Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
I already said all of this long ago, Nintendo has quality in comparison to what it dishes out in spades. Just needs to have more features, like online play to make it more appealing, though its fine as is.
My point was people buy consoles for many factors, and its still truly subjective to what one wants.
I said everything about the games and other features, but no matter what points we are saying, it still comes down to what you want.
Revolution for backwards compatibility, and proven track record (not to mention all the games I like tend to be on there).
Except for PD0, and Pro Evolution Soccer- so I might additionally get the 360, as Rare is my fav company.
Been disappointed with the screens of PD though: I always prefer the graphical smoothness of Nintendo consoles- PD seems to have that PC kind of flatness.
Hopefully will be excellent, been waiting on it for 5 years.
I don't play GTA that much to be honest. But I'd honestly prefer to play it than Mario Kart: Double Dash. That was my point. I was comparring a supposed AAA game to another supposed AAA game that Nintendo made.
GTA was probably a shitty example actually. Have any of you played Ico? You know, the mainstream shitty PS2 games aren't the only thing the console offers. Ico reminded me of Zelda, it was like a Nintendo game but exclusively for the PS2. Wanda and Colossus (the Ico sequel due out soon on PS2 only, again). Ico stayed under the radar, nobody knew what it was, there was very little coverage of it, but it received high marks. I absolutely adored it. Wanda and Colossus has made it onto the front cover of Edge magazine. Now, when the likes of Edge Magazine take notice of a genuine PS2 exclusive enough to stick it on the front cover and dedicate a massive chunk of the mag to it, you know its probably worth checking out AT LEAST.
God Of War, another shining example. Superb, tight and fun game. Jak and Daxter AND Ratchet and Clank are probably the best platformers of the current generation (Nintendo's Mario Sunshine was shockingly average) The lack of knowledge about the PS2 game library astounds me sometimes, both by PS2 owners and Nintendo fanboys. They only look from afar, seeing the chaff that Sony markets effortlessly, the licenced shite, or looking at the games Sony has "stolen", or the cross-platformers, without delving a bit deeper and finding some true gems that are exclusive to each console. They are there, they do exist, I own most of them.
I think I might have to check out Fahrenheight and Pro Evolution Soccer 5 next on the PS2. I think in America they had to change the name of Fahrenheight (for reasons that don't require 3 guesses) to something else, I'm unsure what its called over there.
Last edited by Red Superfly on Sep 13th, 2005 at 05:15 PM
Oh come on AC. Ico was different to Zelda. It did things differently. It broke everything down into simple forms, so all that was left was exploration and puzzles. It was an experience, LIKE Zelda.
It doesn't change the fact it's a fantastic game.
I could say Resident Evil 4 is just like many other shooters mixed with Resident Evil of old. It doesn't really do anything new either, it just does what it does extremely well, better than most, in a larger quantity. Innovation is just as important as invention in many respects.
That's the important thing. I couldn't care less if the idea was original, just as long as it offers something different and is well executed. God Of War stands above the other beatemups, and Ico stands above most other adventure games (and the menu-less system coupled with the tranquil style of graphics, and the escort-puzzles helped distinguish itself greatly from everything else), and for the whole experienece value, was rivalled only by Zelda in my opinion. It was certainly better than Wind Waker too, despite the fact I loved that game given its criticisms. Everything adventurey gets comparred to Zelda. It was there first and usually does it best. What I'm saying it shouldn't ever take away any of the quality (especially when that quality is rather different, like Ico's) of other games trying to make a name for themselves.
I wish you'd give these games a chance instead of shrugging them off as if they were concieved and created overnight.
Last edited by Red Superfly on Sep 13th, 2005 at 05:33 PM
It is. Does nothing that Prince of Persia didn't do ages ago. Or to a more recent extent, the newer ones.
But then again I'm impressed by the enemies, areas, actions, gameplay and story of Resident Evil 4 etc. Not how well I can absail or how many moves I can get to kill easy, identikit enemies.
Resident Evil is just Resident Evil of old, with an over-the-shoulder perspective. It's had it's story rebooted, which it sorely needed, and it uses AI like most shooters.
It doesn't do ANYTHING new. It just does so many done-before ideas so well. Name an aspect of the game and I could name a game thats done it before. It's still Resident Evil. You upgrade guns and weapons like old RPGs and Ninja Gaiden, the enemy AI is like high-end PC FPS AI, the graphics are wonderful and plentiful. It's inspired, but it's hardly inventive.
Same goes for God Of War. It's hard to invent ideas, these days you can only innovate. The likes of GOW, Resi 4, along with the likes of Burnout and most classic games of the modern generation do NOTHING new, they just take concepts that have appearred elsewhere and glue them together in the best way possible.
And as for the amazing Zelda, it's basically been doing the same thing since it's first game on the NES. Same premise, only more polished and with new ideas put together.
Thing is, you left out the fact that it's got levels of AI unparelled by any game before it as well as excitingly relevent area interaction.
No game has what that has. Not even FPS AI on PC. Half-Life 2 AI isn't nearly as good and that's an incredible game. To say it's hardly inventive is astounding.
Zelda continues to do it well. God of War did nothing new at all. It didn't even innovate.
So again, what made God of War stand high above ALL the rest? Because it was still just running along killing things and scaling obstacles.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
Its hard to put something entirely new in todays genre.
One game I would say added something new was the spiderman game with the free roaming, AND realistic land scape up AND down, because GTA didn't feel polished.
In alot of places, yes. When I play Half-Life 2 I don't find it nearly as challenging in terms of AI as RE. Not saying it's any less, but it's certainly not any better.
Red, you said hype means nothing to you but you like God of War. Most overhyped game. Emperor's new clothes syndrome.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
I agree that halflife was simplistic, but it did something somewhat revolutionary, it made the environment more believeable and real than anything prior.
If you mean A.I in terms of difficulty, then yes I agree.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 13th, 2005 04:55 PM
