Originally posted by Stigandr
Originally posted by cpubasic13
You act as though that game still has merit today.
Name another game from that time that you believe does have merit. I'm honestly curious about what manages to live up to your lofty standards.
And, yes, "that time" is an important part of this.
Not saying it didn't change gaming in a drastic way, but there is no way a game like that holds the test of time. Same with Ocarina of Time. Clunky, chunky, and not really that visually pleasing while also slow as hell thanks to the limitations of the console itself when the other current consoles able to push more. The Nintendo 64 was, yes, a horrible system, both in the game library and in the hardware specifics. Were there some good games? Yes. Are those games, played on the same system or recreated, still good? Not as much. You can see all the flaws in the game that would hinder one's enjoyment of the game, and sure enough even recreations don't even bother to address these issues, instead keeping the game the way it was without fixing the problems it had in the first place. The controller was also the biggest mess ever.
And I'm not dodging your answer. Really, a lot of the games made in that time were quite mediocre at best, but yes they were good for their times mostly because limitations were being lifted and more could have been done. Now, with more options available and nearly no limits to what can be developed, these games simply do not work as well anymore. Those old 2D games? Oh yeah those can still do good because they don't try to push the boundaries of a current time but try to keep simplistic yet fresh using these pushed limits to their advantage, therefore keeping it nice and easy for anyone of any age at any time to jump into. To give examples: Tomba (2D platformer with 3D elements to keep the game simple for anyone but deep enough to keep players enthralled to see what is next), Yoshi's Story (very unique art style gives the game more life by giving the characters personality and a pleasing, rewarding gameplay mechanic to keep it all together), Eihander (extremely fun schmup with many ways to play, plenty of enemies to shoot, and a visual style that looks wonderful and smooth).
Also, to add to my point, Super Mario 64's core gameplay was not only applied to MANY video games (ranging from Banjo Kazooie to Psychonauts to a bunch of licensed video games based on TV shows and movies) but it was applied to Super Mario Sunshine (with a twist that kept it interesting and presented a new kind of game) AND then applied more to Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 (both with many vast improvements over 64 in terms of presentation, level flow, and just overall immersion into the game). To add to this, each of the games have pretty much the same storyline, so that won't help 64 much. As such, 64 is not a game to continue praising beyond being one of the first 3D platformers that revolutionized how 3D platformers worked.
Also, please quit being a dick about people who have different opinions than you. I would appreciate it, and I'm sure the rest of us also would.
I'm not being a dick to people that have different opinions from me. I'm being a dick to people that believe nostalgia automatically makes a game better and therefore jumps right up to defend Nintendo for whatever bullshit they pull yet criticize every other game for doing the same shit without proving their opinion AND not contradicting themselves.
I'll give even more examples about this: Zelda.
Ocarina of Time was good for its time but it was slow, chunky, and not a game you could play over and over. The characters weren't as alive as they could have been either, making it hard to keep interested in character development. Next was Majora's Mask which, while I did not really like, did present a gimmick that kept it quite interesting to always try out no matter what is currently out on the market, as most games with an in-game time limit tend to not do so well (hello, Dead Rising, how are you?). It also had a wider cast of characters, a proper direction, so that you would care about each person in the game rather than pass them off.
Then you have Windwaker, which turned the seriousness of the N64 games and gave it a much vibrant makeover, giving each of the characters wonderful personalities that made even the NPCs stand out from everyone else. Even the enemies had such a lively personality that it was hard NOT to enjoy interacting with them. The sailing gimmick gave the sense of exploration a very rewarding feel to it as you go from island to island to see what treasures and people each one has. This style of Zelda is still the most vibrant and lively of the bunch, with Minish Cap keeping such vibrant characters.
Then Twilight Princess happened. It went back to OoT roots, and as such the characters just didn't pop out and the environments didn't seem all too interesting. Skyward Sword I haven't seen much of but if it meshes the Windwaker style and Twilight Princess style, it could stand out on its own... in terms of presentation.
Now if we are to talk gameplay from one to another... oh boy. OoT is still clunky. Majora's Mask was basically similar, but the mask play kept it interesting and the in-game time made things a lot more intriguing and frustrating, a good mix. Windwaker brought about exploration again and rewarded you for doing so, making each sail to the islands worth it. The end game, while it may seem monotonous, encouraged you to try exploring while you do your objectives. Minish Cap also did this with the Kinstones, by the way. Controls for these games tended to stay the same, making it easy to jump in and not worry too much about complexities.
Then you have Spirit Tracks, the trainwreck that forces the touch screen gimmick upon you and completely makes the game frustrating. Twilight Princess had the Wiimote gimmick, which is also quite stupid. We could have gotten that the Wiimote can be used as a sword as demonstrated by other games released around that time such as Red Steel, so a Zelda game pushing this on players made it quite annoying. Skyward Sword looks like it will push the Wiimote gimmick again, and trust me that it will to the point that playing the game becomes a chore.
However, everything I'm saying is going right above your head, right? How dare I attack Nintendo, the company we all grew up on, when they made such great games and continue to do so? Except their games aren't really as good as they could be due to their insatiable appetite to throw in gimmicks all over the place because it sells. Even Donkey Kong Country Returns was not as good as it could be thanks to the motion control being added, making it quite unnatural to do a basic god damn roll. I loved that game, by the way. I just hated that and that was a big problem.
If you think I'm just attacking Nintendo, think again. A lot of game series that continue keep fucking up to try and sell more to a massive audience for a gimmick rather than presenting a game without anything tacked on. Forza 4 just came out and the Kinect feature is only accessible in two game modes, one which isn't even a race mode, and it doesn't provide as much entertainment as using a normal controller. Move support for the Sly Cooper Collection is literally just minigames, so it was completely unnecessary. Deus Ex: Human Revolution ended up with less commands on even the PC version just to cater to the console crowd.
If you think I'm applying to just modern games, hahaha think again. Sonic 3 has one of the worst game design choices in Carnival Night Zone. You know what I'm talking about already. A game mechanic not described in-game nor in the manual is by far a HORRIBLE design decision.
Wow this is a long post.
____________________
|
|  |
|
