not sure how Swords & Soldiers and Scam Kitty being Indies has anything to do with this
Indie games are smaller experiences, so they're not enough of an incentive to buy an entire console unless there's a lot of them. And I can get most of the ones I want on PC anyway.
They are still quality titles when you said the Wii U doesn't have any. And while they may not be system sellers to you, they could be to someone else. A few indies sprinkled in with a quality AAA or two is enough for most people.
@Bolt_Strike
I don't think you know what the word rehash means. It's particularly absurd with regard to Rainbow Curse: there quite literally hasn't been a game like it since Canvas Curse released on the DS 10 years ago.
(verb) put (old ideas or material) into a new form without significant change or improvement.
(noun) a reuse of old ideas or material without significant change or improvement.
Looking at this definition, I'd only consider a game a rehash if...say...Nintendo released Ocarina of Time on the Wii U. For $60. Full retail release. But they didn't change anything from the original N64 version. Same visuals. Same features. Same everything. No Miiverse integration or GamePad use (whatsoever).
Differences between Tropical Freeze and Returns: It has underwater levels, new camera angles in certain sections, Dixie and Cranky as playable characters, a brand new villain, and the ability to pluck things from out of the ground.
Another hack and slash game that I have no interest in.
...What do you mean by "I have no interest in"? Are you saying you haven't played it? If you haven't played it, you can't really say anything about it.
Funny you should mention that, because from what I've heard...er...read on these forums, you have not played that, so you kinda can't say anything about it.
In some ways, the overall game structure and plot tends to stay the same from game to game. But Pokemon stands out because they constantly build on the battle mechanics, they've added some neat things to the experience like breeding, abilities, new types, Mega Evolution, etc. that actually create a new experience.
I'm losing interest in Pokemon for a different reason though, it's suffering too much from mobile mentality and the game is become very stripped down and idiot proof.
(verb) put (old ideas or material) into a new form without significant change or improvement.
(noun) a reuse of old ideas or material without significant change or improvement.
Looking at this definition, I'd only consider a game a rehash if...say...Nintendo released Ocarina of Time on the Wii U. For $60. Full retail release. But they didn't change anything from the original N64 version. Same visuals. Same features. Same everything. No Miiverse integration or GamePad use (whatsoever).
You have a very loose definition of what a significant change or improvement entails, as most of these aspects of the game aren't terribly significant. A significant change would be something that changes the main gameplay, a twist on an established formula if you will. If you're playing the game the same way on one game as you are on the sequel, it's not really significantly changed.
@NintendoFan64 Rehashing is largely on a conceptual level, if there's any significant changes to the gameplay it's usually highlighted through advertising and gameplay videos. We know that Sunshine is a different experience from 64 because we know that FLUDD is in the game and we can see it in action. We know that Galaxy is a different experience because we can see the planetoid level design. But 3D World? It's just Mario and friends running and jumping the exact same way they've been doing for almost a decade, there's no big twist being shown off.
Also, the entire point of a demo is to give you a taste of the game and convince you to buy it, so if the demo fails to deliver, it's not my fault for not wasting money on a game that I don't think I'll enjoy. This whole notion that you're not allowed to have an opinion on something without playing the full game needs to die, it's a pathetic attempt to discredit a valid argument against a particular game.
@Bolt_Strike: If you're going to have that tight of a definition of a rehash, then nearly every game is a rehash.
That would make Little Big Planet a rehash of the Super Mario Bros. formula.
Call of Duty a rehash of the Doom formula.
Mortal Kombat a rehash of Mortal Kombat...um...bad example.
I own a PS1, GBA, GBA SP, Wii (GCN), 360, 3DS, PC (Laptop), Wii U, and PS4.
I used to own a GBC, PS2, and DS Lite
@Bolt_Strike: I don't entirely agree with your last statement. A person who has yet to play a certain game, has the right to share their opinion on that game, but their opinion will based on a superficial understanding of the game. Their opinion will not be valued as highly as someone who has actually experienced the game first hand, and has actually taken the time to personally examine and play the game.
In a way, it's like judging a book based on its cover. Which is not something to exactly encourage, so others look down upon it.
@Bolt_Strike: I don't entirely agree with your last statement. A person who has yet to play a certain game, has the right to share their opinion on that game, but their opinion will based on a superficial understanding of the game. Their opinion will not be valued as highly as someone who has actually experienced the game first hand, and has actually taken the time to personally examine and play the game.
In a way, it's like judging a book based on its cover. Which is not something to exactly encourage, so others look down upon it.
That analogy doesn't work in this case. It's one thing when you're arbitrarily judging something that you haven't experienced before. It's another when it's something that you've had a similar experience with before, because then there needs to be some kind of difference to keep things entertaining.
@Bolt_Strike: I don't entirely agree with your last statement. A person who has yet to play a certain game, has the right to share their opinion on that game, but their opinion will based on a superficial understanding of the game. Their opinion will not be valued as highly as someone who has actually experienced the game first hand, and has actually taken the time to personally examine and play the game.
In a way, it's like judging a book based on its cover. Which is not something to exactly encourage, so others look down upon it.
That analogy doesn't work in this case. It's one thing when you're arbitrarily judging something that you haven't experienced before. It's another when it's something that you've had a similar experience with before, because then there needs to be some kind of difference to keep things entertaining.
Not really. The same principle can still apply to both. I won't say they're exactly the same, but the two principles are very similar in many aspects.
For example, as you have said you dislike the other games based on how they appear when shown (as you find them too similar to others and not innovative enough) and the same can be said books. Individuals can find books dull and repetitive based on how they portrayed. They may see them as basic copies of other books they have experienced with little difference. Of course they are different but the basic principle is still there.
The basic idea, is that individuals use basic knowledge and experiences to make a superficial judgment on a certain subject or topic, and in this case its books and games
@Bolt_Strike: I don't entirely agree with your last statement. A person who has yet to play a certain game, has the right to share their opinion on that game, but their opinion will based on a superficial understanding of the game. Their opinion will not be valued as highly as someone who has actually experienced the game first hand, and has actually taken the time to personally examine and play the game.
In a way, it's like judging a book based on its cover. Which is not something to exactly encourage, so others look down upon it.
That analogy doesn't work in this case. It's one thing when you're arbitrarily judging something that you haven't experienced before. It's another when it's something that you've had a similar experience with before, because then there needs to be some kind of difference to keep things entertaining.
Not really. The same principle can still apply to both. I won't say they're exactly the same, but the two principles are very similar in many aspects.
For example, as you have said you dislike the other games based on how they appear when shown (as you find them too similar to others and not innovative enough) and the same can be said books. Individuals can find books dull and repetitive based on how they portrayed. They may see them as basic copies of other books they have experienced with little difference. Of course they are different but the basic principle is still there.
The basic idea, is that individuals use basic knowledge and experiences to make a superficial judgment on a certain subject or topic, and in this case its books and games
That basic knowledge may be enough in some circumstances though. You can tell what a game does or does not do in terms of innovation by watching it, playing the game yourself does not give you some kind of dawning revelation about its content unless it has to do with controls. You can't do the same thing with books, the only way to get a feel for its content is to experience it first hand.
@Bolt_Strike: I don't entirely agree with your last statement. A person who has yet to play a certain game, has the right to share their opinion on that game, but their opinion will based on a superficial understanding of the game. Their opinion will not be valued as highly as someone who has actually experienced the game first hand, and has actually taken the time to personally examine and play the game.
In a way, it's like judging a book based on its cover. Which is not something to exactly encourage, so others look down upon it.
That analogy doesn't work in this case. It's one thing when you're arbitrarily judging something that you haven't experienced before. It's another when it's something that you've had a similar experience with before, because then there needs to be some kind of difference to keep things entertaining.
Not really. The same principle can still apply to both. I won't say they're exactly the same, but the two principles are very similar in many aspects.
For example, as you have said you dislike the other games based on how they appear when shown (as you find them too similar to others and not innovative enough) and the same can be said books. Individuals can find books dull and repetitive based on how they portrayed. They may see them as basic copies of other books they have experienced with little difference. Of course they are different but the basic principle is still there.
The basic idea, is that individuals use basic knowledge and experiences to make a superficial judgment on a certain subject or topic, and in this case its books and games
That basic knowledge may be enough in some circumstances though. You can tell what a game does or does not do in terms of innovation by watching it, playing the game yourself does not give you some kind of dawning revelation about its content unless it has to do with controls. You can't do the same thing with books, the only way to get a feel for its content is to experience it first hand.
In some circumstances, is the key phrase. At that point it depends heavily on the game or book. Just like games, nearly all books offer a summary and outline of their story (similar to how games show their gameplay and small details of their story). So like I said, it depends heavily on the book or game in question and how deep and detailed they are. Sometimes a simple understanding and judgment will suffice for more simple books and games, but when it comes to deeper and more enriched versions, then it won't be enough.
Similar to some games, some books can be so simple, that a basic understanding and overview will provide you all you need to know, and you will not have to experience to understand it. Although for more enriched books or games, a basic description and showing will only provide you with a portion of the overall knowledge and in that case you have to experience it to truly understand it. In the end, the same principle still applies to both, but It really depends on the subject you are judging in the first place.
wowwwwww. of all the crazy, absurd things this pokemon kid has said, smash 4 being a rehash was funniest. man, everyone WISHES it was a rehash! lol
Well to be fair, everyone plays Smash for the new fighters, stages, and items anyway so it doesn't matter as much if Smash is a rehash. But yeah, aside from adding Final Smashes in Brawl, when have they ever added anything new to Smash? So it's not going to convince you to buy a Wii U unless you already liked Smash in the first place.
@maggie478: I actually find it to be a step forward for Nintendo, at least in regards to catching up with the times. and becoming more open. As for the NX, we don't really know anything about it, so we can't be sure. Although Nintendo did say that the NX would be a separate thing from the Wii U, but we can't be certain until we know what it is.
I played a demo of Bayonetta 1. It was a boring hack and slash. Next.
Dude, way to throw yourself under the bus there. The thing is Bayonetta 2 is quite a lot better than the first one and having played the demo for Bayonetta 2? That game doesn't particularly demo well. Personally I wasn't really sold on the demo. It was fun but playing just that I kinda got the impression that it was just mashing buttons. But then I saw the reviews and the fact that you got two games in the box.... and figured why not?
One of my favourite games from last year if not my absolute favourite. In terms of recent games? One of the few games that I picked up and played nothing else until I finished it and then went back again for more. I'd put it up there with Arkham City, Tomb Raider 2013 and Assassin's Creed Black Flag. You can't judge that sort of game just from a demo. Especially not a demo of a previous game. It would be like saying that the next big Zelda can't be any good because you played 10mins of Twilight Princess. Zero credibility.
Bayonetta isn't particularly a family friendly title either. Although I personally see no appeal in the game, It would be blind of me to say it's not good when I never tried it.. however I don't see kids saying "Let's buy a wii u so I can play this mature game". It's a fun game for veterans who are mature, but nintendo's target audience, Children, are mostly just being pushed away.
3DS FC: 0774-5098-1425
Pokemon Sun IGN: Joe My Shinies
(User name changed in November 2016, MegaBeedrill)
Some random dude on Nintendo Life.
Toriel left for a while, so Freaky Fred took over her place!
Not changing this part of the signature until Nintendo announces Super Mario Sunshine 2.
[Started 10/31/15]
Forums
Topic: Wii U is safe from the NX!? Seems to be true
Posts 481 to 500 of 582
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.