Messages

61

Video Game Chat / Re: Virtual Console or WiiWare?

« on: September 02, 2008, 01:34:48 PM »

Virtual console, hands down. Wiiware has a few good titles, but it can't compare to the awesomeness of classic games.

However, I'm still not satisfied with Nintendo's choices for the VC, as are most of us. When will they stop re-releasing stupid games like Donkey Kong Jr. Math and start releasing the titles everyone REALLY wants to play, like Earthbound and the original Super Smash Bros? It is good that they finally released Super Mario RPG. Underrated as it is to me, it deserved a release months before this - but at least it's here now.

62

Video Game Chat / Re: What's the worst videogame you've ever played?

« on: September 02, 2008, 01:29:37 PM »

"Casual" and "kiddy" are way different. Ironically, part of the reason I've been something of a Nintendo fanboy for most of my life is because their games were always really simple. I picked up Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour because I knew I'd probably never be able to wrap my head around, say, Tiger Woods PGA whatever. I got the ever-elusive DDR:Mario Mix because I'd tried DDR in the arcades and sucked hard. I think it's even more ironic that some people went off on LoZ:WW for being too easy. After all, even Miyamoto himself said he wanted to make it more for "everyone", and yet it was still an awesome game.

Not just simple, but the kiddy thing was actually always fine for me. Not only would I probably never be allowed, at least now, to play GTA4 (or what-have-you that's all over the PS3/360 these days) in my house, but I don't even really like those kind of games. I'm not "hardcore" like that, in case that's what anyone thinks. What do I want? I want what Nintendo used to be all about. What they still kind of do, but seem to be slowly moving away from: Easy-to-get, (reasonably) inoffensive games that can give me a challenge.
Now here's a guy who "gets it".
Obscure, yet fairly accurate analogy (but even their "core" games always have some little things "casualized" here and there. Even Brawl, in all its gaming glory, had Pity Smashes).

True - but therein lies the problem. A lot of the current video game players believe "casual" and "kiddy" to be the same thing. If a game doesn't have realistic graphics, complex gameplay, and a general gritty and real-life feel, then its kiddy to them. Smash Brothers is kiddy because you can't do 20 button long combos that all look different. Zelda is kiddy because there's no spoken dialogue and the characters look cartoony. And mario is kiddy because he doesn't talk like the cussing, trash talking heroes of Gears of War.

Okay, not exactly, but you get my picture. The big problem today is that the current definition of "hardcore gamer" has only recently changed from the traditional meaning. 10 years ago, if you just played tons of games and got really good at them, then you were a hardcore gamer. Today, being hardcore means only playing games that look and sound like movies, and are violent and gritty. Today, not even Megabyte, Deezer, David Dayton, or any of the other guys here would be considered hardcore by a lot of the current market. And that's just not right.

63

Video Game Chat / Re: What's the worst videogame you've ever played?

« on: August 26, 2008, 06:41:26 AM »

The quote button exists for a reason. Please use it.

Anyway, what you mentioned would be another example of "casualization," as ShadowBrain mentioned. Or it may just be a reflection of how most games these days are easier than games from the 1980s.

Okay, I used it. Happy now? :P

The only real reason I made that comment was because ShadowBrain seemed to be saying that the "causalization" was only a very recent thing (correct me if I'm wrong though). That seems to be the biggest complaint about Nintendo today - but the reality is that you could apply it to any era of Nintendo after the SNES age. After all, the N64 often is considered to be when Nintendo first started losing traction in the video game industry. Yeah, Nintendo is doing a lot better now, but that's what makes people say that Nintendo is to casual. Without all the non-gamer support, theoretically Nintendo wouldn't be doing nearly as well now, and so people complain that Nintendo is not focusing on games enough.

I realize that there's other things that factor into the equation as well - the main point I was trying to make is that the term "casualization" can't just be applied to the Wii. People have been complaining for ages now that Nintendo is a kiddy system, so this is nothing new.

64

Video Game Chat / Re: What's the worst videogame you've ever played?

« on: August 25, 2008, 05:28:06 PM »

Ah, now the real controversy starts! Awesome music, mindblowing gravity physics/level design, and stellar (pun somewhat intended) graphics. The new (old?) linearity took me a while to appreciate (read: I just now sort of appreciate it). The only thing was... that "casualization" just couldn't be ignored. Omnipresent Star Bits, copious 1-Ups, and overly large racing timeframes guarantee that, if you ever see the "Game Over" screen, you probably have a mental condition (25 from Peach when you're Luigi? I know you can refuse, but... man! And where is she getting those, anyway, in Bowser's clutches? That last part's tounge-in-cheek, mind you) The patronizing, WiiCondom-ensheathed remote that pops up in the corner on occasions--the first level, for one--did nothing to help that notion. The ending (which you have to watch four times to completely beat the game--so, yeah, I got tired of it) is confusing, but no big deal. Finally, just stick up for it a bit, I think people complain about Rosalina's storybook too much. It's totally a side-thing and adds some nice, touching depth to the story(?) Not, I repeat, not bad--just something of a letdown.

Except, that seeing the Game Over screen in the modern Mario Mario games isn't really penalizing at all, so it isn't as much a sign of difficulty as it was in the early mario games. In Super Mario 64, you saved after beating each star, so getting a Game Over only meant you'd have to start the level over - which isn't a big deal usually. Yes, you don't see that screen really at all in Galaxy, but since the levels aren't exceedingly long in either game, it doesn't really make much of a difference.

65

Video Game Chat / Re: What's the worst videogame you've ever played?

« on: August 24, 2008, 01:07:24 PM »

Fixed.

Save for Mushroom Men, which actually does look sorta cool, and sure-fire awesomeness like the PW Edgeworth spinoff, there's nothing to be truly excited about regarding the DS unless you like RPG re-releases. But the Wii's in the worst shape. I can count the number of truly great, triple-A titles released per year on one hand.

Every pro-Nintendo argument I've seen lists the exception, not the rule. The Wii has SMG, yeah, but so what? Everyone here's beaten that like four times over, and some new games would be appreciated. Just admit it: Nintendo desperately needs to shape up.

I missed the part where re-releases are bad. Sure, original content is awesome, and the DS has a ton of that, but re-releases of great games are also awesome - especially if they add new content.

66

Video Game Chat / Re: What's the worst videogame you've ever played?

« on: August 23, 2008, 02:46:35 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB's always had a point. Nintendo sucks right now, and saying they don't doesn't mean they don't. A couple good games every now and then doesn't make a good company. Simply having a good back catalogue doesn't either. You constantly complain about SB hating Nintendo and so on, but every negative thing he's said has been a totally valid point.

Wrong. The Wii doesn't stink right now, because we're getting a lot of better third party titles (Boom Blox, Blastworks, De Blob, etc) and there's more first party stuff on the way (Mario Galaxy 2, Wario Land Shake, Pikmin 3, and others). And the DS sure as heck doesn't, because it continues to get tons of RPGs, platformers, puzzle games, and all kinds of other great titles. Look what's in the DS's future: Kirby Superstar Ultra, Crono Trigger DS, Mushroom Men, Dragon Quest IV, Spore Creatures, Elebits 2, Pokemon Platinum and Rangers 2, etc. And the fact is, the DS has had a lot of great titles every year since its debut - not just a lot of shovelware and a few good games.

Also, some of you guys still don't seem to be considering the possibility that Nintendo - like a lot of other companies - just didn't give a crap about E3 this year. It wouldn't suprise me if that's what they did, because E3 was going to be a shell of its former self no matter how many companies were there.

67

Video Game Chat / Re: F-Zero Wii

« on: August 23, 2008, 08:45:55 AM »

Meh F-Zero is NOT for casuals.

Fixed. If you want casual racing, play Mario Kart. Then play F-Zero GX, and see how far the difficulty level jumps.

68

General Chat / Re: I'm going away! Signed, TMK member

« on: August 18, 2008, 06:33:32 AM »

I'm going away on vacation until the 22, so I won't be posting at all.

69

Site Discussion / Re: The new sig topic

« on: August 17, 2008, 10:47:08 AM »

Well, finally made myself a sig. Only people that know me really well would understand it, but I don't really care.

70

Mario Chat / Re: Is Super Mario RPG overrated?

« on: August 17, 2008, 10:42:59 AM »

Ah yes, I do agree that the attacks were recycled way too much among the enemies. IMO, Jonny and Smithy were more challenging than Yaridovich, (Although after I beat the game for the first time they all became pretty easy) Surprisingly, I didn't find Culex to be all that challenging.

Well, I dunno about Smithy, since I haven't actually faced him yet, but Johnny was a piece of cake, IMO. If you kept him stuck with only one goon during the entire battle by getting rid of the other three, he wasn't that powerful. I agree about Culex though - all you have to do is use the star egg and have Bowser with the Lazy Shell armor as one of your active partners. The star egg eventually rips through all of Culex's crystals, and since Bowser can't really be harmed barely at all, it's not a tough battle. In fact, eventually Culex runs out of FP, so the last 5 turns or so are the easiest ever. :P

71

General Chat / Re: Ultimate Birthday Compilation

« on: August 16, 2008, 06:01:51 PM »

I think I posted my birthday here when I first joined, but it never got added. Oh well, I'll do it again: January 11, 1993.

72

Mario Chat / Re: Is Super Mario RPG overrated?

« on: August 16, 2008, 05:59:03 PM »

And yes, this is all a matter of opinion, I realize that. I never compared it to Paper Mario, another game I think is great. I don't really see how all the enemies are the same, they did pretty much just recycle a few enemies from early in the game and slapped them into the later levels, but pretty much every Mario game has done that.

Yeah, I know you didn't, and I wasn't trying to fault you for it - I just personally don't like SMRPG that mch. Actually though, there is a LOT of enemy recycling in the later levels of the game - the majority of the creatures have some kind of advanced version that show up two or three stars after the original enemy. I don't have a problem with that very much- what I do have a problem with is the constant recycling of attacks. Almost every special attack in the game is used by more than one type of enemy. Water Blast is a perfect example of that - when you fight Yardovich (which IMO was the only challenging battle in the portion of the game I played), it seems really mighty and awe inspiring. But then they take that attack and give it to Culex, Czar Dragon (WTD?), and Magikoopa - and by that time it loses its awe and just becomes annoying. This is far from the only example, though.

I liked that in Paper Mario, while enemies didn't have as many attacks, there was little to no recycling of special moves - every enemy was unique, and the advanced versions of creatures were often pretty special. The Hyper Goombas and Shady Koopas were really cool, because they had special attacks that made them way different than the average enemy. Normal Koopas were always super easy, but the Shady Koopas were really powerful and annoying because of their cyclone attack. It wasn't that predictable when you faced new versions of old ememies - while in Super Mario RPG, every advanced version of an enemy was just the old enemy with better stats and a more powerful recycled attack.

RPGs don't need to have puzzles.

True, but that's why Paper Mario is unique and really cool, among other reasons. The castles and forts were actually more like Zelda dungeons with turn based battles - instead of being the usual "trudge through fortresses fighting 3 or four different types of enmies again and again until you reach the boss." Not saying that the latter is bad - it's just not really original, and can get a bit repetitive. But at least to me, Paper Mario never gets old. I've played through it four times, and each time I loved it even more. :)

73

Mario Chat / Re: Is Super Mario RPG overrated?

« on: August 16, 2008, 12:27:15 PM »

The second line explains why you shouldn't make a statement like that first one. Depending on how far it was you got in the game, you can't really say that. The enemies do infact change from area to area.

Anyhoo, I don't find the game overrated at all. The gameplay was fun and innovative, the story was good, and the characters were lovable. It's my favorite game of all time.

You're assuming that I haven't gotten very far through the game at all. Actually, I have - the farthest I've ever gotten was 6/7 stars, which is the wide majority of the game. I could have beaten it if I wanted, but I got extremely bored and never finished it.

As for your reasons for loving it so much, they're all a matter of perspective. I personally think that the Paper Mario gameplay was great, because it both a great combat system (I personally don't care at all about the low attack and HP numbers) and lots of puzzles (and SMRPG was almost totally devoid of any puzzlework). As for loveable characters, there were plenty in Paper Mario as well. Characters like Kolorado, Tubba Blubba, Bow, Sushie, Goombario, Lakalister, and many others were all fun to see (and BTW, I personally think that most of the ones I listed are better than ultra-average Geno). The story... I admit that the first Paper Mario was pretty basic, plotwise, but the highly enjoyable and diverse characters made up for that. Besides, Paper Mario TTYD made up for that - it by far has one of the best storylines ever in a mario game, and IMO has the best of all the Mario RPG's.

74

General Chat / Re: Rickpoll

« on: August 16, 2008, 12:14:56 PM »

Never. :)

75

Video Game Chat / Re: Rock Band 2

« on: August 16, 2008, 11:54:37 AM »

In that everyone plays them? How's that bad?

What I hate is that it makes people fancy themselves as music experts. Anyone who says "OMG! I love the Beastie Boys, they were in GH3/RB!" is immediately a target of my hate.

No, I mean in that every new version is just basically the same game with a few new features and new songs - just like how Madden NFL is just always the same game with a new roster and a few new features. The problem is, no one can really blame them for not innovating, as franchises like these couldn't really change at all without wrecking their fanbase. Still, it gets annoying when games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band overshadow more innovative releases.

And before anyone says "Smash Brothers is the same way," keep in mind that nintendo only releases one Smash Brothers per console, and each version has a TON of new features, characters, modes, unlockable content, etc - not just a minimal ammount. Plus, each new game improves, while Guitar Hero and Rock Band stay basically the same. Also, we're like on the 6th Guitar Hero, and it hasn't been even 5 years yet.