Yeah, most of my friends loved Cruis'n USA, and they rented it all the time. It was alright, but I always preferred "Cruis'n World".Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Printable View
Yeah, most of my friends loved Cruis'n USA, and they rented it all the time. It was alright, but I always preferred "Cruis'n World".Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
This. I had brought this up in my post that got deleted. Cruis'n USA is Hillbilly Outrun. That of course is the appeal TNG doesn't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Remember how I opened this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenewguy
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.Quote:
'Teenager' is a uselessly vague term. 13 is very far removed from 19. I think the age bracket statement about the 64 is better put thus: that the N64 is primarily championed by people who were 15 and under when they got it as their first system. And having owned a mouldy NES or Atari in a closet nobody ever played would not disqualify the 64's being one's first system.
@ 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.
This thread is dumb.
I believe you meant to say: Its me, or this thread SUCK!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanegashima
C'Mon it's not like Castlevania is even remotely scary , something like Alien Triolgy is far more scary . There is also a lot of Saturn games that use a horror theme or look even House of the Dead, but I'll not class them as Horror games .Quote:
I mentioned Castlevania because I think the N64 games are more legitimately horror-themed than many other games in the series.
How about we just face it . When it came to a Traditional RPG epic like that of Saga , The N64 was lacking .Quote:
Epic N64 RPG? I guess that's either Quest 64
And that's fair enough, it wasn't until the Cube that I stated to enjoy RS myself.Quote:
I love the Cube Rogue Squadron games, but RS1/BfN on the N64 are even better, in my opinion
Tbh honest I enjoyed the likes of AMOK and even Blam Machinehead more than Thunderhawk II , but they all pale to Stellar Assault which is one of the best games I have ever played , its utterly brilliant.Quote:
I mean, I like both a lot, but they are certainly quite different. And RS1 (and BfN) are both way better than Thunderstrike 2. I haven't played Stellar Assault SS, though
Loved in the Arcades , not a massive fan of it in the home though .Quote:
I never liked that game all that much in the arcades either, though.
And then it looks muddy as hell , even in High Res mode it looks very muddy and the handling model was utter crap imo . Never liked the game and that's despite paying a lot of money on Import to get the game after people raving about it .Quote:
As I said in my review, it's the High Res mode that gives it that bad framerate, actually (and forces it into widescreen too, annoyingly). Use normal res, the framerate is completely stable
No racing game is truly a sim, because then its gets really boring and would be really hard for most people to play . But I enjoyed NFS on the 3DO and loved it on the Saturn -thanks to the better frame rate and amazing 2 player mode . If you're taking of multi player games then yes Mario 64 stands out as the best of the lot (even now in some cases) all I will say is even to this day some of my mates still ask me to put Rally On and have a race , Its 2 player mode was utter perfection.Quote:
I've never liked racing sims at all, pretty much, but on that note, NFS1 really isn't a sim. It has some sim elements, but it's not a full-on sim, it's also significantly arcadey
And I'm not one for numbers at all . It wouldn't matter to me if Lunar was the only RPG on the Mega CD, I still say it was the best system for RPG's in the 16 era .
I've never played Battletanx tbh , but love Mass Destruction and of course you can play as a Tank on Gun Griffon II if you wish and link it upQuote:
Mass Destruction is a good game, sure, but it's certainly not as good as either Battletanx game. No multiplayer, either
Midnight raiders is a FMV game developed for the Pad Now Light Gun games like Lethal Enforces do support the Gun . Revoultion X is just a jokeQuote:
No, it has one, it just doesn't have gun support. Do games like Revolution X (on any system) or Midnight Raiders (Sega CD) not count as lightgun-style games just because they don't support guns? I think not
I never liked the game at all tbh .Quote:
Activision's Space Invaders remake was a good game,
I'm not one for numbers at all . I just don't think the game is anywhere near to that of Shining Force III .Quote:
Ogre Battle 64's one of the best of the generation, but sure, there's not a lot beyond it
Fair enough . Imo Deacthlete and Winter Heat are some of the best 2 and 4 player (WH) games ever inventedQuote:
I've never played any of the olympic/winter games style stuff on any of the consoles that generation or newe
I wouldn't go that far . I thought Bomberman was a Huge letdown on the N64 and enjoyed the likes of Wars much more on the Saturn, but none of them could match Saturn BombermanQuote:
We do? I just said that overall the N64 Bomberman games are better than the one good Saturn one, thoug
Lots of games can have that , but I would class some of them a Traditional RPG or next we be classing Resident Evil 4 as an RPG . Popfumail on the humble Mega CD had all of what you talked off , but I'll not class it as Traditional RPG to that of the Lunars.Quote:
It has experience points, dungeons, a materia-like badge system, and currency and shops, its an RPG
You've seriously got me mistake for someone else . I'll defy you to even quote where I said that game was even remotely good . So you can take that bullshit comment back right now, thank you very much and I seriously mean thatQuote:
Coming from the guy who brought up Gale Racer
Just like you it seems . Funny how you don't seem to like it though when some find faults with games and systems you happen to likeQuote:
Again you have no argument so you resort to simply hating on games
Unless I'm mistaken, you just described F1 Beyond the Limit for Sega CDQuote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
They aren't, though. Maybe if you want to play an average at best 3D adventure, the first N64 Bomberman is ok. But no. No N64 Bomberman title offers a better "Bomberman" experience than Saturn Bomberman.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Hell, Poy Poy on the PSX offers a better "Bomberman" experience than the first 64 one, as far as I'm concerned.
He's obviously blind to other offerings out there. SF Rush 2049 is nowhere near a top 20 of all-time racing games, yet he puts it on a pedestal. Rogue Leader fixed everything that was wrong with Rogue Squadron, yet he thinks the N64 game is better; That's some broken logic right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry coeurl
100 similar N64 Bomberman games would not equal Saturn Bomberman. When comparing certain genres with games of very similar quality, quantity could be argued to tip the scale. This is very far removed from that scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry coeurl
Probably a repost, still relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlcqWQVVuU
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.
Zoltor, everyone here knows that online reviews aren't gospel. But they can be informative. If ten reviewers across ten different sites come to a consensus that a particular game is good or bad, odds are pretty good that their opinions will be shared by most people that play the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltor
And don't bother trying to convince everyone that you know better than every professional reviewer out there, because everyone here also knows that your opinions are worth less than those of just about everyone on the internet.
No it Isn't, not if all these "professional" review sites are run by graphic whores, who couldn't care less about any actual gameplay aspect(nevermind the bribes they take).Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMatthews
It's not the 90s anymore, review sites are alot like TV stations now, all they care about is ratings(with the review sites, that means creating hype, what creates hype, making a game sound better then it is).
I actually break down every aspect of a game, to come up with the review/rating, the rewiew sites play 1-3 hours tops, and don't even reasearch the game(I do so much research on the systems/other aspects, and how exactly they are implimented, It's not funny).
It sure isn't funny Zoltor. If you're so objective and astute when it comes to op-ed journalism in the gaming market, why aren't you making money at it? To maintain your integrity? Don't make us laugh. You would fucking crack under a writing deadline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltor
Yeah, you break every game down into one of two categories: "POS" or "godly"Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltor
Lol no, very few games are godly, and it Isn't my fault that there are companies spitting out more POS games then they have in the past(afterall why put effort into the game, when morons buy games based off of how cool the CG trailers look anyway), many games worth playing fall into the Very Good catagory(aka 8.0-8.9 rating worthy), which I use alot(then there's games that are just good/decent, in this day & age such games aren't worth playing/playing more then once, but they aren't bad or POS games either), so I don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry coeurl
You're forgetting that games are a bigger business and there are more being developed. Couple that with the ease of information exchange & exposure, and it suddenly seems like the market is saturated with subpar content. Reality is Zoltor, there are just as many good games being developed as there ever was, and the genres you love are less appealing because you're getting older.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltor
Nostalgia is a deceitful bitch, especially when you let it dominate you.
If you let it dominate you, doesn't that make you the bitch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
Part of that is correct, there are more games being made today, but no there aren't just as many good games being made now, then there was, and there is undenyable proof of the drop in quality(a prime example of this happening with a company just recently is Capcom, Capcom use to be one of the best all around companies in the industry, then they became a Fighter genre only company, yet were still groundbreaking amazing, and about 3 year ago, they starting spitting out almost nothing but rushed, dumbed down/subpar games to put it in a nice way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
Also your last remark is completely incorrect(I still love all the genres I ever loved back in the day), and age has nothing to do with a love of a genre, and in my case, not even the love of a game either(quality is quality afterall, and transcends time its self).
Yes. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
Capcom revived the fighting game genre. Of course they would stick to it like flies on shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltor
Nintendo, Sony, Square Enix, Capcom, Konami, Sega, Namco. None of them take huge risks anymore and Japan is taking a back seat to the west now. That's playing a part into your bias, which is probably disregarding the amazing stuff being developed in the west at Bioware, Bethesda, Valve, Rockstar, Blizzard, EA, etc. The industry has shifted. You're just too busy bitching to see the amazing brand new shit that has come around in the past decade.
I've been seeing this type of post a lot lately, and it always strikes me as odd. I've been playing Western-developed games for as long as I've been a gamer. I never thought, back in the day, that Japanese games had any sort of overall advantage or better quality, except in certain specific areas. I'm not saying there's no industry shift, but I think it's mostly just a decline in Japan, not a rise of the West.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
Amazing stuff being made in the west? There's some awesome PC games being made(and some of the worst abominations of man kind as well), but I definitely wouldn't say more awesome games are being made then the 80s, and 90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
As far as console games go, I really haven't seen any amazing games from western companies(nevermind the a lot you're claiming), your usual dime adozen meh Action/RPGs, sports, and FPS is all I see being made by western companies. However It's possible I'm forgetting something or didn't realize a western company made it, so by all means, feel free to list any game that's for consoles, that don't fall into those three limited catagories.
A decline in Japan, and a rise in the west with the console content moving way up in quality, effectively mixing with the PC market.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
Of course not, but there's just as many coming out as there were back then. You just commit yourself to a narrow point of view to enforce your own bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltor
Western developers are currently the ones putting out the excellent sandbox, stealth, sports, action, platformer, puzzle, strategy, racing and RPG genres across all platforms, PC included.
Red Dead Redemption, Dragon Age, Sins of a Solar Empire, Grand Theft Auto, Fallout, Borderlands, Elder scrolls, Gears of War, Fable, Forza, PGR, Splinter Cell, God of War, Sly Cooper, Portal 2, Puzzle Quest, Might & Magic Clash of Heroes, Shadow Complex, The Witcher, Fez, Super Meat Boy, Braid, World of Goo, Call of Duty, Torchlight, Bastion, Batman AA, Prince of Persia, Limbo, etc.
Tons of awesome games. No less than there were before. Sure, go ahead and hate on the call of duty/gears of wars/halos for having a dozen sequels. Pick any single one of them and it's awesome, the same can be said for any Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy.
No-one in the west is talking any more risks really and I'm sorry a game like Dragon's Dogma are a huge risk to a corp like Capcom. You go on about bitching sure the Japanese are not the force there were , but Imo the likes of Lost Planet , Ninja Gaiden II, Dark Souls, Binary Domain, Resident Evil 5, Mario Galaxy, Child of Eden, Virtual Fighter 5 , Bayonetta ECT are all brilliant gamesQuote:
Nintendo, Sony, Square Enix, Capcom, Konami, Sega, Namco. None of them take huge risks anymore and Japan is taking a back seat to the west now. That's playing a part into your bias, which is probably disregarding the amazing stuff being developed in the west at Bioware, Bethesda, Valve, Rockstar, Blizzard, EA, etc. The industry has shifted. You're just too busy bitching to see the amazing brand new shit that has come around in the past decade.
Rather silly and what new games are the Japanese making ? The likes of Castlevania LOS, God Of War III, Heavy Rain, Enslaved are fantastic games and what's wrong with a FPS when they're made as good as Half Life 2, Resistance 3?. I've never understood people bitching about FPS myselfQuote:
As far as console games go, I really haven't seen any amazing games from western companies(nevermind the a lot you're claiming), your usual dime adozen meh Action/RPGs, sports, and FPS is all I see being made by western companies
I would say Japan is in decline, I wouldn't say they're not still kicking out awesome games. That's my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
Zoltor is complaining about the lack of quality software, when it's still all over the place, from everybody. Likely complaining due to his bias for Japanese software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
The trouble with Japan is the market is dominated by Hand Helds and before that the Wii , which as meant Japanese software house have loss a massive amount of ground on the next gen systems and getting their pipe lines up todate more so as they've been so use to coding to the metal and not using multi platform engines and middleware . They're still making quite a lot of good games though and Fromsoftware and Capcom have been brilliant this gen imo