Nintendo E3 Discussion Thread

[DrDeath3191]

Timesplitters was done by Free Radical, not Rare, the guys that did GoldenEye....
Though I do understand the problem of finding 4 player local games, but there are the one or two out there which do offer a modern gaming experience without harking back to the N64.
Sorry but you are confusing the difference between storyline and gameplay if you think that old games are still just as good with hindsight. Few things that make games worse with age:
1)Graphics. In some games not important, but in others, like Ghost Recon, very important. Not to mention that with good graphics comes a better sense of immersion. It's hard to relate to someone who looks like lego, but not so hard when you can see the sun gleam of their hair.
2)AI. In old games, the AI is pig sh*t thick. The most basic of tactics can be used to run circles around them while they react in an inhuman manner, which again can destroy a sense of immersion. Not to mention if a game is not a challenge, then that removes part of the enjoyment - to play to be entertained. If something is easy, then you are more likely to become bored of it.
3)Innovation and refinement. GoldenEye handles like ass nowadays. The levels are dull, the gameplay repetitive and so on. Take Driver. It was good, but nowadays it handles awfully etc. By your logic, if you enjoyed GoldenEye and still do, you should be euphoric while playing any other FPS because they are simply better in every way. Well that isn't the case, and frankly I'm not alone on this because all the reviews for Perfect Dark say the same thing - good for it's time. With hindsight the game is worse on every gameplay level.

Seriously have you owned a modern console since the N64? Saying games focus on showing you a film and then the game, well, one title - Half Life 2. Enough said on that matter. Plus older games still had cut scenes- think about Final Fantasy 7 - 9, Metal Gear Solid, Ocarina of Time etc. Not quite sure what games you are on about unless you mean pac man etc.
You can't compare Chess to PC games, they are two different beasts, unless you want to start throwing in everything with the word "game" into the same category =S

Put it like this: Why should someone choose to play Golden Eye over Halo: CE, or Timesplitters 2?

Free Radical was made by ex-Rare employees after the big split of Rare and Nintendo. The people who made great games went to form Free Radical. Everyone else gave you Nuts and Bolts.

1) Beyond serving the function of showing you what you are doing, graphics serve no purpose.

2) This is true, somewhat. AI was much simpler back then, but in some cases this can leave the fun level of the game untarnished. Besides, AI for the most part will always have its stupid moments.

3) Innovation does not in any way make a game good. Alone in the Dark was innovative, but it was shit. Refinement is something important, and Goldeneye has it. Yes, the controller is odd, but once you adjust to the controller, it works well. Part of the reason I'm looking forward to the upcoming game is the IR controls; I'm not fond of single-analog control. But in terms of single-analog control, Goldeneye is king.

Yes, cutscenes existed for a while, but the main focus was still the game back then. Now when developers are interviewed, the first thing people discuss is the story. It is a sign of fucked-up priorities in our industry.

No, Chess and videogames are very similar. All games, regardless of their nature, have three things: An objective, rules to achieve the objective, and obstacles to impede progress. I can compare boardgames and videogames because in the end they are the same. Chess is timeless. Videogames can be too, and they are.

Why would I choose any game over another: because the one I choose I believe to be more fun. You can scream all the technical advantages of today all you want, and I'll agree with you. But that doesn't mean that newer games are more fun, or that older games are less fun. Nor does it mean the opposite; it merely means that the technical capabilities of the games differ. If the basics of game design shine, regardless of age, then the game will be good.

1) Why not just ignore my comment about immersion? Plus what about factors such as realism in simulator games such as sport and camouflage where it is important to be able to distinguish two different things?
2)A game isn't fun when it offers no challenge. Part of a game is to be challenging. And no, please, the fact you haven't played a modern FPS is embarrassingly obvious. AI doesn't tend to have coma moments like it used to.
3)I didn't say innovation always makes a game good, but not changing is just claiming the game is perfect, and I don't believe that any game of any genre can claim to be that. Golden Eye has refinement compared to Doom, but not compared to most FPS' after it.

Chess and videogames similar? Well why not lump sports as well. Sports are playing games. Why not try to lump everything done for the sake of entertainment together? Seriously, don't digress, it's pointless.
Chess is timeless because it's perfectly balanced etc. Gaming is different because gaming has a f**king huge technical element to it. Not to mention chess is a very complex and tactical game. Would you really try to compare an RTS to a 2d platformer? No you would not, so why the f**k you trying to compare chess to every single video game in existence?

Well why is Golden Eye more fun? Does it look better? No. Is it better designed? No. Frankly as I said XBL Perfect Dark proves my point. As all the reviewers said, these games do not age gracefully. Everything we come to expect in an FPS to make it a more enjoyable experience are not in old games e.g. the AI, the handling, the weapon balance and so on.
If Golden Eye is so damn good, then go out, find a kid who was brought up on the era of Halo etc FPS' and give him Golden Eye. He will tell you it sucks. Why? The basics are not enough.
I'll put it as simple as I can:
What does Golden Eye do well in comparison to modern FPS'?
Nothing. The only reason someone would enjoy it today over modern FPS' is sheer nostalgia.

1. Immersion isn't needed to make a good game.

2. Yes it can. Challenge is not needed to be fun. And while AI has become more complex, it only leaves more areas for a bug.

3. No, not at all. Change is good, but that doesn't make the original bad.

Sports actually could be lumped together with videogames and boardgames, and it fits my point exactly. You don't want to see that all games are in essence similar, because it would prove me right. And no, in reality Chess is not all that complicated; each piece has a way to move, they can be killed and the objective is to kill the king. That is not complex. The complexity comes through manipulating simple rules to your advantage. That is what makes Chess, Goldeneye, Baseball, Go, Shogi, Starcraft, Doom, Soccer et al so much fun.

Goldeneye is actually much better designed than the majority of games today. The cathartic nature of shooting enemies, the way the game entices the player to play the game on a different difficulty setting by adding new mission objectives, the possibility to advance despite a mission failure, and more. The guns are fun to use, and have plenty of strategy attached to them. That's why people liked it back then, have been clamoring for a remake for 13 years, and now are excited that it's coming out. If a kid doesn't like it, fine; that's his opinion. But the structure of the game is solid, and that is what makes it great. I can tell you I don't like Final Fantasy games; however, I can admit they are great games. The structure they provide is highly regarded and deservedly so; just because I prefer something else proves nothing. The basics are everything.

Okay so a game doesn't have to be immersing or challenging.....Right......Even farmville has an element of immersion, running your own farm. With every single game & thing we do for entertainment, they are both essential. You game to be entertained, and if something is too easy, it is boring, otherwise we'd all be happy watching paint dry as that provides no challenge or immersion.

Why then is there change if the original is sufficient? You are acting as if old games are flawless games and cannot be improved. Well they can, and with those improvements, does it not mean with hindsight you can see what the original was lacking and therefore how it may have been fun at that moment in time, but now, it is an exercise in frustration?

Christ you really are not lumping all games together. Chess is maybe the most challenging game on the planet and is almost impossible to master, hence why it is still being played, yet you claim a game needs not be challenging.
With sports again it is very hard to perfect, if possible at all, making it challenging and entertaining to watch & participate in.

With a game, you can get to a stage where it is no longer a challenge in anyway. If it is then not immersive, then hell, what is the point of it? Golden Eye looks like ass, therefore immersion is gone, and plays like ass, so the challenge is gone.

Now why would anyone want to play a game which offers no challenge or no immersion??

Sorry, if you think Golden Eye is better than most modern FPS you are just blinded by nostalgia and clearly haven't played a modern FPS in years. The fact you think AI is more prone to bugs nowadays and that games don't have location damage shows you have no idea what you talk about.
This is the reason you think old games are still good - because you have nothing to compare them to as you haven't played modern FPS'. So please, go get some perspective before preaching about games you've never played.
And as I said, look at Perfect Dark. Better game than Golden Eye yet the remake was met with a resounding "eh" because guess what, people realised that it's not any good compared to modern shooters.

Yup. It doesn't need to be immersive to be fun. Minesweeper isn't immersive. It's still fun.

Why did cameras need to become better after Citizen Kane was made? The technology can be improved, but despite that there are no films that can match the level of story-telling as this classic. Entertainment is not subject to obsolescence, even if the technology that made it is.

The game itself is not complicated. It is how people play the game that is complex. It's the same way with videogames. New strategies are always being thought of for classic games. Hell, Korea still makes a big deal out of Starcraft; a game which by your twisted logic should suck. It's the simple nature of the game which allows for more complex strategy.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just ask what the point of gaming is? The answer is fun, you nitwit. If I have to explain beyond that, you may as well quit gaming.

People are bullet-sponges in games today. The frantic nature of searching for healthpacks is gone. The entire gameplay structure of shooters today is different to Goldeneye. I like both ways, but there are times that Goldeneye beats out modern shooters in its simple, action-oriented, non-morose experience. It's fun to play.

Let's move away from Goldeneye from a second to prove you wrong: did you enjoy 3D Dot Game Heroes? A lot of people did. I haven't played it yet, but it looks like a great time. Why do I say that? Because it looks exactly like the Legend of Zelda. People loved that game, too. The classic structure of Zelda is so great that it's still enjoyed today despite 20 years of tech advancement. And also, the reviews for PDXBLA were rather favorable. According to your logic, shouldn't it have a much lower score than 79?

 

[escapistraptor]

Looks like the Penny Arcade guys have made up their minds:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/6/16/

 

[DrDeath3191]

Timesplitters was done by Free Radical, not Rare, the guys that did GoldenEye....
Though I do understand the problem of finding 4 player local games, but there are the one or two out there which do offer a modern gaming experience without harking back to the N64.
Sorry but you are confusing the difference between storyline and gameplay if you think that old games are still just as good with hindsight. Few things that make games worse with age:
1)Graphics. In some games not important, but in others, like Ghost Recon, very important. Not to mention that with good graphics comes a better sense of immersion. It's hard to relate to someone who looks like lego, but not so hard when you can see the sun gleam of their hair.
2)AI. In old games, the AI is pig sh*t thick. The most basic of tactics can be used to run circles around them while they react in an inhuman manner, which again can destroy a sense of immersion. Not to mention if a game is not a challenge, then that removes part of the enjoyment - to play to be entertained. If something is easy, then you are more likely to become bored of it.
3)Innovation and refinement. GoldenEye handles like ass nowadays. The levels are dull, the gameplay repetitive and so on. Take Driver. It was good, but nowadays it handles awfully etc. By your logic, if you enjoyed GoldenEye and still do, you should be euphoric while playing any other FPS because they are simply better in every way. Well that isn't the case, and frankly I'm not alone on this because all the reviews for Perfect Dark say the same thing - good for it's time. With hindsight the game is worse on every gameplay level.

Seriously have you owned a modern console since the N64? Saying games focus on showing you a film and then the game, well, one title - Half Life 2. Enough said on that matter. Plus older games still had cut scenes- think about Final Fantasy 7 - 9, Metal Gear Solid, Ocarina of Time etc. Not quite sure what games you are on about unless you mean pac man etc.
You can't compare Chess to PC games, they are two different beasts, unless you want to start throwing in everything with the word "game" into the same category =S

Put it like this: Why should someone choose to play Golden Eye over Halo: CE, or Timesplitters 2?

Free Radical was made by ex-Rare employees after the big split of Rare and Nintendo. The people who made great games went to form Free Radical. Everyone else gave you Nuts and Bolts.

1) Beyond serving the function of showing you what you are doing, graphics serve no purpose.

2) This is true, somewhat. AI was much simpler back then, but in some cases this can leave the fun level of the game untarnished. Besides, AI for the most part will always have its stupid moments.

3) Innovation does not in any way make a game good. Alone in the Dark was innovative, but it was shit. Refinement is something important, and Goldeneye has it. Yes, the controller is odd, but once you adjust to the controller, it works well. Part of the reason I'm looking forward to the upcoming game is the IR controls; I'm not fond of single-analog control. But in terms of single-analog control, Goldeneye is king.

Yes, cutscenes existed for a while, but the main focus was still the game back then. Now when developers are interviewed, the first thing people discuss is the story. It is a sign of fucked-up priorities in our industry.

No, Chess and videogames are very similar. All games, regardless of their nature, have three things: An objective, rules to achieve the objective, and obstacles to impede progress. I can compare boardgames and videogames because in the end they are the same. Chess is timeless. Videogames can be too, and they are.

Why would I choose any game over another: because the one I choose I believe to be more fun. You can scream all the technical advantages of today all you want, and I'll agree with you. But that doesn't mean that newer games are more fun, or that older games are less fun. Nor does it mean the opposite; it merely means that the technical capabilities of the games differ. If the basics of game design shine, regardless of age, then the game will be good.

1) Why not just ignore my comment about immersion? Plus what about factors such as realism in simulator games such as sport and camouflage where it is important to be able to distinguish two different things?
2)A game isn't fun when it offers no challenge. Part of a game is to be challenging. And no, please, the fact you haven't played a modern FPS is embarrassingly obvious. AI doesn't tend to have coma moments like it used to.
3)I didn't say innovation always makes a game good, but not changing is just claiming the game is perfect, and I don't believe that any game of any genre can claim to be that. Golden Eye has refinement compared to Doom, but not compared to most FPS' after it.

Chess and videogames similar? Well why not lump sports as well. Sports are playing games. Why not try to lump everything done for the sake of entertainment together? Seriously, don't digress, it's pointless.
Chess is timeless because it's perfectly balanced etc. Gaming is different because gaming has a f**king huge technical element to it. Not to mention chess is a very complex and tactical game. Would you really try to compare an RTS to a 2d platformer? No you would not, so why the f**k you trying to compare chess to every single video game in existence?

Well why is Golden Eye more fun? Does it look better? No. Is it better designed? No. Frankly as I said XBL Perfect Dark proves my point. As all the reviewers said, these games do not age gracefully. Everything we come to expect in an FPS to make it a more enjoyable experience are not in old games e.g. the AI, the handling, the weapon balance and so on.
If Golden Eye is so damn good, then go out, find a kid who was brought up on the era of Halo etc FPS' and give him Golden Eye. He will tell you it sucks. Why? The basics are not enough.
I'll put it as simple as I can:
What does Golden Eye do well in comparison to modern FPS'?
Nothing. The only reason someone would enjoy it today over modern FPS' is sheer nostalgia.

1. Immersion isn't needed to make a good game.

2. Yes it can. Challenge is not needed to be fun. And while AI has become more complex, it only leaves more areas for a bug.

3. No, not at all. Change is good, but that doesn't make the original bad.

Sports actually could be lumped together with videogames and boardgames, and it fits my point exactly. You don't want to see that all games are in essence similar, because it would prove me right. And no, in reality Chess is not all that complicated; each piece has a way to move, they can be killed and the objective is to kill the king. That is not complex. The complexity comes through manipulating simple rules to your advantage. That is what makes Chess, Goldeneye, Baseball, Go, Shogi, Starcraft, Doom, Soccer et al so much fun.

Goldeneye is actually much better designed than the majority of games today. The cathartic nature of shooting enemies, the way the game entices the player to play the game on a different difficulty setting by adding new mission objectives, the possibility to advance despite a mission failure, and more. The guns are fun to use, and have plenty of strategy attached to them. That's why people liked it back then, have been clamoring for a remake for 13 years, and now are excited that it's coming out. If a kid doesn't like it, fine; that's his opinion. But the structure of the game is solid, and that is what makes it great. I can tell you I don't like Final Fantasy games; however, I can admit they are great games. The structure they provide is highly regarded and deservedly so; just because I prefer something else proves nothing. The basics are everything.

Okay so a game doesn't have to be immersing or challenging.....Right......Even farmville has an element of immersion, running your own farm. With every single game & thing we do for entertainment, they are both essential. You game to be entertained, and if something is too easy, it is boring, otherwise we'd all be happy watching paint dry as that provides no challenge or immersion.

Why then is there change if the original is sufficient? You are acting as if old games are flawless games and cannot be improved. Well they can, and with those improvements, does it not mean with hindsight you can see what the original was lacking and therefore how it may have been fun at that moment in time, but now, it is an exercise in frustration?

Christ you really are not lumping all games together. Chess is maybe the most challenging game on the planet and is almost impossible to master, hence why it is still being played, yet you claim a game needs not be challenging.
With sports again it is very hard to perfect, if possible at all, making it challenging and entertaining to watch & participate in.

With a game, you can get to a stage where it is no longer a challenge in anyway. If it is then not immersive, then hell, what is the point of it? Golden Eye looks like ass, therefore immersion is gone, and plays like ass, so the challenge is gone.

Now why would anyone want to play a game which offers no challenge or no immersion??

Sorry, if you think Golden Eye is better than most modern FPS you are just blinded by nostalgia and clearly haven't played a modern FPS in years. The fact you think AI is more prone to bugs nowadays and that games don't have location damage shows you have no idea what you talk about.
This is the reason you think old games are still good - because you have nothing to compare them to as you haven't played modern FPS'. So please, go get some perspective before preaching about games you've never played.
And as I said, look at Perfect Dark. Better game than Golden Eye yet the remake was met with a resounding "eh" because guess what, people realised that it's not any good compared to modern shooters.

Yup. It doesn't need to be immersive to be fun. Minesweeper isn't immersive. It's still fun.

Why did cameras need to become better after Citizen Kane was made? The technology can be improved, but despite that there are no films that can match the level of story-telling as this classic. Entertainment is not subject to obsolescence, even if the technology that made it is.

The game itself is not complicated. It is how people play the game that is complex. It's the same way with videogames. New strategies are always being thought of for classic games. Hell, Korea still makes a big deal out of Starcraft; a game which by your twisted logic should suck. It's the simple nature of the game which allows for more complex strategy.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just ask what the point of gaming is? The answer is fun, you nitwit. If I have to explain beyond that, you may as well quit gaming.

People are bullet-sponges in games today. The frantic nature of searching for healthpacks is gone. The entire gameplay structure of shooters today is different to Goldeneye. I like both ways, but there are times that Goldeneye beats out modern shooters in its simple, action-oriented, non-morose experience. It's fun to play.

Let's move away from Goldeneye from a second to prove you wrong: did you enjoy 3D Dot Game Heroes? A lot of people did. I haven't played it yet, but it looks like a great time. Why do I say that? Because it looks exactly like the Legend of Zelda. People loved that game, too. The classic structure of Zelda is so great that it's still enjoyed today despite 20 years of tech advancement. And also, the reviews for PDXBLA were rather favorable. According to your logic, shouldn't it have a much lower score than 79?

Please read what I type or don't bother responding. Immersion OR challenge. Minesweeper offers quite a challenge.
See, this is the problem; you hold onto the past. If you think any film is perfect, then you are insane. Why? Because no film can be perfect and I'm pretty sure that you've argued in the past that games are not like films.
There is no logical reason why Starcraft is still large when there are far better RTS' out there on the market, one's which offer more strategy, and last I checked that was a large part of an RTS.
What are you on about - simple nature means complex strategy? Farmville is simple, Dawn of War is not....Hell even a game like Crysis is very complex. Of course you may be illogically breaking everything down to a goal but that's just pointless, and can be done with anything, but is essentially utterly irrelevant.
Never played 3D Dot Game Hereos.
Here's a question for you, what were the last 5 modern games that you played?
And no, read the reviews, don't just look at the scores. Even the escapist echoes the same thing: PDXBL is good for nostalgia, but all it shows is how far FPS' have come from the days the N64.

If you can't win a game of Minesweeper, you probably have an IQ under room temperature.

Your problem is that you refuse to accept excellence. I do not in any way say that Goldeneye cannot be improved, but that doesn't make it bad. It can still entertain. You're right, there is no such thing as perfection, so why are you pretending that modern games somehow are? Must we have the most modern of things in order to have fun? What kind of sad pathetic existence is that?

Starcraft is to this day unmatched in asymmetrical balance. That is why it is popular, and often cited as one of the best RTSs ever. It's why people are excited for its upcoming sequel. It's why it's still played today. Strategy is not inherent to a game; it is derived from it. RTSs are very simple: each unit has health and other attributes, and you need to use these to eliminate an enemy. How these units must be used is not defined. That is what leads to great amounts of strategic thought: complexity is in place to limit strategies.

You probably should; I hear it's great fun.

Let's see... I played some Monster Hunter Tri, some Modern Warfare 2 over at my cousin's, Shin Megami Tensei Devil Summoner a touch, No More Heroes: Desperate Struggle and Red Steel 2. I haven't been playing many games at all as of late, so I may be wrong on a couple of those.

Well now, this is the rub, isn't it: people have their own subjective opinions. Some people gave some great credit to PD, others did not. I can have fun with technically inferior games, and you seemingly cannot (and by the look of others' responses, I'm not alone). I maintain however that entertainment is not subject to obsolescence. Great works then are still great works now, regardless of its nature, and I include videogames in that. If you want to force upon yourself the belief that everyone must be insane for not thinking like you, you do that. But think about some things; I never played Deus Ex until I saw Epic Mickey's first trailer, and now it's one of my favorite RPGs ever. I never tried a Megaman game until this year, and I'm loving the original now (even if it is kicking my ass all over the place). I'm sure I'm not alone in similar experiences. I'm sure if you bothered to look back on some of the classics, you may find a couple which hold up in your eyes. But since you are more likely than not unwilling to attempt such a thing, I suppose attempting to be civil is pointless. You have fun with the shiny new stuff, and I'll have fun with any great game regardless of age.