Topic: IGN Game and Console of the Year

[Nephilim]

Why did you buy a gamecube then? early gen games looked pretty bad (other then melee), took 2 years for stunning games

[MarioAllStar]

Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
Why did you buy a gamecube then? early gen games looked pretty bad (other then melee), took 2 years for stunning games

Bill talked about potential in general, not just potential for good looking games. With Super Smash Bros. Melee and (I think) Pikmin coming out at launch, the GameCube did have good games availible from day one.

[Bloodworth]

LOL, what? Okami got it because Twilight Princess is "just another Zelda"?  Okami is a freaking Zelda clone.  Not that it isn't a great game, but c'mon.

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
LOL, what? Okami got it because Twilight Princess is "just another Zelda"?  Okami is a freaking Zelda clone.  Not that it isn't a great game, but c'mon.

Not to mention that Okami has you playing AS A WOLF BEAST!

I think the reason people went gaga over it was because of the graphical style and character design. Had it been done in a typical design, people would've dismissed it as a Zelda clone.

And this is further proof that you truly can't please people. When WW was released, they wanted a realistic Zelda and better gameplay. They made TP, and now people are bitching that its too much of the same...

[MaryJane]

You guys are so silly!

Twilight Princess is JUST another Zelda game!

Don't you remember turning into a wolf in the original Zelda? Or walking on ceilings Majora's Mask? One of my fondest memories is sword fighting on horseback in Link's Awakening. Water bombs and combining the arrows with bombs were both done in Ocarina of Time. And you'll remember the ball and chain from Wind Waker no doubt!

All Nintendo did was rehash ideas from older Zelda's, put them in a pot together and say HEY! HEY! HEY!(navi ) it's a new Zelda.

PFFFFT! Give me a break Nintendo, the next Wii Zelda better at least feature motion controls! Maybe that would set it apart from the rest.

[KnowsNothing]

Bomb arrows were in Link's Awakening, TP is old hat.

[segagamer12]

I dont get how everyone keeps saying theres one Zelda a generation, thats silly, SNES was the ONLY system to get JUST one Zelda. Or has everyone forgotten that?

Its funny how people keep saying its amazing that we got TWO Zelda this generation when we ALWAYS get two Zelda for every console except SNES.



I also think some people are putitng too muchn into IGNS reviews, which is a site I never visit anywyas so could careless.

Also regardless of sucess and whatnot the PS3 is still the most impressive systems wether you like it or not. Maybe it doenst impress you but I think thats alie fi you say it doesnt. YES as gamers we all care abot games and all that bS but that doesnt mean the systesm isnt impressive. Hell I HATE playstation but am still imnpressed by allit can do,. If your not then your lieing and thats the truth.


I hate PS as much as most people here, but its ignroant and stupid to sya its NOT impressive hardware. As a gamer i can mroe about games and so far it doenst have ANY that impress me besides graphics, so I agree with the not liking it based on games, but seriously you can not say its not impressive or powerfull or has no potential, and as mucha s we dont like to think about it, there is the real chance that it will get some great looking game everyone loves that will boost its sales.


thats my rant im done take care and have fun.

[SixthAngel]

Segagamer nobody said there is only one zelda game a generation.  I said you are lucky to get two and I think that is the way it is.

I don't hate Playstation, I just don't like the price that goes along with the ps3.  I am not impressed with any of the potential I have seen for the ps3 (or 360) as far as gaming goes.  It gives hd and better graphics.  What will the better graphics and hd let me do that current systems can't?  I can't think of anything.  The Wii hardware has the sensorbar and the motion sensing where I see the real potential to be.

On a side note I think a misspelling every once in a while is okay but why don't you type your posts in word or something with a spell check then copy and paste it.

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
Also regardless of sucess and whatnot the PS3 is still the most impressive systems wether you like it or not. Maybe it doenst impress you but I think thats alie fi you say it doesnt. YES as gamers we all care abot games and all that bS but that doesnt mean the systesm isnt impressive. Hell I HATE playstation but am still imnpressed by allit can do,. If your not then your lieing and thats the truth.


I hate PS as much as most people here, but its ignroant and stupid to sya its NOT impressive hardware. As a gamer i can mroe about games and so far it doenst have ANY that impress me besides graphics, so I agree with the not liking it based on games, but seriously you can not say its not impressive or powerfull or has no potential, and as mucha s we dont like to think about it, there is the real chance that it will get some great looking game everyone loves that will boost its sales.


thats my rant im done take care and have fun.

Am I supposed to read that or spell check it?

Anyway, XBox was the most impressive system last generation. It was so vastly superior to everything else out there that it's no wonder it completely conquered the entire industry within a year and left Sony and Nintendo in it's wake.

Oh.

That's right.

It didn't.

The whole point is these are games systems first and should be reviewed by a games site as such. Not as mega all-in-one hardware, which is apparently how IGN is looking at it. Right now, Wii has the most potential for games. Now do you see what I said there? I said potential in regards to games. Sure the PS3 is impressive but how is it impressive for games? What does it bring to the table besides making them look a little prettier than they did last year? The hardware, on it's own, has almost zero potential in regards to games. It definitely doesn't have any more than the 360. It's up to the developers to do something with the hardware, which just happens to be almost the exact same as it was last generation, and the generation before that. Same with the 360. What does it do besides make games look better than before?

If you still think the PS3 has more "potential" than the Wii and deserves to be recognized for it by a "games" site then you, and they as well, severely need to rethink your priorities. These are games systems after all, aren't they? And that's what makes this whole thing just that much more idiotic.

[Jin-X]

Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
Why did you buy a gamecube then? early gen games looked pretty bad (other then melee), took 2 years for stunning games

Rogue Squadron says high.

[Artimus]

The problem with the PS3 winning is that their reasons make no sense. They give it the award for best hardware, but so far the 360 trounces every single one of the PS3 games, even the newer version of last year's 360 games. Will it be more powerful in a couple years? Likely. But right now the 360 is kicking its butt. So all the PS3 has going for it is its potential as a powerful piece of hardware, and yet they claim they're ignoring 'potential' in giving the award. If you want to give a console an award for being most powerful than do so. But that's the equivalent of giving the XBOX console of the year when it launched, despite the PS2's success and (finally) superior library. It stinks of bias, it stinks of deceit.  There's no defense for the illogical and stupid.

[Sessha]

People seem to be thinking the PS3 is such a good game because of games being released in the later part's of 2007.  My friend has a PS3 and the only game he has now is Genji (Yeah it really is that bad) But the graphics seem to wow him the only good thing I've heard him say about it is "Look on some of the enemies armor there's reflection" The game looks nice but why should I care?  

RE and Twilight Princess showed that the gamecube could pump out some nice looking games.  If the Wii can produce things 2 to 3x better then that I am actually excited.  Graphics were never a selling point for me.  Earthbound was a pretty bad looking game when it was released.  But it was so damn cool.  

PS3 could have been a very nice choice this generation if they took out the Blueray player.  I think they really shot themselves in the foot with this.  It increases overall cost and what it brings to the table allienates a lot of potential PS3 buyers.  

And about potential I forgot because I haven't looked at an upcoming release for PS3 in a long time.  But the main 2 are MGS and FF.  Good games in their own right (I never got into MGS I was raised in an island in the east guess which one) But for people to spend $600 for it now is a little ridiculous.  It seems that Sony seems to have taken a stand that best graphics > everything.  You would think they would have looked at the PS2 and seen why that was a success.  

I can't see how with all of the bad press Sony recieved over PS3 that it recieved "____" of the year unless it was Tool of the year.  ok this kind of turned into a rant without my knowledge and falling in line with my other rants none of the facts are backed up and the spelling is atrocious.  Sorry for reading but you read it you can't unread it

[GoldenPhoenix]

I am not so sure I would even give the PS3 the hardware win (ignoring games for a second), yeah it has a bluray player, but what else? From what I understand it isn't really that much more graphically capable if any than the Xbox 360, even amongst all the fancy numbers, which may be attributed to its overly complex design. What does it really have besides bluray, HDMI outputs, and specs that may or may not mean anything (haven't people learned anything from PS2's overinflated spec sheet that didn't come close to fulfilling promises)? An online network that is a poor man's Xbox Live? A motion controller that was thrown together at the last minute which uses an outdated design? I'm sorry but I see NOTHING there that makes it the best hardware, it may have alot of extra stuff, but so far none of it seems to be coming together very well.  

[Kairon]

Actually... I'm sorta surprised that they didn't pick Gears of War. If I was a hardcore gaming site, I would've.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Ian Sane]

I am interested in Okami but I assume it is overrated for two reasons.

1. The people who really praise it usually come across as having a chip on their shoulder about Zelda.  So often Okami praise comes alongside Zelda bashing and usually it's really weak Zelda bashing, based on the weak storyline and such.  I generally don't get along with "story first" gamers.  They usually come across as pretentious jerks who will go crazy over some import-only dungeon crawler with really tedious gameplay and them skip over a true classic because the storyline is very basic but the gameplay is amazing.  Or there's a general bias against games people have actually heard of.  So when those gamers are all "Okami is the best ever" my instinct is to rolls my eyes.

2. It's a Zelda-clone.  I never like Zelda-clones.  They never seem to quite get it right.  They always try to "improve" things by making things more complex.  They don't realize that Zelda isn't just a real time RPG.  The design is really tight.  The reason there's no stats or tons of different equipment is because Zelda doesn't waste time.  It tries to make everything essential, so you can just play the game and enjoy it without thinking about what items to equip or whatever.  Nintendo games in general tend to avoid making things too complicated.  Few companies do this right so few do a Zelda-clone right.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Actually... I'm sorta surprised that they didn't pick Gears of War. If I was a hardcore gaming site, I would've.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Gears of War doesn't belong anywhere near Game of the Year in my opinion. I'd be willing to accept Oblivion, but nto Gears of War which I felt was severely overrated with a relatively shallow single player mode, with multiplayer being its main draw (which is not what game of the year should be).

[Adrock]

I played very little of Okami so I can't comment. However, Zelda didn't deserve Game of the Year either. I would have given it to Wii Sports.

[IceCold]

That, I can wholly agree with..

[Mario]

Wii Sports was also my GOTY

Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X

Quote
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
Why did you buy a gamecube then? early gen games looked pretty bad (other then melee), took 2 years for stunning games

Rogue Squadron says high.

Super Monkey Nads also crushes your balls.  

[JonLeung]

There isn't a new game console every year.  They could and should honour the PS3 later, if at all.

I say the Wii should've gotten Console of the Year for 2006 for a number of reasons - including a solid launch.  But since the PS3 didn't launch as well as anybody expected, I say save any praise for the PS3 for a year when they actually do act on their promises.

Any current console has the potential to be Console of the Year for 2007 (or 2008, or 2009, or 2010), but 2006 belongs to the Wii.  Or at least it's more deserving than the PS3, sheesh.

Maybe they wanted to be "fair" and give everyone the honour of Console of the Year for at least one year each generation, and they doubt the PS3 will last another year.  

[segagamer12]

Ok well I am sorry agian for that post, I posted a lot of posts that day while I was upset and forgot to go back and edit them all. I was really in a bad mood and wa ripping into everyone even those I agree with so I apologize.  Anywas i forgot what the point I was making again so Ill let it go. shitr just sucks for me right now so imma not all here anymore anyways.  

[TrueNerd]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
2. It's a Zelda-clone.  I never like Zelda-clones.  They never seem to quite get it right.  They always try to "improve" things by making things more complex.  They don't realize that Zelda isn't just a real time RPG.  The design is really tight.  The reason there's no stats or tons of different equipment is because Zelda doesn't waste time.  It tries to make everything essential, so you can just play the game and enjoy it without thinking about what items to equip or whatever.  Nintendo games in general tend to avoid making things too complicated.  Few companies do this right so few do a Zelda-clone right.

Okami gets it right. If you own a PS2, do yourself a favor and pick it up.

With that being said, I too have little comprehension as to why some people condemn TP for being just another Zelda but then turn around and praise Okami like it's the second coming. I don't like dissing Okami because it really is a fantastic game, but Twilight Princess does so many things better. Combat, gameplay variety, dungeon design, etc., it's just too much to give the nod to Okami unless you're purely looking at it from a visual style standpoint. However, Okami as GotY runner up seems pretty alright to me.