Jump to content


Narcidius

Member Since 15 Jun 2011
Offline Last Active May 30 2012 09:36 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Starfox Wii U at E3?

08 May 2012 - 10:24 AM

... yeah, I think what made the original Starfox and SF64 so amazing was the presense of the big, interactive action set pieces and the frenetic action (things which have all become kind of staples of AAA game production in recent years).  I'm not sure that Nintendo could stick with the original formula and end up with the kind of mind-blowing experience that fans are begging for, if only because that kind of experience has become so common.

The cinematic feel of the first two games seems important - the sense that these big, gorgeous worlds are just coming at you, and making you react to events with speed and precision.  This doesn't require the game to be "on rails", I suppose (originally, my favorite level from SF64 was Katina), but it does require a certain kind of cinematic, action-oriented pacing.  The RPG/Adventure elements always felt like an awkward departure from this core, to me, and left me feeling that I was playing a different (albeit somewhat interesting) franchise.

In Topic: "The Intended Platforms UE 4 is aimed at have not been announced" Say...

08 May 2012 - 07:02 AM

^ Nollog nailed it people. He didn't mean the consoles havnt been announced, he meant they havnt announced which consoles ue4 is meant to operate on.

Grammitically, he didn't need to say "intended" and "aimed". It makes that sentence confusing, especially when being read.He should have said, "the platforms this is intended for have not been announced."


or... "we have yet to announce the platforms for which this is intended"... if grammatical precision is absolutely paramount :P anyway, i agree that nothing conclusive was said...

but hey, in relation to the whole frustration regarding "the games industry" and DLC... I realized not too long ago that I actually ended up paying $90 for Gears of War 3, after adding the cost of the DLC season pass to the original cost of the game... so yeah, I get the point about feeling a bit hustled. But you know what? I'm actually ok with it. I appreciate that games are expensive to develop and publish, I like all the bells and whistles that come with high production values and traditional packaging, and the slow feed of extra content is welcome to me. The digital/new media age has spoiled me a bit, but at the end of the day I am still a fan, and fans of all stripes have always been ready to shell out ridiculous amounts of cash for overpriced merchandise!

Also... I remember paying $70 for a game on many occasions during the "good old days" of gaming (talking SNES here)... and that was in 1992 dollars!

In Topic: WiiPad Rumored to use Android OS:

04 May 2012 - 09:13 AM

Well, Nintendo and Google already do work together (on the ES operating system, at least), so it's not so farfetched a rumor as it might seem... still, it's my understanding that the controller itself only streams content (not generates it), so I don't think that the "tablet" itself will run an OS.

I would personally love to see Nintendo team up with a marketplace like Android to provide media content... that would mean a lot more content with a lot less burden on Nintendo!

In Topic: Metroid Prime Online multi-player mode ideas.

03 May 2012 - 08:17 AM

"americanized-militaristic-mindless"? I don't think that's a very descriptive title as far as the behavior sets you are objecting to... it sounds like some political rhetoric is getting mixed up in your otherwise very careful analyses... also, it's kind of offensive to me as an American.

If you mean that the kind of gamers that like games such as CoD are accustomed to rapid killstreaks, twitchy or knee-jerk play mechanics, and simple structures of play, then I could understand what you are saying... but I'm still not sure about which of those elements you find objectionable. Are you saying that you would prefer the Metroid multiplayer to differ from one of these (or similar areas) in terms of mechanics?

Or maybe do you mean the social ettiquette of players on many of these types of games? The swearing, trash-talking, whining, threatening, belittling, and berating of new or inexperienced players? I could also understand that objection... do you want a kinder, more polite and more inclusive "crowd" for social gaming?

I agree that the best use of multiplayer for a Metroid game would be for co-op... I would really like that... though I also get the point about Prime being so successful due to its sense of loneliness and isolation. A versus mode would have to include some of these great ideas about complex maps with world enemies, or interesting objectives and puzzle-solving elements included.

I really don't understand the term "mindless" as it is commonly being used on these forums, and I don't think that it has proved a very helpful term. Many gaming enthusiasts from across the world have been rather devoted to games that feature simple, repetitive processes which demand little higher-order thinking. I find "militaristic" similarly unhelpful, as I doubt that it is being used technically. If we're simply talking about a fascination with the military and/or military operations, then I don't see the problem. Cultures across the world and throughout history have been fascinated with (and even glorified) the military, and many great games (not talking about CoD here) have used this fascination as a foundation. If you find CoD itself to be irreverent toward life, misleading in its politics, or dangerous in its sanitization of violence, then I might see a productive dialogue (and I might agree with you).

In Topic: what is a hardcore gamer....

03 May 2012 - 07:39 AM

yeah... all of these "standards" seem really, really arbitrary.  For Nintendo's purposes I really do think they just mean "people who will buy lots of games".  Why would they care about whether or not a person is psychologically affected by their friends' choices, or knows how to disassemble and reassemble a PC in a minute and fifteen seconds flat?

to be honest, everybody here (including myself, I know, I know) sounds like a blowhard every now and then when pushing their definitions and opinions about what gaming is all about... and I think there's a big lack of self-awareness when people turn up their nose at "kids who only play games for x or y silly reason".  What, like you REALLY know what you mean by "gameplay is all I care about"?  Like you never find yourself enjoying a game that a hundred million 8th graders also happen to like, just because THEIR reason for liking it is the cool poster with the guy holding a really big gun?  Come on...

That's like pretending that you don't enjoy fast food or junk food, simply due to the fact that fine cuisine is "better".  Better for what?  For complexity?  For skill of composition?  For profound possibilities of reflection and existential bliss?  Sure.  For quick energy?  For facilitating social interaction?  For comfort?  For excitement?  Maybe not.

Also, what's with the tacitly accepted disparagement of "violence" in games, and the somewhat bigoted insinuation that violence  is something only "Americans" like?  Um............ last time I checked, "violence" was a staple of the industry.  I don't think that Mario crushes his enemies in the spirit of peace and goodwill.  If people are somehow arguing that "sanitized" violence - violence that is disguised as non-violence by clever puffs of smoke or the absence of blood - is somehow not violence... well then that's a different discussion.

Anti-Spam Bots!