PS3 price cut coming.

[Skaw]

The waterpack thing allowed for entirely new puzzles, though. If thats not an equivalent effect on the title as camoflague from Snake Eater to break up repeating the same game twice, theres some pretty obvious rampant fanboyism flaying through this thread.

Yes, Sunshine played like 64. But Snake Eater played like Sons of Liberty. Both had new elements introduced that added to the content. Yet Mario Sunshine is branded "same old boring piece of shit," and Snake Eater isn't? Wha?

It's okay to not like it. It's not okay to say nothings changed from game to game when things obviously had.

 

[Elemmire]

Are you really that fucking retarded? The main Mario series added different elements every installment to change gameplay or added previously unaddable puzzles, post SNES.

By your logic, Final Fantasy is the same old boring piece of shit(I agree there.)

Ratchet and Clank is the same old boring piece of shit.

Metal Gear Solid is the same old boring piece of shit.

Every Atlus/Nippon Ichi TRPG is the same old boring piece of shit.

Are you honestly saying Sonys big flagship products are the same old boring piece of shit, or are you(very likely) flying under double standards?

except all of those had different stories, characters, music, etc. I don't mind same gameplay over and over if the other elements of the game change. Mario, though, didn't change (didn't have a story). Mario had some small interesting things, but over all really wasn't appealing to me to want to keep playing much. I've always been more of a story person anyways when it comes to games, so that's prolly why it doesn't appeal to me. In terms of story, no not a damn thing changed (what little story there was) and the gameplay hasn't changed greatly from game to game. For the most part, it's basically been the same. I acknowledge that FF games have been basically the same, gameplay-wise forever now, that MGS has been the same as well, and that's fine and dandy. But why I keep playing them again and again is because of the story. I like rereading books I enjoyed (and new ones) and I like to play games cause of story too.

 

[Firestreak]

I don't mind the same game play if they make the actual game better. I generally like Zelda games because from one title to the next they put in the massive effort to improve them even if they keep the same formula. Super Mario Sunshine was just crap, the design of Mario 64 was better in every way. I bought it because it was a Mario game like everyone else did, sells well regardless of how good it was. I won't make the same mistake from a Mario game again.... but I WILL give it a chance, the series deserves that.

 

[Firestreak]

I want to know what crack you guys are smoking, by the way, saying all FF games play the same. Cause it must be some really good crack. I mean... they're all RPGs, is that what you mean? I never expected Mario to cease to be a platformer.

Ratchet and Clank... you obviously haven't been playing and are just assuming. This new game is actually going back to the platformer roots, the series has been going in a shooter direction.

 

[Skaw]

I didn't actually claim Ratchet and Clank to the be the same. I was arguing to Elemmire that the points she considers that makes Mario be the exact same every game, are usable on those AAA titles. An if/then arguement.

It ofcourse doesn't stop at the titles, or just on the Playstation. Gravity Gun? Fuck that! Half-Life 2 is just Half-Life 1!

World of Warcraft? More like Word of Ultima Online.

 

[Bajaratt]

except all of those had different stories, characters, music, etc. I don't mind same gameplay over and over if the other elements of the game change. Mario, though, didn't change (didn't have a story). Mario had some small interesting things, but over all really wasn't appealing to me to want to keep playing much. I've always been more of a story person anyways when it comes to games, so that's prolly why it doesn't appeal to me. In terms of story, no not a damn thing changed (what little story there was) and the gameplay hasn't changed greatly from game to game. For the most part, it's basically been the same. I acknowledge that FF games have been basically the same, gameplay-wise forever now, that MGS has been the same as well, and that's fine and dandy. But why I keep playing them again and again is because of the story. I like rereading books I enjoyed (and new ones) and I like to play games cause of story too.

Ratchet and Clank: characters: Ratchet, Clank, Captain Quark. Blow shit up, move to the next area, repeat. Story: stop the bad guy from destroying planets/people; not much of a plot there.

Metal Gear Solid: Play as snake and sneak around. Different people but all with the same name, same look and the exact same moves. They pretty much are all the same person. Plot: stop metal gear.

You're comparing RPG's to fucking mario. Why not shit on Madden '07 because the plot sucks? Not every game has to have a long, compelling plot or any plot at all really.

 

[Elemmire]

I won't comment about Ratchet and Clank cause I've yet to play the game, hah. But each FF, in general, plays the same. They have basically same set up and whatnot. It's their trademark of the series, I can understand that, but there's more to it than Mario's ever offered me. Story being a big part, true, but even the gameplay for FF there was far more to it (and other RPGs) than the gameplay of Mario. More to do than jump here, there, or on that monster or throw item here, there, or throw monster. I dunno, I always just got so much more outta many other games than Mario. And, for the most part, I just haven't seen great changes from one game to the next. I do wonder how Mario Galaxy will work with the Wii Remote.

And that's why I don't play Sports games either, Baja. They just don't interest me. Plus, I'd much rather physically go play the sport, better graphics and gameplay

 

[Bajaratt]

I won't comment about Ratchet and Clank cause I've yet to play the game, hah. But each FF, in general, plays the same. They have basically same set up and whatnot. It's their trademark of the series, I can understand that, but there's more to it than Mario's ever offered me. Story being a big part, true, but even the gameplay for FF there was far more to it (and other RPGs) than the gameplay of Mario. More to do than jump here, there, or on that monster or throw item here, there, or throw monster. I dunno, I always just got so much more outta many other games than Mario. And, for the most part, I just haven't seen great changes from one game to the next. I do wonder how Mario Galaxy will work with the Wii Remote.

Then ONLY play RPG's and don't shit on series that you are biased against the entire genre. I don't like sports or horror/survival-horror games, but I don't post baselessly about how those series are horrible when it's a complete personal bias.

 

[Firestreak]

If the game concept is solid and sells millions, sequels will try to sell to the same fan base that like the original game.

What I like is them making the sequel good enough to justify the sales they'll get off milking the original.

That's pretty much guaranteed in a lot of these titles. It all depends on the developer doing their job right. It's why Ninja Gaiden Sigma is a badass game even if it's a copy of Ninja Gaiden Black with a new playable character, some extra levels and another set of weapons added. If it's a good game and they did a good job making it, and it takes advantage of a system's hardware... then I'll buy and not complain.

I can't help but feel lately though that Nintendo has had so much fucking success they don't need to put that effort in. Without that effort games like Mario Party 8 are just depressing to watch come out. I freaking loved the original mario party.

Put minimal effort into next sequal? Million seller confirmed! :/

 

[Bajaratt]

I played Mario Party 8 last weekend, it's a blast. The series is basic, it's not evolving much aside from the new games that couldn't be done without a Wiimote, but that doesn't in any way detract from the games being fun. It sucks single-player, but then so does games like Battlefield and most RTS and fighting games.

 

[Skaw]

Well, even though the basic lay out remains the same in Mario Party(board game,) mini games vary game to game, or in the case of 8 when I played it with my little brother last time I saw him, completely refreshed list. And face it, the mini-games are the meat of the game. Complaining that the game still uses a boardgame like element, is like complaining that Half-Life 2 still uses the HEV suit.

 

[Firestreak]

Mario Party 8 is a stinker, and it's a stinker because if Nintendo actually invested 1% of its profit into making games it would be 10 times better. It's a stinker because it's a good concept, enough to make a few hours of fun gameplay alone, with no actual effort put into making it a solid title.

This is a 2007 game? You can tell Nintendo gives a shit here.

 

[Bajaratt]

Mario Party 8 is a stinker, and it's a stinker because if Nintendo actually invested 1% of its profit into making games it would be 10 times better. It's a stinker because it's a good concept, enough to make a few hours of fun gameplay alone, with no actual effort put into making it a solid title.

This is a 2007 game? You can tell Nintendo gives a shit here.

Sounds like you couldn't figure out what to do again, or you just never played the game.

Games don't have to be 1080p to be fun or to look good.

 

[Firestreak]

For reference, I understood the controls of Wii sports, I also understood it was rigged in such a way I could swing in any direction and it would hit the ball. It's a perfectly valid complaint, dumbass.

 

[Firestreak]

And games don't have to be 1080p to look good. They just have to look better than that piece of shit looking game. Don't tell me you don't think Mario Party 8 is the pinnacle of standard def visuals. I was sitting here wondering why i got a next gen console!

 

[Bajaratt]

For reference, I understood the controls of Wii sports, I also understood it was rigged in such a way I could swing in any direction and it would hit the ball. It's a perfectly valid complaint, dumbass.

Actually I meant more of Twilight Princess, where you got stumped in the training village and just quit the game. Especially when you already knew everything you needed to progress.

And games don't have to be 1080p to look good. They just have to look better than that piece of shit looking game. Don't tell me you don't think Mario Party 8 is the pinnacle of standard def visuals. I was sitting here wondering why i got a next gen console!

The game looks fine, it doesn't need top of the line graphics, despite what you obviously think based on your posting history. Hell, Nippon Ichi games look like they were made on the SNES, but they're still awesome games. You're putting graphics above gameplay(for about the 100th time), which makes you a movie watcher and not a gamer.

 

[Firestreak]

If the graphics disgust me I'll usually get annoyed and disinterested in the gameplay. Devs who don't bother to make their games look good rarely have games that actually play well.

Low budget is low budget and high budget is high budget.

Also: I got several hours into Twilight Princess. I was annoyed having to look at a guide because of an illogical part of the game that forced me to talk to a random combination of NPCs without any way to logically deduce which ones in which order.

 

[Bajaratt]

If the graphics disgust me I'll usually get annoyed and disinterested in the gameplay. Devs who don't bother to make their games look good rarely have games that actually play well.

Low budget is low budget and high budget is high budget.

Also: I got several hours into Twilight Princess. I was annoyed having to look at a guide because of an illogical part of the game that forced me to talk to a random combination of NPCs without any way to logically deduce which ones in which order.

It takes truely horrible graphics for gameplay to not make up for them; but then for you that seems to be anything that's not photo-realistic or in the highest definition possible. You're confusing not having mind-blowing graphics with having horrible graphics, but that's par for your course.

You're also the ONLY person I've ever heard of who got stumped in the training village. Everyone else figured it out in under a minute. Sounds more like a personal failing than a puzzle "with no way to logically deduce" the solution. You're supposed to walk around and explore in that type of game, but I guess it's just over your head.

 

[Firestreak]

No I'd just say my standards go up as time goes forward. There's nothing out here that's photorealistic except nearly some driving games. There's a pretty wide range of what I'd consider an acceptable level of graphics, but when you look worse than for example... Kingdom Hearts 2, it's too hard to look at.

It came out in 2005 for PS2. It looked this good.

Looks better upscaled, by the way, but anyway. If a game released in 2007 looks worse than that, to me pretty godawful. Because the range I'm playing goes up to some fairly low budget titles that look far better.

As far as the Zelda puzzle is concerned. I honestly don't give a fuck if you approve or not. I've beaten games people consider actually difficult both in terms of skill needed to win and games considered difficult in terms of flat out being complicated to figure out...

A puzzle that requires you to just talk to every person in town in some random order or whatever the hell it was that required essentially brute force hacking the town is stupid, especially on a system designed for "casuals." I have no doubt you're lying or you're one of those dipshits that's the reason gamestop employees try to sell me player guides with my games cause someone actually buys them.

You probably got stuck and started doing shit in random order until it worked and either got lucky and took 5 minutes or took a lot longer and won't admit it. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. When we actually had this discussion, the only shit you were able to say was "uhh I did it fast and so did my hundreds of friends that just love to come over and play that very spot in front of me coincidentally."

Hmm, smells like bullshit. Funny you couldn't actually explain the logical reason to go through that chain of events to beat the puzzle, only emphasize it's easy through your anecdotal evidence.

Here I'll make a puzzle for you. I'm thinking of a number of 1 to 100. All my friends were able to guess it the first try. If you can't you must be a dumbass.

 

[Bajaratt]

It took all of 5 minutes to talk to everyone in town and figure out everything that needed to be done. Get the cat back to the shop keeper for the sling shot, shoot down the beehive in front of the guy's house, get the basket back for the fishing rod. In the same time, you find out that the cat will only come back if it catches a fish, which means that you have to catch the fish for it; so getting the rod comes first.

When you did the required first summoning of the hawk, a cross hair appeared, which means you could shoot it at stuff. Another five to ten minutes of exploration, something that you should already know to do if you've ever played any non-sports game ever made(which I found right after learning about the hawk for the first time), and you find the second set of hawk grass(there's a third on top of the mayor's house too, guess you didn't find that either). It took me maybe one minute max to figure out what I had to do.

You could see the monkey from the second set of hawk grass, which was the only reason it was even there. They don't put shit like that in a game for no reason. You're an idiot for getting stumped by such a simple puzzle and then trying to say there was no way to solve it by yourself. Of the entire series of events, the only part even remotely hard to get is that you can shoot the hawk into something. Since you already knew you could hit things with the hawk, but apparently didn't want to explore about 30 feet from the first hawk grass or bother to think; no wonder you got stumped. Just get over the fact that you, personally, and solely failed and stop blaming the game that no one else had any problems with.

And Kingdom Hearts doesn't look much better than Mario Party 8 does. The only difference is that KH has better skins, because it was a game with a plot and action and it was made by SE, a company renown for great graphics in their games. Mario Party 8, is a fucking party game, graphics aren't nearly as important as the mini-games being fun, as long as the graphics do not in any way hinder the game play. I don't think even your graphics-whoring-moron self could say that the MP8 graphics actually hurt the game play.