Post by: ResidentEvil88 on May 12, 2004, 02:23:35 PM
I have to say I was blown away by all the sick games coming out!
Post by: Shift Key on May 12, 2004, 05:31:53 PM
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 12, 2004, 06:09:36 PM
Post by: Michael8983 on May 12, 2004, 06:29:28 PM
Nintendo had all its bases covered.
The DS looks like the most innovative game system ever and already has an amazing line-up that virtually guarantees it will be a massive success. Best of all, it's still on track for release this year. WOW! But Nintendo made sure not to allow it to get all the attention. There were tons of great GBA and GCN games as well. I don't see how anyone could have been dissapointed. Ok, so Mario 128 was missing but we got like FIVE other Mario games in its place . . . and ZELDA!!!
A few days ago, the horizon looked bleak. There were too few games I was looking forward to and I was mostly just looking forward to them in theory because we knew basically nothing about them and had little to no media. But that's all changed. There are now dozens of games across Nintendo's three platforms I'm dying to play.
Post by: MysticGohan24 on May 12, 2004, 06:56:35 PM
And there's still time for heh... More secrets to be revealed
Post by: Shift Key on May 12, 2004, 07:46:38 PM
Sure, all those games coming out look nice, but I have an itch that those games just don't scratch. Yes, I'm aware of how awesome Zelda looks. Yes, I'm aware of the DS shaking up the industry. But no news of the next true Mario game makes me a sad panda.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 12, 2004, 08:18:04 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 12, 2004, 09:20:45 PM
~~~~~
HOLY SMOKES I just realized her catsuit's vaguely reminiscent of Joanna Dark's.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 13, 2004, 05:30:01 AM
I'm actually very impressed. I think Nintendo did a much better job of surprising me than last year. I remember last year I felt like I had already seen everything by the time Nintendo's press conference was over. All that was left was to hear impressions of Mario Kart and see a bit more of Metal Gear. This year there were several unexpected games for the existing systems plus all the new games for the DS. I'm still itching for more information on several games, especially Paper Mario 2.
I'm constantly surprised at how much people hate Super Mario Sunshine, even Super Mario 64 fans. I thought it was a very respectable sequel to Super Mario 64. Not perfect, but respectable.
Post by: Hostile Creation on May 13, 2004, 06:52:55 AM
Yes, I am happy.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 13, 2004, 07:25:57 AM
If you were expecting Mario 128 to be shown, you are one silly, silly person...
*Mario 128 more like Mario REVOLUTION*
Post by: yellowfellow on May 13, 2004, 07:29:45 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 13, 2004, 07:54:19 AM
However there's one problem: there's too many sequels. Aside from that weird samurai pinball game and Geist, Nintendo isn't showing anything that isn't already established. Sure we're excited about these games but aside from the new Zelda I don't see any of the these games selling to anyone who doesn't already own a Cube. If Nintendo has decided to just target their core fanbase and become a niche developer then this lineup is great but if they think they're going to sell systems to other people with this lineup they're mistaken.
Lately Nintendo has gotten into a real sequel groove and it's scaring me. Remember when we waited five years between Zelda games and eight years between Metroids? Now it's like at every E3 EVERY one of Nintendo's franchise characters is making some sort of appearance. I don't play Nintendo games because of the character on the box. I play Nintendo games because they're amazing and break new ground. If they start going all Mega Man on me I'm not going to keep playing them.
There shouldn't be five Mario games at one show. In fact I don't even think a Mario game should be at every E3. Nintendo's got to cut back on all the spinoffs and blatant money games (like Mario Party) and go back to what they have a reputation for: breaking new ground with each sequel and making innovative new games.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 13, 2004, 08:02:05 AM
Post by: Darc Requiem on May 13, 2004, 08:46:59 AM
I too was completely floored by Nintendo's showing. I was unsure about the DS and now I have to own it. The new Zelda is simply amazing. The Spaceworld demo has nothing on what was shown at this E3. I mean the detail on Link's model. I've always wondered what a detailed Link model would look like...now I have my answer. A Wars game for GC, and Fire Emblem for GC....Nintendo seems to have turned an about face and acted quickly on what fans have been clamoring for.Ian I am also concerned about the sequelitis going on at Nintendo. Thats stated, I think I know what Nintendo is doing. I think Nintendo is trying to sure up its diehard fans before the N5/Revolution launch. Even the most diehard of Nintendo fans have been dismayed as of late and this E3 does a lot towards sowing up that open wound. The DS is a hint at the N5/Revolution which is a good thing. I finally think I see who Nintendo may get around its on-line stance now. Although I think it may be a bit limiting, it could work. N5/Revolution will probably have the Wi-Fi like the DS. If the DS or Developer's System as Nintendo calls it is truly indicative of what Nintendo is believes and is now striving for then, I think Nintendo may be capable of truly knocking Sony's block off. Wow that was long sentence....sorry about that guys. Anyway things are looking up. I hope Nintendo can keep the momentum going.
Darc Requiem
Post by: Caterkiller on May 13, 2004, 09:22:49 AM
I listened to too much bad mouthing of Nintendo's last E3 presentation on G4, in magazines and so on. With good reason to, but this year all I expect to hear is nothing but praise. Maybe a few things here and there, because there is always someone unsatisfied to the max.
Post by: Koopa Troopa on May 13, 2004, 10:44:52 AM
My only complaint is I don't have enough money... I wasn't expecting the DS to be so... amazing. Seriously, I've never been big on handheld gaming (small screens and no backlight are the main reasons.) I purchased about 15 GB/GBA games the same week I bought the GBP, I had no idea what I was missing. Anyway, I digress, the point is I now know I'm going to buy a DS and I can't wait, but that puts a kink in the rest of my plans... I'll figure out a way to get it all, though
I'm still trying to take it all in, to be perfectly honest. So much excitement.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 13, 2004, 10:51:04 AM
Post by: akdaman1 on May 13, 2004, 11:22:56 AM
Companys are really desperate and just keep churning out sequels to games that sell good.
I mean
Gamecube
Viewtiful Joe
Viewtiful Joe 2
Viewtiful Joe Revival.
Ps2
Viewtiful Joe
Viewtiful Joe 2
PSP
Viewtiful Joe
DS
Viewtiful Joe
Gamecube
Metroid Prime
Metroid Prime 2
Gameboy
Metroid Fusion
Metroid Zero Mission
DS
Metroid Prime Hunters.
Gamecube
Wind waker
Legend of Zelda
Legend of Zelda the Four Swords
GBA
Link to the Past
...there are more but I forgot them.
You see my point? What hapenned to the time when we had to kill for a game ...raising our anticipation for it. Zelda is the only series which I believe should be allowed to have 2 games per console. NO MORE. TBH Prime 2 looks exactly the same as the first. Its seems very similer to Fusion and really ...I am not hyped for it.
I know many of you love it but its just another sequel. I want to play Prime 2 on the next system. It would be good for Nintendo because they build Major hype for thier games while we get to play originals instead of sequels.
Also Viewtiful Joe is another series which has been ruined. WHY is there another one already? Impressions all seem to say that it is like an upgrade to the first. I say VJ 2 is dissapointment of the show.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 13, 2004, 11:47:07 AM
Post by: The Omen on May 13, 2004, 12:00:55 PM
Quote
I know many of you love it but its just another sequel. I want to play Prime 2 on the next system. It would be good for Nintendo because they build Major hype for thier games while we get to play originals instead of sequels.
Also Viewtiful Joe is another series which has been ruined. WHY is there another one already? Impressions all seem to say that it is like an upgrade to the first. I say VJ 2 is dissapointment of the show.
No no no! I don't want to wait the traditional 8 years for another Metroid. Prime was great, and if Echoes equals Prime, I want it. Its not like all sequals are bad games. And VJ2 is an upgraded VJ? Good! That means its another great game, not 'ruined'. Why bitch about sequals when they're good? Stop whining people. If the games turn out to be rubbish, then you have every right to say I told you so, but at least wait until you play them.
Post by: TomServo on May 13, 2004, 12:15:35 PM
What does the PS2 have? Final Fantasy 12 (12 for god's sake! 3 FF's on one system!), Gran Turismo 4 (2 on one system), Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (that's 3 GTA's on one system), Metal Gear 3 (2 on one system).
What does X-Box have? Halo 2 (sure, it's only the second one, but it's a sequel. And 2 on one system, no less.), Conker (an already existing franchise), Perfect Dark (see previous parenthesis). Is Half Life 2 going to be on the X-Box? And Doom 3.
All Sequels. Just an observation.
On Topic: This E3 is going great so far.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 13, 2004, 12:24:25 PM
One game per series per console. Mario has done this since the SNES (though Yoshi's Island is debatable since it's so different and considered more of a Yoshi game), Metroid used to do this, the Chrono series does this, etc.
There are some exceptions:
1. This rule doesn't include spin-offs which are considered a different entity.
2. An exception is made for simultaneous releases designed to interface with each other (Pokemon, Zelda Oracle games) in which case each pair counts as one sequel. Ports and remakes also are not considered sequels.
3. Sports games do not have to follow this format.
4. A series can have as many sequels as it wants provided the franchise has a definitive end. So the original Phantasy Star is exempt because the series quit after the fourth game.
5. Some series are granted a special priviledge to release several sequels per console. The Legend of Zelda is allowed two per console because of it's high quality. Final Fantasy is permitted three per console because it changes the story, characters, and battle system with every game.
6. A game is allowed a direct sequel on the same console if the preceding game is either brand new or takes the franchise in a new direction (2D to 3D) and is a smashing success. The direct sequel is permitted to cash in on the game's popularity but a third game on the same console is not permitted. So Metroid Prime 2, Vice City, Halo 2, etc are all valid sequels.
The trilogy curse:
Any new series that releases three games on it's debut console will never regain it's previous success. It's just a fact. Donkey Kong Country, Mega Man X, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil all released a trilogy on their debut console and never really regained their popularity with the fourth title. Mario is currently the only series to recover from this after releasing a trilogy on the NES and maintaining momentum with Super Mario World.
PC game rules:
Since PC games are all on the same "console" the rules are different. Only one expansion pack per game and each game must be released at least three years apart. Blizzard follows this rule perfectly.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 13, 2004, 12:46:50 PM
Post by: Michael8983 on May 13, 2004, 01:11:00 PM
Nintendo should certainly make an entirely original game (with original characters) every so often in addition to all the sequels - which it does - especially considering that Nintendo is one of few developers that's actually consistantly successful in getting these original titles to sell and turn them into franchises. Recent examples are Animal Crossing and Pikmin. The reason Nintendo does this so well is it waits until it comes up with a genuinely great idea instead of just creating new characters for the sake of creating new characters and putting them in the same old games.
It also helps that Nintendo's entirely original game are so rare. They get a lot more attention that way (and actually manage to sell) than they would if they were coming out every couple of months.
Post by: JoeSmashBro on May 13, 2004, 05:05:52 PM
Mario has been milked for all it's worth since Donkey Kong came out and it's still not out, so I wouldn't worry about it... Nintendo has the greatest franchises in video game history and they still underplay them to an effect (barring the Mario characters.) Enjoy the feast! Stop complaining!
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 13, 2004, 05:43:58 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on May 13, 2004, 05:54:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Koopa Troopa
If I died now, I would die happy.
no matter how sick it sounds, i'm feeling it.
Post by: akdaman1 on May 13, 2004, 10:31:02 PM
Graphiclly Retro cant do much more. Prime was pretty much perfect and I really cant see how they can improve on it. Nintendo have plenty of unused franchises ( Kid Ikarus, Earthbound, Golden Sun ) which could take Primes place. Im not gonna say that Prime 2 will be a bad game, no way I know it will be a kick ass game BUT it will lose its charm. I would prefer it on a new system with new features.
Viewtiful Joe 2 is the worst ever case of cash-in success. I mean besides the Co-op mode it really does not change anything from the original Joe. Joe still has the same moves. Sylvia might have changed but so what. Its not enough to warrent a sequel. Wait for a new console and put it on there.
Zelda on the otherhand is alright like Ian said. It takes the franchise in a new direction and there is absoulotly no problem with that.
Professional - I agree with you and am very willing to support Donky Konga and Jungles Beat.
Ian - I agree with you on every point except that - If there is a sequel on the SAME console it should be changed. Games like Metriod should not be milked. Because eventually there will be no original ideas. I love the Metroid series but I would rather the games come in a waiting period ( Like RE4 ). RE 4 has so much hype simply because of the slow process that Capcom has been letting out the info.
I also want to point out that in my eyes some of the best games of the show have been originals - Geist, Advance Wars ( I count this as a original ) and Fire Emblem ( I know there are heaps but for us people in Australia this is the FIRST we have seen of Fire Emblem ( except for the gba version ). Also other games such as Konga and Jungle Beat are originals and have proved to be quite a hit at the show. Also Odama and Second Sight have made quite a splash. The best games are always orginal.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 13, 2004, 11:03:30 PM
I have no problem w/ MP2, but, to me, there appears to be too many Metriod games right now. I mean, the 2 GBA games, and now a DS game. We had to wait 8 years after Super Metriod for new one, and now we are getting a whole bunch in the span of 2-2.5 years. Personally, I think it would have been better if Nintendo would have widen that time span.
Zelda. Well, it's Zelda. Like Ian said, 2 Zelda per gen. is good. We are getting a new GBA Zelda game which is good (I don't really count LttP as new, 'cos I didn't play the multiplayer part), plus Four Swords. But again, too many Zelda games in a short time span (yes, I know Zelda GC is more than a year away). I'm not saying I'm not interested in the Minish Cap, hell, I am, as it has new gameplay aspects which has me really interested. Then, chances are, there will be a Zelda DS game in the horizon.........too much.
I know I'll be making some enemies with this post...
Post by: akdaman1 on May 14, 2004, 12:58:47 AM
Also I made an E3 awards topic in the Gamecube section. Go there to write what you thought was game of the Show etc.
Post by: Plugabugz on May 14, 2004, 01:52:45 AM
Prime 2 should exist because theoretically Prime was for the 64 - because there wasn't one. I wouldn't like to see a third on the cube, and I doubt we will. That and I would like to see Retro get creative elsewhere with say another game in the meantime.
Post by: Mario on May 14, 2004, 02:26:16 AM
Quote
Viewtiful Joe 2 is the worst ever case of cash-in success. I mean besides the Co-op mode it really does not change anything from the original Joe. Joe still has the same moves. Sylvia might have changed but so what. Its not enough to warrent a sequel. Wait for a new console and put it on there.
VIEWTIFUL JOE CASH-IN? That's the dumbest thing i've ever read. I love Capcom for giving us a sequel to Viewtiful Joe, if you loved the first one, what's not to look forward to in this one? New areas, new enemies, new moves, new gameplay elements, sounds like every other sequel to me. I crave more Viewtiful Joe action.
Metroid Prime deserves Metroid Prime 2 as much as Ocarina of Time deserves Majora's Mask. Metroid Prime 2 is fine by me.
Post by: The Omen on May 14, 2004, 05:02:33 AM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 14, 2004, 05:06:29 AM
Mario Pinball, Mario Party SIX, Paper Mario, Zelda Four Sword Adventures, Mimmish Cap, all these pac-man games, the countless Megaman games, yikes.
And I think the reason why Nintendo are holding back their other franchises is because they're something to look forward to on Nintendo Revolution!
No need to do EVERYTHING now!
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 14, 2004, 05:20:09 AM
Quote
Dont worry AiAi. I will help you take anyone out if they flame you.
ahahahhahahahaha.
I hear fun games get sequels, is this true? does that also mean people get to have more fun with a second title? radicakes if true.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 14, 2004, 06:34:11 AM
Crappy games get sequels too...
(Jak, Sly Cooper, Tomb Raider, Blinx etc...)
Post by: almondblight on May 14, 2004, 01:26:16 PM
My main problem isn't that there are these sequals (/franchise titles), it's that these sequals seem to be the main focus of the show, with very few original titles. Even half sequals/half new stuff would be alright with me, but this seems to be all sequals with a couple new games.
Post by: akdaman1 on May 14, 2004, 03:31:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioQuote
Viewtiful Joe 2 is the worst ever case of cash-in success. I mean besides the Co-op mode it really does not change anything from the original Joe. Joe still has the same moves. Sylvia might have changed but so what. Its not enough to warrent a sequel. Wait for a new console and put it on there.
VIEWTIFUL JOE CASH-IN? That's the dumbest thing i've ever read. I love Capcom for giving us a sequel to Viewtiful Joe, if you loved the first one, what's not to look forward to in this one? New areas, new enemies, new moves, new gameplay elements, sounds like every other sequel to me. I crave more Viewtiful Joe action.
Metroid Prime deserves Metroid Prime 2 as much as Ocarina of Time deserves Majora's Mask. Metroid Prime 2 is fine by me.
I wouldnt mind another Viewtiful Joe but in the first hasnt even been out here for 7 months. So far there hasnt been much change from the first one. Every single impression I read says that it is almost exaclty like the first ( which is both good and bad ). I know there is co-op and it looks AWSOME but I dont believe its enough to warrent a sequel. I am gonna get this game no doubt. But what about the other Viewtiful Joes ? DS Joe. PSP Joe. PS2 Joe 1 and Joe 2. Too much Joe. When there are 5-7 different games in the 1 series coming out withing the span of 1-2 years then yes it is a cash-in success.
Im not too against Metroid Prime 2 but to me it sounds very similar to Fusion. There is a multi-player but to me its still not enough to warrent a sequel to be out within the year. I would have LOVED to see Prime 2 at next E3 but seeing it at e3 04 is too early. Also you cant really compare the Metroid series to the Zelda series. Its hard to explain but how different can an Adventure game get from it previous incarnation? Very, New area, New storyline, New weapons etc. This cant rreally be the same for a FPS/A. Sure there will be new weapons and enimies but .....ahhh too hard to explain. Just stay open minded and you will understand what im trying to say.
Edit **** Perfectly put Almondblight.
Post by: joeamis on May 14, 2004, 05:12:33 PM
There is a problem with too many sequels, saturation. It's what happened to Sonic way back and it caused sales of Sonic games to plummet, become stale in gameplay, and the result was a total abandon of Sonic for a number of years. That's a single case, another case is of the industry as a whole with saturation. Innovation and original ideas are what drive the industry (DS), sequels are a major contributor to stagnation and saturation. Without innovation and original ideas you could see something like the crash of the 80's. The major problem though is sequels to soon after the last game.
One last thing, almond said that it takes longer to make a new franchise than to do a sequel. Couldn't be more true. I think developers should use the same game engines more for new games than sequels that would have been made with those engines, it worked well with using the engine from Super Mario 64 for Super Mario Kart 64 instead of a Super Mario 64 2.
Post by: akdaman1 on May 14, 2004, 07:56:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
"I hear fun games get sequels, is this true?"
Crappy games get sequels too...
I have to disagree with you on Sly and Jak. They are both awsome games. I wont comment on the rest because I havent played them. Also Jak is intended to be a trilogy so a 3 games on the same console o.k with it.
P.S - What happened to Miyamotos DS game Buzz?
Post by: The Omen on May 14, 2004, 08:55:36 PM
And joeamis, if you agree with Ian, then you realize that he's for MP2 and Zelda, right?
You bring up Sonic, but you're dealing with possibly the worst company of the 90's, in terms of business decisions. In fact, any decisions.
I think some of you like to starve for games. Grown to love the hurt of having 1 great game of each Nintendo franchise once every 5 years, if you're lucky. Masochists.
And Echoes will not be out within one year of Prime, it'll be at least 2. Considering Retro were probably working on the base of Echoes at the latter stages of Prime, the game could be going on two years development time right now.
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 14, 2004, 09:17:15 PM
I agree... Metroid has hardly been used, Complaining that metroid has been cash cowed is stupid. There were 3 Metroid Games before the Gamecube... none on the N64. If you want to complain about miling franchise, theres only one example... Mario... All the Mario Advance ports, the countless Mario Party Rehashes. Mario Golf ect ect ect...
Would i like to see old franchises brought back? heck yeah id love Punch Out, Exitebike, Star Tropics and Kid Icarus... but it seems Nintendo doesnt want it.
Nintendo still has original games... How bout that Odama thing? didnt think so
Post by: akdaman1 on May 14, 2004, 09:42:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
This is possibly the most asinine argument ever. The reason? If Nintendo were to announce only original titles, people would bitch endlessly. Funny that Nintendo does what the majority of GC owners want, and people bitch, endlessly.
I think some of you like to starve for games. Grown to love the hurt of having 1 great game of each Nintendo franchise once every 5 years, if you're lucky. Masochists.
You got the first part wrong. We all want another Metroid but why so soon? Maybe show it off 2 years after first release. Then release it in the 3rd year.
Also if we were able to get 1 game per 5 years then that would be AWSOME.
Post by: Shift Key on May 15, 2004, 12:48:06 AM
Quote
We all want another Metroid but why so soon? Maybe show it off 2 years after first release. Then release it in the 3rd year.
Also if we were able to get 1 game per 5 years then that would be AWSOME.
Ahahahahahaha, sure, starvation makes food taste better too am i rite? Five years is about the lifespan of a console, and if developers followed those rules, there'd be a lot of bored gamers and a lot of bankrupt developers. Get real, ak.
QuoteSure it is. Remember the Matrix? That wasn't meant to be a trilogy either, but it happened, and I'd rather forget those two sequels. But that's for another rant. Moral of the story - planned or unplanned, sequels suck when done badly *nods*
Jak is intended to be a trilogy
But its the way of the world - a good (or mediocre) game usually gets a sequel because
1. Fanboy outcry
2. Executive decision to milk the franchise
3. Alignment of planets
I'd say Zelda falls into number 1.
Post by: akdaman1 on May 15, 2004, 02:54:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShiftyQuote
We all want another Metroid but why so soon? Maybe show it off 2 years after first release. Then release it in the 3rd year.
Also if we were able to get 1 game per 5 years then that would be AWSOME.
Ahahahahahaha, sure, starvation makes food taste better too am i rite? Five years is about the lifespan of a console, and if developers followed those rules, there'd be a lot of bored gamers and a lot of bankrupt developers. Get real, ak.
.
Yep. Food does taste better after starvation. I love sequels but originality is the way to go. Maybe I exaggerated my statement before. Maybe 1 sequel per 3 years.
Post by: The Omen on May 15, 2004, 05:34:08 AM
Quote
Yep. Food does taste better after starvation. I love sequels but originality is the way to go. Maybe I exaggerated my statement before. Maybe 1 sequel per 3 years.
So does dirt, but thats neither here nor there.
You're missing the point. Instead of worrying about a Metroid game released 2 years after the previous incarnation, look at it this way-2 Metroids in the consoles life cycle. Surely you have no problem with that?
I also have no problem with the Mario games, because they're fun. Sure we probably don't need 6 Mario Party games, but they sell. I understand why they're made. I have Mario Party 2 and 5. Just realize there are people who own a few of these games. Making one every year ensures you at least buy one of the versions. I don't know anybody who has more than two, and thats the point-let the consumer pick and choose what he/she wants. You don't like a few updates? Then stick with MP1. And theres only 2 Mario Golf games, 3 if you count advance. But its great fun. Why bitch about a fun game? I understand the problem with the rereleased NES/SNES titles on the GBA, but frankly, they are selling well. Somebody wants them. I don't want them in place of original titles, but I do want them. Be happy with Geist, Advance Wars GC, Fire Emblem GC, and Pikmin 2(still sort of new IMO). I'm very happy with them- and MP:Echoes/Hunters, Zelda/Minnish, DK, and Mario and Wario DS.
Post by: Koopa Troopa on May 15, 2004, 06:41:28 AM
Quote
I have to disagree with you on Sly and Jak. They are both awsome games. I wont comment on the rest because I havent played them. Also Jak is intended to be a trilogy so a 3 games on the same console o.k with it.
Sly is pretty good. Jak sucked. Sucked hard. And I really can't believe you just said three Jaks in three years is OK, what a hypocrite. OOoo it is supposed to be a trilogy. What the hell does that matter? It's still three games on one console in less than four years. It isn't as if the story even warrants three games, and the tired gameplay definitely does not.
Your entire foundation just crumbled, you can't piss and moan about Metroid or VJ and then in the same breath praise rubbish like Jak and grant it special amnesty.
Post by: Mario on May 15, 2004, 06:56:08 AM
You're all wrong.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 15, 2004, 07:28:25 AM
Right...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 15, 2004, 09:23:03 AM
Post by: akdaman1 on May 15, 2004, 12:51:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Koopa TroopaQuote
I have to disagree with you on Sly and Jak. They are both awsome games. I wont comment on the rest because I havent played them. Also Jak is intended to be a trilogy so a 3 games on the same console o.k with it.
Sly is pretty good. Jak sucked. Sucked hard. And I really can't believe you just said three Jaks in three years is OK, what a hypocrite. OOoo it is supposed to be a trilogy. What the hell does that matter? It's still three games on one console in less than four years. It isn't as if the story even warrants three games, and the tired gameplay definitely does not.
Your entire foundation just crumbled, you can't piss and moan about Metroid or VJ and then in the same breath praise rubbish like Jak and grant it special amnesty.
Well then lets all curse LOTR for having a new movie come out 1 per year. You see the game is intended to be like Phantasy Star. Although its not o.k to have 3 games in 3 years BUT Jak 2 took Jak in a different direction. I mean it has guns and cars. Im not sure bout Jak 3 but Jak 2 took Jak 1 into a different direction.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 15, 2004, 01:02:38 PM
Quote
Well then lets all curse LOTR for having a new movie come out 1 per year. You see the game is intended to be like Phantasy Star. Although its not o.k to have 3 games in 3 years BUT Jak 2 took Jak in a different direction. I mean it has guns and cars. Im not sure bout Jak 3 but Jak 2 took Jak 1 into a different direction.
The biggest difference between Jak and Daxter and Jak II was the title change- the "mature" style was superficial, and although the gameplay was still very good, I find it odd that people criticize Nintendo for releasing a healthy amount of sequels but embrace companies like Sony that do the same thing. Your analogy to Lord of the Rings was pointless as well- they're two entirely different cases.
Koopa Troopa summed up my thoughts perfectly with this line:
Quote
Your entire foundation just crumbled, you can't piss and moan about Metroid or VJ and then in the same breath praise rubbish like Jak and grant it special amnesty.
Post by: Chongman on May 15, 2004, 02:07:09 PM
Quote
Well then lets all curse LOTR for having a new movie come out 1 per year.
false statement, LOTOR movies weren't made once per year in sucession, they were all made at once and then broken off into three parts. When The Fellowship of the Ring came out, Return of the King had already been shot.
Post by: almondblight on May 15, 2004, 08:44:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
This is possibly the most asinine argument ever. The reason? If Nintendo were to announce only original titles, people would bitch endlessly. Funny that Nintendo does what the majority of GC owners want, and people bitch, endlessly.
People probably would complain if there were only new games and no Mario, Zelda, Metriod, etc. However, we aren't saying that Nintendo should have ONLY new games, we are saying that we would like a balance. I mean, look at E3 from a Cube owners (as in, not DS or GBA owners) perspective - what was the big surprise here? The style of the new Zelda game (which was a style shown to us 4 years ago)? Don't get me wrong, I was happy when I saw the trailer, but I wasn't shocked - with all the rumors and the spaceworld demo, the first thought into my head was "finally" not "wow, I wasn't suspecting that." Look at all the games, how many are new franchises? 10%? Maybe even 20%? I don't think anyone is saying that they don't want the franchise characters used, but I do hear people saying maybe less effort should be put into the franchise games and more into stuff that we haven't seen and played over and over already. Also, it's not like it's franchises that we're used on the other generations but were just recently ported over - Earthbound, Kid Icarus and the like are still MIA. While I'm glad that Nintendo is using Metroid, Mario and Zelda, I don't think they should be neglecting other franchises and new development while doing so.
To make things more frusterating we've heard a lot of hints and rumors about new and shadowy games in development, which is why every E3 I'm always hoping that there will be several big surprises. This last E3, I think there was one thing that was moderately surprising (Zelda), and the rest that was interesting but not really unexpected (last big shock I remember was the Capcom 5, even though we already knew about RE4 and Dead Phoenix was cancelled).
Post by: WuTangTurtle on May 16, 2004, 01:31:02 AM
Resident Evil was awesome and so was LOZ and four swords was fun as hell. It was my first E3 and it was so bad ass thanks to Nintendo. They shined over the whole show. And im glad as hell that Nintendo hired regular chicks instead of those slutty ass models, jeez i mean some of those girls were ridiculous.
Great show though.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 16, 2004, 04:43:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: joeamis
I agree with almond be light, akdaman1, and Ian Sane (tends to happen on every issue with Ian maybe he's my clone). For me the games I look forward to the most from E3 for GC are Geist, Dk Jungle Beat, Advance Wars, Starfox, Resident Evil 4, TOS, PM2, and to a lesser extent Zelda. I have absolutely no interest 0% in MP2, VJ2. All the games I listed are either original, haven't seen a sequel in many many years, or are a sequel that takes the game in a very new direction. And I list games that according to impressions need alot of work, but originality is key for me, it's better to have new stuff than recycled ideas.
There is a problem with too many sequels, saturation. It's what happened to Sonic way back and it caused sales of Sonic games to plummet, become stale in gameplay, and the result was a total abandon of Sonic for a number of years. That's a single case, another case is of the industry as a whole with saturation. Innovation and original ideas are what drive the industry (DS), sequels are a major contributor to stagnation and saturation. Without innovation and original ideas you could see something like the crash of the 80's. The major problem though is sequels to soon after the last game.
Thank you. You summed up what I really wanted to say in my last post.
People, I'm not saying sequels are bad, but getting too many of them within a gen. (unless it takes the game in a new direction with new gameplay) is bad, IMO. I didn't say getting MP2 for GC was bad, but add 2 GBA games and a DS game...........to me that's too much Metroid in like a 2-3 years span.
Of course, I'll just shutup now and not buy the games.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 16, 2004, 04:49:26 PM
Quote
This is possibly the most asinine argument ever. The reason? If Nintendo were to announce only original titles, people would bitch endlessly. Funny that Nintendo does what the majority of GC owners want, and people bitch, endlessly.
Omen, you speak the truth yet again- Nintendo's in a damned if you, damned if you don't situation. If they do one thing, you guys bitch. If they do the opposite, you guys bitch! Face it- you're impossible to satisfy, so stop complaining about it. It's inevitable, get used to it.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 16, 2004, 08:55:17 PM
I think that's too black and white. If Nintendo is doing something I don't really like usually the opposite is not what I want. I want something in between. Nobody wants Nintendo to release only original titles just like nobody wants them to just release mature games or online games. It's a balance that's needed and wanted. When I see a Nintendo E3 showing I want to see sequels and original titles. A 60-40 split favouring sequels would work well. And that wouldn't be that hard to do. They just have so stop making games that have no creative reason to exist like Mario Party 6 and invent original characters to go with their original ideas instead of throwing Mario, Kirby or Pokemon into every damn game. They should also encourage developers like Camelot and Hudson to make original games instead of generic Mario titles. Every chance to create a new property should be acted on and every sequel must have a reason to exist. That's what Nintendo was like in the past.
Post by: akdaman1 on May 16, 2004, 10:11:04 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 17, 2004, 03:26:29 AM
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 17, 2004, 04:34:12 AM
Fun games are fun. I do like original games more, but if sequels are fun I don't complain too loudly.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 17, 2004, 06:09:57 AM
Odama takes pinball to a whole new level with actual strategy as you command your troops to take over the enemy base...Never been done before...
Advance Wars even takes the series in an all-new direction! And don't give me this bullshit "Dur it's a sequel," because I never heard anyone complaining about Super Mario 64 being a "sequel"...
The same could be said of Fire Emblem...In fact, while Ninty does use the same franchises, they are able to create new and innovative ideas to use them with...Would the games be any different if it didn't star a known Nintendo mascot? The only change I could see is less sales...So cut the crap on the sequels argument...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 17, 2004, 08:09:25 AM
Not true. You've just never seen me in a situation where Nintendo was consistently doing everything right. When they were doing that internet access was obscure.
Plus I was actually quite optimistic about the Cube between Spaceworld 2000 and E3 2001. I thought the Cube had a lot of potential. Then they started making lots of decisions that had me saying "hmmm, I'm not sure about that" and then I had the displeasure of seeing my concerns turn into legimate issues. That sort of negative pattern can wear down a man's patience. It was around when Super Mario Sunshine's commericial was aired that I started getting a "can't these guys do anything right?" attitude.I'll agree that no matter what I'm going to be offering criticism but that doesn't mean I'm never satisfied. Nothing's perfect so I'm always going to be suggesting ways to improve. That doesn't mean I'm not satisfied. I'm actually quite satisfied with Nintendo's E3 showing. It's just after the initial high wore off I noticed a negative trend that if continued could lead to me being dissatisfied. It's not so much that I've discovered a problem but rather a potential one.
