just begs for a sample of the harshness of the market.
Pro: Well, they actually managed to build something that at least looks like what they promised, even though it currently seems more like a fancy case mod.
Contra: This thing is the manifested Evil (even moreso than the iQue!)! Full of DRM tech, designed to help the publishers in their war against the customer!
Oh, and they actually went as far as to believe the same bulls### Bill Gates does: That every single household in the world has unmetered broadband access. Somebody please kick them back into reality!
Hm, maybe MS buy's them out and/or incooperates their tech into the Xenon. Maybe the Xenon will be pretty similar to the Phantom.
Bottom line? Uh, I don't want one. Even if it released with good exclusives I wouldn't want one. I am unwilling to pay for immaterial goods (i.e. software only available for download). I am unwilling to pay for DRM'ed content. This thing is against every single of my principles.
262
Nintendo Gaming / Some people want their games shorter...
« on: October 23, 2003, 08:51:36 AM »
Article
Abstract: Games take too long to complete, combined with the amount of games you buy vs. the amount of your free time chances that you ever complete a 20+ hours game is very likely to end up unfinished on your "I'll play that later" stack. Concludes with proposal of pay-per-episode system as discussed in numerous articles before.
I completely disagree with the author. Almost all games nowadays are too short (i.e. less than 35-40 hours) for my liking. When I abandon a game it's most likely because I couldn't get past a certain frustrating sequence or the game bored the hell out of me. Both are signs of flawed gameplay instead of overlength.
To explain my oppinion I'll go through all of my GC games (leaving out infinite games and VJ, which I just got today so I cannot comment on it) and comment on their length and state of completion:
Wind Waker: Finished once, now in second quest (no real motivation to continue, though). The game should have been twice as long. Or at least have twice as many dungeons.
P.N.03: Through on Easy, going on Hard. The game is definitely too short. Why they made the first level longer than the subsequent levels is beyond me, especially because it frustrates to not pass the first level on Medium...
Sonic Mega Collection: I came VERY close to the end of Sonic 1 last time I played. I'm playing it a bit now and then. Length: Well, a game without saving obiously shouldn't be longer than 2-3 hours. Feels short, nonetheless.
Super Mario Sunshine: Finished. Means won against Bowser and was damn happy the game was over. Once the events stop happening the game gets repetitive and boring, this might be a case where I agree they should have made it shorter (or simply have added more events!)
Phantasy Star Online: Act 3, first set of missions (~13 hours into the game). Due to repetitive gameplay and nearly nonexistant plot I'm not really motivated to finish it. The fault lies at the strength of the bosses (i.e. the required levelling), not the physical length of the game.
Skies of Arcadia: Finished. It felt like just the right length.
Mystic Heroes: Half through. It became too frustrating. However, I feel this game could use a bit of lengthening.
Lost Kingdoms: Finished. Definitely WAY too short.
Eternal Darkness: At Edward's chapter, stuck at the vampire. Got too frustrating because you have to repeat a LONG sequence every time you fail and I couldn't figure out how to destroy that stone (know by now, low motivation). Some chapters seemed too short, some too long. Can't say much on the overall length, but feels about right.
Metroid Prime: All finished but Prime. Prime is too frustrating. The game feels too short, should have been approximately twice as long.
Lost Kingdoms II: Have to fight the God of Harmony. Too frustrating. If that's really the last level, the game is too short. Even if there are four or five levels after that, it's still too short.
The author wants games to be shorter, but I hate paying 60 bucks just to find out the game is over after less than ten hours. Hell, a few years ago 40 hours were standard and anything less than that was declared too short, nowadays the average is 20 or less.
Even if games get shorter, the price will always stay the same, so you're just screwing yourself over by demanding shorter games.
I hate the idea of pay-per-episode. That just demotivates or makes you limit the number of levels you play on purpose (because playing the next one costs you). Hell, if I wanted to pay to continue playing I'd subscribe to some MMO game!
I've seen pay-per-episode in action, it's called Golden Sun. Well, that game was effectively split in two parts and both are sold at full price. There's no way I'll support that behaviour! (i.e. I boycott GS: The Lost Age) When GS ended, I first thought it was a joke like that effect in ED after Act 3, but it turned out real and left me really angry, wishing death to whatever genius came up with that idea.
Abstract: Games take too long to complete, combined with the amount of games you buy vs. the amount of your free time chances that you ever complete a 20+ hours game is very likely to end up unfinished on your "I'll play that later" stack. Concludes with proposal of pay-per-episode system as discussed in numerous articles before.
I completely disagree with the author. Almost all games nowadays are too short (i.e. less than 35-40 hours) for my liking. When I abandon a game it's most likely because I couldn't get past a certain frustrating sequence or the game bored the hell out of me. Both are signs of flawed gameplay instead of overlength.
To explain my oppinion I'll go through all of my GC games (leaving out infinite games and VJ, which I just got today so I cannot comment on it) and comment on their length and state of completion:
Wind Waker: Finished once, now in second quest (no real motivation to continue, though). The game should have been twice as long. Or at least have twice as many dungeons.
P.N.03: Through on Easy, going on Hard. The game is definitely too short. Why they made the first level longer than the subsequent levels is beyond me, especially because it frustrates to not pass the first level on Medium...
Sonic Mega Collection: I came VERY close to the end of Sonic 1 last time I played. I'm playing it a bit now and then. Length: Well, a game without saving obiously shouldn't be longer than 2-3 hours. Feels short, nonetheless.
Super Mario Sunshine: Finished. Means won against Bowser and was damn happy the game was over. Once the events stop happening the game gets repetitive and boring, this might be a case where I agree they should have made it shorter (or simply have added more events!)
Phantasy Star Online: Act 3, first set of missions (~13 hours into the game). Due to repetitive gameplay and nearly nonexistant plot I'm not really motivated to finish it. The fault lies at the strength of the bosses (i.e. the required levelling), not the physical length of the game.
Skies of Arcadia: Finished. It felt like just the right length.
Mystic Heroes: Half through. It became too frustrating. However, I feel this game could use a bit of lengthening.
Lost Kingdoms: Finished. Definitely WAY too short.
Eternal Darkness: At Edward's chapter, stuck at the vampire. Got too frustrating because you have to repeat a LONG sequence every time you fail and I couldn't figure out how to destroy that stone (know by now, low motivation). Some chapters seemed too short, some too long. Can't say much on the overall length, but feels about right.
Metroid Prime: All finished but Prime. Prime is too frustrating. The game feels too short, should have been approximately twice as long.
Lost Kingdoms II: Have to fight the God of Harmony. Too frustrating. If that's really the last level, the game is too short. Even if there are four or five levels after that, it's still too short.
The author wants games to be shorter, but I hate paying 60 bucks just to find out the game is over after less than ten hours. Hell, a few years ago 40 hours were standard and anything less than that was declared too short, nowadays the average is 20 or less.
Even if games get shorter, the price will always stay the same, so you're just screwing yourself over by demanding shorter games.
I hate the idea of pay-per-episode. That just demotivates or makes you limit the number of levels you play on purpose (because playing the next one costs you). Hell, if I wanted to pay to continue playing I'd subscribe to some MMO game!
I've seen pay-per-episode in action, it's called Golden Sun. Well, that game was effectively split in two parts and both are sold at full price. There's no way I'll support that behaviour! (i.e. I boycott GS: The Lost Age) When GS ended, I first thought it was a joke like that effect in ED after Act 3, but it turned out real and left me really angry, wishing death to whatever genius came up with that idea.
263
Nintendo Gaming / Are games really worse or just the expectations higher?
« on: October 20, 2003, 11:34:13 AM »
When you look through forums, people often criticise Nintendo's games for not being innovative enough, especially The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Super Mario Sunshine. But I wonder, what did they expect?
Let's look back to the "good old times", where everybody agreed that Nintendo was a top-of-the-line developer, before all this talk about "the giant stumbling", etc appeared.
First, Super Mario Bros. I will consider SMB1-3, SMW1-2, SM64 and SMS to be part of this series for this purpose.
SMB1: The first of the series. Not much to be said about its evolution, since it is the first in this chain of evolution.
SMB2: Radically different gameplay. Since almost no ideas from this game made it into later games, we can assume the innovation here wasn't desired.
SMB3: Basically SMB1 with more items, levels, enemies, etc. A sequel.
SMW1: Still a lot like SMB1 and 3, new powerups and the introduction of Yoshi. While this changed gameplay quite a bit again, it didn't change much more than, say, the different weapons in different Quake or Unreal iterations.
SMW2: Could be considered a spinoff. The gameplay was fundamentally different from the main series. Like SMB2, the changes in this game never made it into the main series.
SM64*: While I have never played it, I assume it was a rather huge leap forward. However, this game did the change from 2d to 3d, which naturally offers MUCH different gameplay.
SMS: Not much innovation except for new items. Since the 3d-transition could not be repeated, this game did not differ from its predecessor as much as the latter from its.
If we don't count spinoffs, the changes from game to game are rarely more than more items. While Sunshine didn't deliver as many items as, say, SMB3, going overkill is never good. Did SMS need a boatload of additional items? No, it works fine with the current ones.
Now lets look at the other Series mentioned, Legend of Zelda:
LoZ1*: Well, the first game. Defined Zelda-gameplay, etc.
LA*: I haven't played it, but it looks like a large departure from the previous game. However, this style doesn't seem to have carried over into later titles.
Links Awakening: Basically still LoZ with new levels, maybe additional items.
LttP: Still LoZ with added items and better graphics.
OOT: First 3d game. Of course a lot changed due to the change of perspective.
MM*: Dunno, but it seems to be mostly like OOT with new levels and maybe more items.
WW: Basically OOT with new levels and items, the addition of sailing didn't add a lot to the game and was completely irrelevant in the actual dungeons.
For comparison, the Metroid series did not get any "more of the same" comments:
Metroid*: Defined the gameplay, blah, blah, blah.
Metroid 2*: Doesn't seem too different from the first one. Sure, new enemies, maybe new items, etc.
Super Metroid: New items, levels, etc.
Metroid Prime: Switch to 3d, radically different gameplay.
(note: * marks games I haven't played)
Notice a pattern? The big, innovative titles all were the ones that changed the series from 2d to 3d. Of course that brings a difference in gameplay. The only thing that has changed from back then to now is N's willingness to make the second game in each series a spinoff title.
p.s.: The decrease of writing skill through this post can be attributed to increasing tiredness.
Let's look back to the "good old times", where everybody agreed that Nintendo was a top-of-the-line developer, before all this talk about "the giant stumbling", etc appeared.
First, Super Mario Bros. I will consider SMB1-3, SMW1-2, SM64 and SMS to be part of this series for this purpose.
SMB1: The first of the series. Not much to be said about its evolution, since it is the first in this chain of evolution
.SMB2: Radically different gameplay. Since almost no ideas from this game made it into later games, we can assume the innovation here wasn't desired.
SMB3: Basically SMB1 with more items, levels, enemies, etc. A sequel.
SMW1: Still a lot like SMB1 and 3, new powerups and the introduction of Yoshi. While this changed gameplay quite a bit again, it didn't change much more than, say, the different weapons in different Quake or Unreal iterations.
SMW2: Could be considered a spinoff. The gameplay was fundamentally different from the main series. Like SMB2, the changes in this game never made it into the main series.
SM64*: While I have never played it, I assume it was a rather huge leap forward. However, this game did the change from 2d to 3d, which naturally offers MUCH different gameplay.
SMS: Not much innovation except for new items. Since the 3d-transition could not be repeated, this game did not differ from its predecessor as much as the latter from its.
If we don't count spinoffs, the changes from game to game are rarely more than more items. While Sunshine didn't deliver as many items as, say, SMB3, going overkill is never good. Did SMS need a boatload of additional items? No, it works fine with the current ones.
Now lets look at the other Series mentioned, Legend of Zelda:
LoZ1*: Well, the first game. Defined Zelda-gameplay, etc.
LA*: I haven't played it, but it looks like a large departure from the previous game. However, this style doesn't seem to have carried over into later titles.
Links Awakening: Basically still LoZ with new levels, maybe additional items.
LttP: Still LoZ with added items and better graphics.
OOT: First 3d game. Of course a lot changed due to the change of perspective.
MM*: Dunno, but it seems to be mostly like OOT with new levels and maybe more items.
WW: Basically OOT with new levels and items, the addition of sailing didn't add a lot to the game and was completely irrelevant in the actual dungeons.
For comparison, the Metroid series did not get any "more of the same" comments:
Metroid*: Defined the gameplay, blah, blah, blah.
Metroid 2*: Doesn't seem too different from the first one. Sure, new enemies, maybe new items, etc.
Super Metroid: New items, levels, etc.
Metroid Prime: Switch to 3d, radically different gameplay.
(note: * marks games I haven't played)
Notice a pattern? The big, innovative titles all were the ones that changed the series from 2d to 3d. Of course that brings a difference in gameplay. The only thing that has changed from back then to now is N's willingness to make the second game in each series a spinoff title.
p.s.: The decrease of writing skill through this post can be attributed to increasing tiredness.
264
Nintendo Gaming / They should make a Captain N game...
« on: October 13, 2003, 11:39:17 PM »
Maybe they couldn't include all the 3rd party chars, but it'd still make a really good foundation for a game. Although it could end up too similar to VJ...
We have a d-pad, we have A, B and Start buttons and I'm sure the Z-button will work as Select.
If the Captain doesn't get his own game he should at least be in the next Smash Bros game.
We have a d-pad, we have A, B and Start buttons and I'm sure the Z-button will work as Select.
If the Captain doesn't get his own game he should at least be in the next Smash Bros game.
265
General Gaming / The number of console owners just shrinked!
« on: October 03, 2003, 06:47:03 AM »
From this day on, PS2 owners can no longer claim they own a "next-gen" console.
To get reduced tariffs, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe proved to the court that the PS2 is in fact a personal computer, not a game console. Important arguments were Linux and the progammability of the PS2.
Guess what that means? Right, the Nintendo Gamecube is now the number one selling "next-gen" console!
From now on, the PS2 has to stack up to PC sales numbers, not console numbers. I'd like to see the sales numbers of x86s in comparison...
Oh, and poor Apple, they're now in third place. Well, but who said the computer wars are over yet?
Article in English
I have the link to the court ruling in my sig, but it's written in lawyerish...
To get reduced tariffs, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe proved to the court that the PS2 is in fact a personal computer, not a game console. Important arguments were Linux and the progammability of the PS2.
Guess what that means? Right, the Nintendo Gamecube is now the number one selling "next-gen" console!
From now on, the PS2 has to stack up to PC sales numbers, not console numbers. I'd like to see the sales numbers of x86s in comparison...
Oh, and poor Apple, they're now in third place. Well, but who said the computer wars are over yet?
Article in English
I have the link to the court ruling in my sig, but it's written in lawyerish...
266
Nintendo Gaming / James Bond: Everything Or Nothing Screenshots
« on: September 15, 2003, 10:04:10 AM »
Official EA screenshots page
Forum thread by some of the devs
First screenies of the multiplatform title. DaZ said it'll be less stealth and more shooting and they hope to top Golden Eye (source: The forum thread listed above). Man, I hope this turns out as good as it looks
.
Forum thread by some of the devs
First screenies of the multiplatform title. DaZ said it'll be less stealth and more shooting and they hope to top Golden Eye (source: The forum thread listed above). Man, I hope this turns out as good as it looks
.
267
Nintendo Gaming / N5 "delayed"
« on: August 20, 2003, 06:25:56 AM »
Register Article
It's not sure the N5 will be released in 05, N assumes Sony and MS won't release until 06 anyway so they planned in more time for development. They still plan to release ahead of the competition, though.
It's not sure the N5 will be released in 05, N assumes Sony and MS won't release until 06 anyway so they planned in more time for development. They still plan to release ahead of the competition, though.
268
Nintendo Gaming / The PS3 WILL release on schedule.
« on: July 12, 2003, 12:01:27 AM »
Some say the PS3 will launch in 2006/07. Of course, Sony won't do that mistake.
Story at The Register
Abstract: Elpida, the official supplier of RAM for the PS2 will start manufacturing the XDR DRAM (Rambus Yellowstone) in late 2004, with higher production in 2005. This RAM will very likely be used in the PS3 and suggests the production of the PS3 will start somewhere around 2005, making a launch in late 2005 highly probable.
Story at The Register
Abstract: Elpida, the official supplier of RAM for the PS2 will start manufacturing the XDR DRAM (Rambus Yellowstone) in late 2004, with higher production in 2005. This RAM will very likely be used in the PS3 and suggests the production of the PS3 will start somewhere around 2005, making a launch in late 2005 highly probable.
269
Nintendo Gaming / What happened to Lost Kingdoms 2?
« on: May 19, 2003, 04:43:31 AM »
Err... According to the release date it's supposed to be out now, but I haven't heard anything about it yet... So, has anyone got it? Was it delayed? Will we get a review soon?
I'm in Europe, it's set for release on 5.6. here (2 weeks after Skies of Arcadia).
I'm in Europe, it's set for release on 5.6. here (2 weeks after Skies of Arcadia).
The entire contents of this Web site, unless otherwise noted, are Copyright © 1999 - 2012 NINWR, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ™ and © for all products, characters, and indicia related thereto which are contained herein are owned by the companies who market or license those products. This Web site is not endorsed, sponsored, nor otherwise affiliated with Nintendo. It has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and knowledge. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form without consent from NINWR, LLC is prohibited.
