Printable View
Well its a Sim game yes, but like with a Flight Sim or a War game sim , its never a true complete 100% sim, it be just too dull and next to impossible to play for most people . If one wanted a 100% realistic Driving sim it would be incredibly boring to play for the most part and they'll be far less breaking at the last minute for startersQuote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
I know, whenever my opinion and yours differ, yours is the correct one, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
... No, that's not how it works.
Talking about overrating games, though... that's some overrating right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
This is true on consoles, almost always, but not on PCs -- there have been attempts to do as-realistic-as-is-possible racing games on the PC, and there is a market for them too. The same goes for flight sims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Heh... too bad, the game definitely needed some more testing. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
Yeah, World probably is the most popular game of the three. Exotica was my favorite, though... but both World and Exotica are definitely better than USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiespruce
Hillbilly? I don't know if it's that, just... Americana? Designed to be popular with the mass American audience? Well, it worked. You STILL sometimes see Cruis'n series arcade machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarMist
I'm sure that the average Playstation fan was just as likely overall to be 13-15 and have the PS1 as their first system as the N64 fan is. I don't think your stereotype there is true as broadly as you say, but to whatever degree it is true, it applies to both systems, certainly not just the N64.Quote:
Remember how I opened this?That's what I meant by 'handmedown', that "this is old so it's crap" mentality which certainly does prevail over retro enthusiasm. Also, the 32 bit era is famous for expanding the avg gamer's age upwards; not all of that new demographic was 20 year olds. 3D made a huge difference to the casual not-yet-a-gamer populace, enticing people whom the 8/16 bit world of 2D had never captivated to buy or have bought for them a gaming machine. Did these become the majority? Well I never suggested so. Furthermore, as you can read, I stated the N64 is primarily championed by people who were 15 and under when they got it as their first system, which was never to say 80% of them were 15 with only the leftover 20% being younger.
Cute? I guess it's cute, yeah, but it's also funny, self-referential, and laughs at plenty of Mario series humor, while also repeating those same themes... it's good stuff, the writing's great. :)Quote:
@ A Black Falcon and Paper Mario = Nintendo does cute very well. I can stand cute fairly well. Paper Mario crosses the line and keeps on going into Teletubby land. It may play very well etc but the story and dialogue just make me want to bean Miyamoto with a copy of Super Mario Brothers. Story and dialogue faults are my biggest turnoffs in RPGs, so there you are.
The original Paper Mario didn't bombard the player with too much writing from what I remember. Super Paper Mario on Wii needed to shut up with the text and let you play more. I loved the N64 game as it was balanced nicely but lost interest while playing the sequels.
Cruis'n, on the other hand, got a bit better with each sequel.
It's not just my opinion. The general consensus is that Rogue Leader is the best of those Star Wars games, while Battle for Naboo is the weakest offering. I'd thought I hadn't even played Battle for Naboo, until I started watching youtube videos of it. The game wasn't that memorable for me and once I saw the speeder battle on Naboo, I started to remember how horrible I thought that level was. I had my N64, Playstation and Dreamcast stolen @ 2001. I replaced Rogue Squadron, but pretty much never had Battle for Naboo on my radar.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Rogue Leader a 9.4
Rogue Squadron 8.0
Rogue Squadron III 7.8
Battle for Naboo 6.4
As far as racing games go, S.F. Rush 2049 was alright (played it on the DC), but I wouldn't consider it anywhere near the likes of F-Zero X, F-Zero GX, Burnout: Takedown, Gran Turismo 2, Forza 3, or Daytona USA.
There's nothing wrong with loving the N64, it's got some great games, but sometimes you just have to take the blinders off realize there are better games out there in the same genres. And get yourself some Burning Rangers, it's miles better than those mediocre Bug games. ;)
Seriously! I don't know what the licensing/vendor arrangements are, but it seems like whenever I see a random video game in a laundromat or highway rest area, there's at least a 50% chance that it'll either be (1) a Cruis'n series game, (2) a Ms. Pac-Man/Galaga combo unit, or (3) actually some sort of gambling, sports trivia, or whatever-those-things-are machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Nobody cares what Gamespot rates anything, I swear I've never come across a set of professional reviews more random and all over the place than Gamespot's, thats for all systems, their Saturn reviews are terrible as well, its like they just pick numbers out of a hat.
IGN has
1. Rogue Leader - 9.2
2. Battle For Naboo - 9.0
3. Rogue Squadron - 8.8
4. Rebel Strike - 8.3
I'd go along with that, as far as I was concerned Rebel Strike seemed the least polished, most unfinished feeling, and most tired of the four games, the 2-player Rogue Leader was that game's saving grace IMO.
Yeah, for quite a few years after Midway left the arcade business in 2000-2001 I still often saw as many Midway arcade machines as everything else in places with a few arcade games, and Williams and Bally/Bally Midway still dominate most places that have pinball games; it's either their stuff or Stern tables, usually.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenband
(Oh, and yes, Williams and Bally-Midway were not always the same company, so they are separate, but they were closely tied for a long time.)
I belive that the Cruis'n games might be the best selling arcade games ever in the US, so given how many of them are out there, it's not too surprising that some are still in place... but yeah, I agree with you about what you usually see.
(Oh, and if it's a racing game that's not Cruis'n... well, there's a solid likelihood that it'll be one of Raw Thrills' three Fast & The Furious games, which of course are Cruis'n games in all but name, with the exact same gameplay as the original three. The first one of those three is of course the game ported to the Wii as the too content-light, but unfairly-maligned, Cruis'n.)
No, it is mostly just your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
First, that's a review of the PC version of BfN, not the N64 version. The N64 original got universally higher scores. Here's the N64 BfN review from Gamespot. It got a 7.3 -- still far too low, but not quite as terrible as you made it sound.Quote:
The general consensus is that Rogue Leader is the best of those Star Wars games, while Battle for Naboo is the weakest offering. I'd thought I hadn't even played Battle for Naboo, until I started watching youtube videos of it. The game wasn't that memorable for me and once I saw the speeder battle on Naboo, I started to remember how horrible I thought that level was. I had my N64, Playstation and Dreamcast stolen @ 2001. I replaced Rogue Squadron, but pretty much never had Battle for Naboo on my radar.
Rogue Leader a 9.4
Rogue Squadron 8.0
Rogue Squadron III 7.8
Battle for Naboo 6.4
http://www.gamespot.com/star-wars-ep...review-2668574
Despite that though, all you've proven is that Gamespot was entirely wrong about BfN, and under-rated RSIII too. You can show that from those links at least, but not too much more.
I mean, you are right that the general consensus is that RSII is the best game in the franchise, sure, but I'm not so sure about the rest of that. BfN was somewhat overlooked, but not because of anything to do with its quality -- instead, it was two things. First, Episode I wasn't as popular as the original series, and BfN is an Ep. 1 game. Episode I Racer the previous year had been successful, but that's probably the one really successful Ep. 1 game. But even more of a problem, the game was a late 2000 release on the N64, and by that point most people were mostly paying attention to the PS2, not the last-gen N64... that's unfortunate though, because it's got some of the best graphics ever for the N64, and great gameplay as well that takes RS1 and improves on it.
Fortunately, not everyone under-rated BfN. Even if Gamespot seriously under-rated it there with their too-low 7.3 score, not all others agreed. Of course, any review site gives overly-low review scores sometimes -- just look at any of Gamespot's Gauntlet Legends or Dark Legacy series reviews, they're atrociously biased against the games -- but still, that's just stupid-low. IGN gave it a 9, a much more accurate score, and one slightly higher than their Rogue Squadron 1 score was (which is accurate, as BfN is a slightly better game.). http://ign64.ign.com/objects/010/010461.html
Oh, IGN gave the PC version of BfN a 7.5. I haven't played it, but as I said, it's considered to be a quick port. I do have the first RS for the PC, RS3D, and it was pretty good, but I can see how a game releasing a couple of years later, but with pretty much identical graphics, would get criticized... by early 2001 when that game came out, N64 graphics were certainly dated as far as PC games were concerned. OF course they were even back in 1998, but at that point it was much easier to upscale an N64 game and have it look decent on a PC; by '01, that wasn't good enough anymore, I think.
Anyway, for comparison, IGN gave Rogue Squadron 1 an 8.8, Rogue Leader a 9.1, and RSIII (Rebel Strike) an 8.3. I'd rank RSIII a bit higher than that, but overall IGN's scores are in the right ballparks, mostly.
As for RSIII, all the negative press it got somewhat cooled me on the game, but when I did play it, I was very pleasantly surprised -- it's a very good game, much better than it's generally regarded as being. I mean, sure, RSII is a great game, but as a complete package, RSIII is at least as good or better. It's got more content, more variety, a full two player only co-op version of RSII included, versus multiplayer modes, and more... sure, the on-foot parts are simplistic, but the other 80% plus of the game is great. I really liked that game, it was quite a bit better than I was expecting, considering the mediocre reviews.
GT2 and Forza of course I have minimal interest in at the absolute most. Daytona USA's a great game, but I do like the Rush games even more. As for F-Zero though, that's the closest...Quote:
As far as racing games go, S.F. Rush 2049 was alright (played it on the DC), but I wouldn't consider it anywhere near the likes of F-Zero X, F-Zero GX, Burnout: Takedown, Gran Turismo 2, Forza 3, or Daytona USA.
There's nothing wrong with loving the N64, it's got some great games, but sometimes you just have to take the blinders off realize there are better games out there in the same genres. And get yourself some Burning Rangers, it's miles better than those mediocre Bug games. ;)
Indeed, I went back and forth for several years between Rush 2049, Wipeout 64, and F-Zero X, back after getting all three in 1999-2001, about which one was the best. At first I thought F-Zero X was the better game, but over time, I realized that I'd stopped playing F-Zero X after beating all of the circuits, but I was still playing Rush 2049... and was still playing it regularly a year after that... and after that. It's one of my most frequently returned to games, ever; could be the most, period. Yeah, it became quite obvious which one was the better game.
As for Wipeout 64, I still have a hard time deciding between Wipeout 64 and F-Zero X, for the N64's second-best futuristic racing game... it's one of the two of them for sure, but which one? When you have two games that are that great, it's tough to decide. :) On a similar note, of course F-Zero X is an exceptional game, and series -- I have such a hard time deciding between F-Zero, F-Zero X, and F-Zero GX that I like to cheat and simply say that the three of them are all equal... :)
Anyway, loving Rush 2049 is not blinders. As I said, Rush The Rock is my favorite arcade racing game, too -- I simply think that the Rush series has better gameplay than any other racing game franchise I've ever played, hands down. There's been nothing like it this generation, sadly... far too many realistic racing games, and while some of the other ones are good, none seriously approach Rush's greatness.
Oh, and Bug! isn't mediocre, it's good. It's way too hard, but otherwise is a pretty interesting attempt at a platformer in 3d in 1995. I do think Bug Too! needed 3d controller support, though... it released in late 1996, and has many more open areas than the first game, but doesn't have analog support. It is kind of annoying.
To be fair, IGN isn't really any more reputable than Gamespot.
I added something to my last post -- Gamevet linked the PC review of BfN, not the N64 review. Gamespot gave BfN for the N64 a 7.3, not a 6.4. IGN had a similar disparity -- 9.0 on N64, 7.5 on N64. I explain more about why there was such a difference in my edit. It WAS still too low, though.
As for IGN in general I agree that they're far from reliable, but in this case they were about right. RSIII excepted of course. :)
I've found IGN to be virtually always on the money actually, one of the most consistently reliable sources of reviews I've run into. Only with the recent generation have I started to disagree with large numbers of their reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry coeurl
As I've said before, Gamespot's reviews are ridiculous, if you looked at the average for game ratings across multiple professional reviews, Gamespots ratings would not correlate at all, they gave Virtual On 5.4, they gave Powerslave/Exhumed 5.4, Saturn Quake a 6.4, Dark Saviour 6.7 Burning Rangers 6.8, Dead or Alive 6.8 etc
I don't think IGN is any better, as a matter of fact, they seem to inflate the scores to please the advertisers. Gamespot isn't much better, but calling out one site, is like the pot calling the kettle black. Do you honestly believe Battle for Naboo is anywhere near as good as Rogue Leader?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenewguy
The only part of Rebel Strike that I didn't like was the weak on-foot missions; those felt out of place. The space battles were pretty epic though. The game also included the vector based Star Wars and Empire Strikes back arcade games, as well as the arcade game Return of the Jedi. It had a lot of added content.
The Battle for Naboo had too many ground battles for my taste and once the flight battles started, they weren't any more impressive looking (or better designed) than Rogue Squadron; they weren't better by any means.
So, what does that tell you about the N64 reviews?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I didn't intend to link the PC reviews, they were even shown as N64 reviews in the header, but somehow ended up covering the PC version.
Yeah, it is at least near as good. I was impressed by both BfN in late 2000, and RS2 in late 2001, but apart from the graphics (where, as good as BfN looks for the N64, obviously it's no competition for RS2), I think the N64 games hold up well. I was actually kind of disappointed by the gameplay of the GC games in a few ways, actually. First, the graphics are so, so good, but the gameplay's as simplistic as ever; I'd have loved to see something with those graphics, but gameplay more like TIE Fighter/X-Wing... sadly it was never to be. :( I think the better graphics helped make the simplistic gameplay stand out even more. Second, while the targeting computer feature was really useful at times, overall I'm not sure that I liked it, and then you'd get used to it, only to learn that to get a decent medal you have to use it a lot less... argh. Also, RS2 felt short, shorter than either N64 game. It took me less time to finish, I'm pretty sure. Of course it does have bonus missions, just like both previous games, and they're hard to unlock too of course, but still, the main game's a bit short I thought... you could tell that they hadn't had much time to develop the game. That is, as you say, an issue they quite decisively solved in RS3. All the added content was quite welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Really, overall I love all four games. It's a fantastic series, with outstanding gameplay beginning to end. I was quite unhappy to see Factor 5 go under, Turrican and Rogue Squadron/BfN are both such great serieses... :(
True. I liked the ground vehicle missions too, like the walker and speeder bike missions, though -- the flying ones weren't the only good parts.Quote:
The only part of Rebel Strike that I didn't like was the weak on-foot missions; those felt out of place. The space battles were pretty epic though. The game also included the vector based Star Wars and Empire Strikes back arcade games, as well as the arcade game Return of the Jedi. It had a lot of added content.
The ground missions are fine, often quite fun, and the whole game is significantly more impressive looking than RS1, not just the flying missions or something. The game has better graphics (RS1 on the N64 looks somewhat poor in comparison), more variety, great missions, plenty of challenge, and more.Quote:
The Battle for Naboo had too many ground battles for my taste and once the flight battles started, they weren't any more impressive looking (or better designed) than Rogue Squadron; they weren't better by any means.
Did you not read my explanation for why it was like that, or something, or are you just trying more baseless N64-bashing?Quote:
So, what does that tell you about the N64 reviews?
I didn't intend to link the PC reviews, they were even shown as N64 reviews in the header, but somehow ended up covering the PC version.
I mean, seriously, of course a port of an N64 game was going to look seriously graphically dated on the PC in March 2001, when that port released!
Yeah, I read your comments, but the reviewer's problem with the game wasn't so much the graphics, but the game as a whole. The N64 version gets too much of a pass, considering the content it has to offer. The N64 game also gets a hike for its graphical prowess, yet it gets a pass considering that stronger consoles like the PS2 and Dreamcast existed at the time. The Saturn didn't get those favorable reviews, because its graphics were always compared against its peers.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamespot
I'm not bashing the N64, I'm saying on the whole, the Gamecube's Rogue Squadron games are a better experience.
Why do people even care what gamespot, IGN of all review sites(they are the most corrupt of them all, on top of which they tend to have any random person review X games, even if the person doesn't like the genre to beginwith, nevermid the fact as long as the game has overhyped graphics, even if the game is the worst POS erer made, they will give it a high score), and other so called professional reviewers rate games?
This being a dedicated gaming forum, and having a primarily older community, everyone here should have stopped caring what those con men/sellouts write long ago.
I do think it's reasonable to compare games to games on other systems from that same generation, sure... but no, comparing them to next-gen machines is less fair, there's going to be much more of a gap there.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
If BfN is short, RS2 is just as short. It might even be shorter. So you can rule that out as an advantage for the Gamecube games, I think. (Unless you can prove otherwise? Those are somewhat short games though.)Quote:
I'm not bashing the N64, I'm saying on the whole, the Gamecube's Rogue Squadron games are a better experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamespot
As for the other complaint there, yeah, it's not CD audio. It's really good on the N64, though; I don't know exactly how the PC version sounds, as I said I haven't played that, just the PC version of the first game, aka RS3D (I got BfN for Christmas in '00, by the time the PC version came out I already owned it for N64. With the first game, though, I didn't own an N64 yet when I got that game for the PC in early '99, a few months after getting a Voodoo2 card.).
Anyway, I would expect a console game like Battle for Naboo to get lower scores on the computer. Console games ported to the PC usually get lower scores on the PC than they did on consoles -- look up the scores for the PC versions of most of Sega's PC ports from the '90s. They ported over a lot of Saturn games, I bet they didn't exactly get as good a reception as they did on Saturn. Also see the PC versions of Turok 1 or 2, not exactly the same impact, or popularity, as the N64 games. Some do better from others -- I do think RS3D and the PC version of Ep. 1 Racer did okay -- but still, you can't assume that just beause a game is a great console game, it'll get just as good a reception on PC. The markets are different, and expectations are different. PC gamers are on average older, and PC games, particularly back then (or even today, from European PC games) were deeper and more complex than console games were, and still are.
On that note, I did say earlier in this thread that I found the Rogue Squadron/BfN series really simplistic, gameplay-wise, and that I prefer the sim style of X-Wing/TIE Fighter, and that one of my primary reactions to RS2 was to wish that there was a Star Wars sim with graphics like that. But, overall I like both console and PC games, and always have liked both a lot... the RS/BfN series are great for what they are. It's just that that's not something that's going to do as well with an average PC audience (or, even more so, PC reviewer!) as it would on consoles. Of course there will be some success, and teh PC saw plenty of arcadey flight combat games in the '90s and early '00s other than these two -- see Bang! Gunship Elite's PC version (also on Dreamcast), Sinistar Unleashed, Terminal Velocity/Fury3/Hellbender, etc (I liked all of those games to at least some degree, on that note... :) ) -- but the sims were the more highly acclaimed titles for sure, and the ones that stick in PC gamers' memories more. It's just about market and audience differences.
That is to say, I don't think that the reasons that BfN got lower scores on the PC because of anything bad about the game itself -- it's just because of the different kinds of games that were popular on the platform, and of course the fact that PC graphics and sound were far beyond what the N64 could do by 2001. (And yes, I know they improved the graphics versus the N64 game. Still, PC games could do better than that by that point.) On a related note, the graphics would obviously have held up just fine, but I expect that had RS2 or RS3 also had PC ports, they would have seen even more comments about the extreme simplicity of the gameplay.