It's amusing to go back and look at what 3D platformers and adventure games looked like before SM64. Remember Jumping Flash? That came out in 1995 and received critical acclaim. People called that game innovative. Mindblowing. Stunning. Essential. It's easy to overlook how important Nintendo's early 3D games were because of just how widespread their influence actually is. Pretty much every modern 3D game except FPSs can trace a line directly back to SM64.
My god, that looks awful, it's very convoluted and disorienting. I'm glad we didn't see this catch on.
Anyway, I can forgive the early 3D era because the games it gave us were still fun in their own right, just not the same experience as previous 2D games (and they really haven't aged all that well, the graphics and controls are a tad rough). I really wish Nintendo would give this era a bit more attention, it's a shame that they're too busy milking nostalgia to bother.
@Bolt_Strike Many of those things are subjective, leaving their low point up to interpretation, but tackling the one thing in that list there can be no arguing about, if you were going to list any generation as Nintendo's weakest in sales, this would be it.
Of course, you're once again making a crack at games you haven't played, so once again, as someone who HAS played the games you're speaking of, this isn't Nintendo's lowest point in creativity. That one's actually probably the hardest to pin down, as nearly any generation you list is going to have some kind of rebuttal. Now, personally, I think the N64 was a low point in creativity, but people are bound to say new hardware, 3D gaming, SM64 and OoT and Mario Party and and and...
My point is, Nintendo's lowestpoint in creativity is still pretty high when compared with the rest of the industry, and if you'd take a moment to actually play a game instead of looking at the most basic of base mechanics, you'd know that.
@Pahvi That's my mistake. I generally associate the Neo Geo with Gex, but the only Gex I every played was on the 64. Thinking about it, Gex was 2D on the Neo Geo, wasn't he?
The Nintendo Nadir™ was the N64. Apart from SM64 and OoT, nothing worthwhile was done by 1st party. The only 3rd party presence to even speak of was Rare, and half of their games were meh too. The hardware was crap. The controller was crap. Massive step down from the SNES.
But even then, as a low point, it's pretty remarkable. Worthless hardware with a mostly worthless library, but SM64 and OoT changed the way video games were made forever, so even the crappy N64 was a worthwhile evil to unleash on the world.
Acceptable losses to create Mario 64, Ocarina, and of course Majora's Mask as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention teach devs how to make 3D games. You couldn't have had as good gamecube and PS2 games as there were if no one had fumbled into 3 dimensions on the last console generation.
@UGXwolf Gex wasn't on the Neo Geo to my (i.e. Wikipedia's) knowledge. Are you thinking of the 3DO or maybe the Sega Saturn?
Agh! My childhood beliefs are being ripped apart! falls to the ground But yeah, no, I swear I thought Gex was on the Neo Geo. Not Sega. Whatever. I was a child at the time. No money and only able to get one system (of which, I think I would've preferred a PSx, but I don't have any regrets over an N64, either.)
@Haru17 I suppose in terms of moving forward, you can consider it "acceptable losses," but a bad period is a bad period, no matter how you justify it.
A lot of the dispute originates from people just not caring about games or certain games anymore. That's how it looks to me, anyway. Wii U actually did have a few good 3rd party games when it came out. Sonic Racing, CoD Black Ops II, Tekken, 2K, and Madden were still notable releases, especially on a Nintendo system, when Wii's library had already basically told people that Nintendo wasn't going to get those games, then it did, and people still refused to care. Xbox One and PS4 were right around the corner, but no one actually knew what they would be doing, and the games it got on launch were all slightly enhanced ports, anyway, which is what Wii U got a year earlier so it just makes those people looked biased. This all coincides with the fact that 3rd parties were already focusing on ×86 architecture as a priority, because it's the majority, which people fail to realize that that that doesn't make a platform better, based on hardware.
With all that in mind, I understand the exclusive games is where most of the reason for buying a console comes from, but those games were BESIDE the games we knew were coming(like Pikmin, Rayman, a new Mario, etc.), people really didn't care for their own reasons. The same thing applies even more towards Xbox and PS, because they share the 3rd party library, and more people are still buying PS4 with 3rd party games still being at the top of the charts, and the software attach ratio still being relatively low for how many PS4s are out there, compared to other platforms.
@UGXwolf Except in this case, I'd say the period could be perceived "bad" only after the period had ended. The games at the time could have been considered top-notch even in technical respect, I think... (well, Majora's Mask launching the day PS2 did and a year after Dreamcast notwithstanding).
Second... "No money and only able to get one system" and you'd get a Neo Geo?
If I'd had a Neo Geo, I'd pribably have known Gex wasn't on it, so no. N64, mate.
Many of those things are subjective, leaving their low point up to interpretation, but tackling the one thing in that list there can be no arguing about, if you were going to list any generation as Nintendo's weakest in sales, this would be it.
Yeah, creativity and hype are fairly subjective. Although I do think that hype is one that many people can agree with, because of areas like sales, hardware, and software.
Of course, you're once again making a crack at games you haven't played, so once again, as someone who HAS played the games you're speaking of, this isn't Nintendo's lowest point in creativity.
What have they done to further their games? What kinds of new playstyles have they created? If you can't answer these kinds of questions, you're not being creative. Nintendo hasn't been doing this as much this gen as they have other gens, they've mainly been recycling the same gameplay styles.
That one's actually probably the hardest to pin down, as nearly any generation you list is going to have some kind of rebuttal. Now, personally, I think the N64 was a low point in creativity, but people are bound to say new hardware, 3D gaming, SM64 and OoT and Mario Party and and and...
I'm curious as to why you think this, because I don't see it. And yes, 3D was huge, it opened up new possibilities in gaming. Entire genres sprouted up with the dawn of 3D and several existing ones flourished. What I'm getting at is that this gen is a lot more stagnant than other gens, every other gen had some kind of technological innovation or simply came up with new gameplay styles. With this gen we're not really seeing much of either.
My point is, Nintendo's lowestpoint in creativity is still pretty high when compared with the rest of the industry, and if you'd take a moment to actually play a game instead of looking at the most basic of base mechanics, you'd know that.
Ya, but they focus on gameplay over graphics, because then the game is actually challenging and works well. They can always make the graphics better later. That's why a game like Second Son isn't that impressive, because there's not enough going on in the actual game, but the graphics are good. The framerate being 30FPS is already cutting out half of what you could potentially see by default, compared to 60FPS. I would say Second Son is almost literally like playing a PS1 game, except graphics. It really all just depends. Even CoD compared to Killzone is like gameplay/graphics vs. creativity/graphics. Killzone has a bit better graphics and environments, but CoD debatably has the better gameplay, so now there is a choice of which you actually prefer more.
Those are the types of barriers in choosing a console that actually exist. Killzone has better graphics than Halo, but Halo is going to be the more complicated game. That's why I have an Wii U and Xbox One over PS4, because like my other example, W101 already beats Knack, and I know because I've actually played them and made a decision.
Assymetrical multiplayer, Co-op or competitive, has been this generation's major step forward. Nintendo is one if the ones taking this step. With the exception of massively competitive titles like Smash and Mario Kart, you can see a clear attempt at making gameplay less symetrical. Nintendoland, New Super Mario Bros. U and even ZombiU all experimented with this type of coarse asymmetric gameplay. Sometimes even pushing the players to be playing what is essentially two completely different games. 3D Workd also plays with a more fine asymmetric pseudo-competitive co-op style that encourages certain characters to use their advantages to ensure they get the most points each level. Since two people can't play the same character, you force an asymmetric situation in which Mario will take longer to reach this star than Luigi, but he can't get this stamp that's been placed in a Luigi-biased course to give Mario a fighting chance. Meanwhile, other games experiment with Nintendo's vastly improved online to bring experiences and capabilities other than online multiplayer, such as online replays to help you learn better and faster ways to play a level. (And considering the game encourages use of this function and this mode, you can't say nobody cares about that.) Rayman Legends and DKCTF both do this. On top of that, Nintendoms been experimenting with DLC, this generation and bloody well been knocking it iut of the park, thus far. Content is rarely available at launch, as Nintendo still focuses on making complete games and their DLC, rather than shaking players down for more money legitimately seems to extend the life of a game. And free-to-start games (aside from Poke'mon Shuffle) have mostly been a non-intrusive deal. Even just having that second screen for inventory or a map does an insane amount to improve gameplay. Game & Wario is nothing if not a game full of experimentation and the ability to connect up to eight controllers at a time hasn't exactly been predominantly featured on any other systems (and no, that's not just Smash. Runbow coming out on the eShop will also feature up to nine-player games. And have you seen the Amiibo? NFC may not be new, nor is the idea of Toys-to-Life, but the idea of owning a figurine that nit only looks cool, but unlocks cool stuff in the games you also own! Now that's something. They're making the Amiibo to work with more than just one game each. They're even making them more than just statues.
Meanwhile, the N64 added 3D and... Ummm... Uhhhhh.......... See what I mean? The games may have looked and played differently, but at the end of the day, they were mostly doing what they had to in irder to make those IP work in 3D. Nintendo had much better success at this than just about anyone else, but that's more cleverness than creativity. Heck, do you know how ofteb an idea fir a game was too ambitious for the system and they had to scale it back? The N64 didn't really allow for the creative freedom the Wii U does. To the point that they upgraded it twice (Memory Pak and 64DD) amd still came up with ideas too big for the system. (Animal Crossing had to he remade for the Wii U, and Ura Zelda STILL never happened.)
Ya, but they focus on gameplay over graphics, because then the game is actually challenging and works well. They can always make the graphics better later. That's why a game like Second Son isn't that impressive, because there's not enough going on in the actual game, but the graphics are good. The framerate being 30FPS is already cutting out half of what you could potentially see by default, compared to 60FPS. I would say Second Son is almost literally like playing a PS1 game, except graphics. It really all just depends. Even CoD compared to Killzone is like gameplay/graphics vs. creativity/graphics. Killzone has a bit better graphics and environments, but CoD debatably has the better gameplay, so now there is a choice of which you actually prefer more.
Those are the types of barriers in choosing a console that actually exist. Killzone has better graphics than Halo, but Halo is going to be the more complicated game. That's why I have an Wii U and Xbox One over PS4, because like my other example, W101 already beats Knack, and I know because I've actually played them and made a decision.
Second Son would never be possible on the PSX. Those powers in a large enviroment with many and sometimes very large opponents just wasn't possble back then. It would be hard enough to pull off in a one on one fighting game on PSX. Technically any game would be possible on PS1, N64 or another fully 3D capable console if only it had infinite processing power and memory.
COD doesn't have better gameplay than Killzone, just faster. Halo's isn't much more complicated, it just has larger scale enviroments and vehicles. All three games play to their own strengths. They're all different and good enough to prefer one on the style of gameplay, not gameplay quality or graphics. You sound like a Sony basher here.
@SuperWiiU
I understand, but those other factors are still about graphics. How far you can see is still graphics, and not the core gameplay. The graphics affect the gameplay in that way, but on a smaller scale, the gameplay is still pretty weak. That is just what I think. I can just as easily say Titanfall is a more advanced game than Killzone, based on the Titans alone, and it's impossible to dispute, because Killzone doesn't have Titans, obviously. The Titans being included already advanced the gameplay options ten fold, and Killzone doesn't really have anything to level the gameplay. There is a such thing as simpler games, and I feel like that's what PS4 has.
It's the same reason Ironfall on 3DS sucks. Gears of War already beat it back in 2005, so I might as well play that, even if I have to play it on Xbox 360. That's just how it goes. It's the same reason why I'd rather play Tekken Tag Tournament 2 on Wii U, instead of Killer Instinct on Xbox One. I just think they are worse games, period. Some of it is opinion, and some of it is not.
@SuperWiiU
I understand, but those other factors are still about graphics. How far you can see is still graphics, and not the actual gameplay. The graphics affect the gameplay in that way, but on a smaller scale, the gameplay is still pretty weak. That is just what I think. I can just as easily say Titanfall is a more advanced game than Killzone, based on the Titans alone, and it really isn't disputable, because Killzone doesn't have Titans, obviously. The Titans being included already advanced the gameplay options ten fold, and Killzone doesn't really have anything to level the gameplay. There is a such thing as simpler games, and I feel like that's what PS4 has.
It's the same reason Ironfall on 3DS sucks. Gears of War already beat it back in 2005, so I might as well play that, even if have to play it on Xbox 360. That's just how it goes. It's the same reason why I'd rather play Tekken Tag Tournament 2 on Wii U, instead of Killer Instinct on Xbox One. I just think they are worse games, period. Some of it is opinion, and some of it is not,
Kill.Switch on PS2 and Xbox already beat Ironfall back in 2003.
Titans are basically a vehicle or another character class you shoot at. It may look fancy and technical, but it's not really that advanced. Killzone also has all kinds of options to how your character plays making it more advanced than just point and shoot. And Titanfall isn't on PS4 just because MS forked some money over to EA. Titanfall 2 is coming to PS4 in all likelihood.
@UGXwolf Except in this case, I'd say the period could be perceived "bad" only after the period had ended. The games at the time could have been considered top-notch even in technical respect, I think...
Yeah, I skipped the N64 entirely and didn't play many games from that era. My brother had a Playstation, I had a SNES and then around 2000 I moved on to PC. But I distinctly remember going to the shops in the mid-90s as a massive fan of Super Mario Kart. Seeing Mario Kart 64 and being blown away by the fact that there were actually proper jumps, tunnels and shortcuts in Mario Kart....
No idea why, I had a copy of Stunt Race FX. But it was impressive at the time.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
Yeah, I skipped the N64 entirely and didn't play many games from that era. My brother had a Playstation, I had a SNES and then around 2000 I moved on to PC. But I distinctly remember going to the shops in the mid-90s as a massive fan of Super Mario Kart. Seeing Mario Kart 64 and being blown away by the fact that there were actually proper jumps, tunnels and shortcuts in Mario Kart....
Weird, I felt the opposite. I sank hundreds of hours into Super Mario Kart. It's one of my favorite games of all time. Mario Kart 64 though... just did nothing for me, for whatever reason. I didn't enjoy it half as much as SMK. Double Dash was a huge improvement.
Which can be said about most of the N64's library, really. Almost every "good" game has a better sequel on Gamecube, and yet the SNES library is still upheld as one of, if not the best of all time.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Forums
Topic: Why is the Wii U's library so lauded?
Posts 201 to 220 of 308
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.