You don't have to invent a concept to make an impact, just perfect it (which I think it did). Suddenly after having played Galaxy, normal platformers aren't going to feel quite as neat.
I don't think it did any more with it than any other past titles did.
You're definitely right that normal platformers won't feel the same; I think it's a breath of fresh air from that mess. I HATE that you press one direction and go in another, the you can't see half of the place you're standing on...it's a mess. Maybe some like it. I hate it.
Super Paper Mario has an aggregate score of 88% on Gamerankings.com, with not a single score below a 70%--not exactly a flop. I played and loved the first two, yes, and I don't think the change between TTYD and SPM is quite as drastic as Metroid becoming a puzzle game (maybe a pinball game, lol). Between the first two Paper Mario titles and the two handheld games, the "Mario in an RPG" collection of games hadn't really changed much. If SPM had just been exactly what TTYD was, it wouldn't have stood out in the least, and worse yet it might've risked being regarded as what the Megaman Battle Network franchise has become, "Another one? Really? Didn't I JUST play this last year?"
It's not as drastic obviously, that was exaggeration for the sake of effect.
And I doubt that SPM would've become like that. I think a better comparison of "Didn't I JUST play this last year?" would be the Mario Party series. What are they on now, #9001?
Who's to say that we can't? Look at MegaMan 9. I also have to wonder just what sort of "REAL" innovation you're looking for, because besides the motion sensor we've seen an online store, multiplayer online gameplay, DLC, and custom soundtracks--maybe not as well implemented as on certain other systems, but the inclusion alone is notable. What other innovations were you really holding out for?
Okay, great, we can get a WiiWare title. I don't want ONE title. I want them to CONTINUE 2D Metroid. Super Metroid is simply awesome, while I've played through Metroid Fusion at least 30 times, doing Speed Runs, 1% Runs, etc. Those games are awesome and I still play them. While you could argue that that means we don't need another 2D Metroid because I've got my two, think about this; if those two were so stellar, why would they not do another one? Super Metroid is widely considered the best Metroid game (except for by Nintendo Power...Zero Mission? REALLY?) and it's not a secret, so I don't know why they're not seeing this. I doubt a WiiWare title will spawn more than one game, and that's beside the point--there is NO REASON for them to keep 3D on the DS (they've already had one, unless they realize their mistake they're probably not going to 2D). I'm fine with more FPAs, Metroid Prime is my second favorite (arguably tied with Fusion, I'm not really decided on that) Metroid game, and #3 not far behind. But I don't want to see all FPA.
As for innovation, I'm talking about GAME innovation. The system-wide innovation is what I'm against because it only encourages the lack of innovation elsewhere.
How is a game that requires a gamer to be really good at it to beat it not hardcore? Does a game somehow require a million online clans that play for 50 hours per week to be hardcore? Or is it "A mature experience", because I don't think that mature=hardcore necessarily. And, did you even take Galaxy past the 60 star mark? If not, you've really not experienced what the game really had to throw at you--after that point, it starts kicking your ***.
I'm not saying that's NOT a requirement, I'm just saying it's not the only one.
I disagree with a game having a following making it hardcore; millions of soccer moms all over the country love Wii Fit. That's the most non-hardcore in the entire world.
As for my definition, I can't be sure. I'm trying to define it in my head, and I can't. I think there are too many things that would be taken into account. As such, I probably don't have a right to criticize other definitions, but...I just can't come up with my own. I think it's better for me to leave it like that rather than try in vain to define it.
As for Galaxy, yes. I don't get games and then drop them unless they're awful. It's a waste of money, and as long as they're not too bad it's not a bad experience. Also, if I just played it to a certain point and then dropped it, how could I honestly say it's too easy or not a good game? I couldn't, so I had to play through to see for myself.
It oozes style, has a fun and rewarding as hell combat system, has great, fun characters, and a ton of collectibles to keep hoarders interested. It's not perfect--far from it--but it's a hell of alot of fun and few would call it anything but a hardcore title.
Okay, maybe it is hardcore. It doesn't sound like my kind of thing, but I'll leave it at that.
DK Jungle Beat had an aggregate score of 82% from Gamerankings.com. Hard to call that one bad.
Actually, it's very easy. I am allowed to have an opinion aside from what a bunch of people voted on Gamerankings. Stop quoting it as a source for every game. If I don't think the game was good, I'm allowed to say that.
It's easy to get stuck on the main franchises and first-party games when you're dealing with a Nintendo platform, I understand. Nintendo has a long and proud history as a developer and a publisher and so any perceived "weakness" from them is regarded as a terrible thing. Well, it just has to be known that an owner of a Nintendo console has a lot more to enjoy than just Nintendo games--there really are reasons to own a Wii without having to play a Nintendo game. It helps, it really does, but it's not required. Honestly, you could take away all of the first-party titles I own right now and I'd still be overjoyed with the Wii.
For me, I'd never buy a console solely on the extra titles. I just don't want to do that, and that's why, despite my disappointment with Nintendo's path, I'll probably stick with them until their franchises are no longer worth playing. Their franchises have declined, but they're still good.
I can only thank some great higher power that the Wii is getting more than just the same games the 360 and PS3 are getting. Alot of those games are built around graphics and extensive online modes, with single-player and local multiplayer taking a back seat. Many Wii-ports are just ports of the already shoddy PS2 experiences, because developers are too lazy to build new engines. With the other systems, if you have an engine built for one then you've already got it built for the other, so it's easy to port it over. Since the Wii lacks a lot of the graphical shine that the other consoles get, developers have to give the Wii version something that makes it stand out, a reason justifying it's existence beyond being an effort at money-grubbing. They take this as the point at which you insert motion controls (waggle, **** you!). Alot of these fail, to be sure, but some of these "Wii-makes" have really turned out fantastic (read: Resident Evil 4).
"Wii-makes" are different. Twilight Princess was pretty much just that (it was ported from GameCube at the last second), and while it wasn't as good as past Zelda titles, I'd say it's my second favorite for Wii. I've heard great things about Resident Evil 4 (although this is more Nintendo Power talking). That's not what I'm talking about. I loved Soul Calibur II. Soul Calibur III wasn't as good, but I still like the style of the game. Then we get Legends and the other systems are getting a real Soul Calibur? Different, fine. Not even getting the franchise because we have to get a special game, not fine. I don't want to have to buy another console for that; as I said, I buy consoles for first-party titles.
Luckily, now Wii owners are getting a reason to own the Wii version of the game rather than the 360 or PS3 version. Motion controls continue to be refined, and many developers have started taking advantage of the pointer controls to really revolutionize tired genres. Just check out Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, the Wii is probably getting the best version of that game.
The Force Unleashed is one of the few exceptions to the rule of Wii owners getting the worse game.
And, Sonic and the Secret Rings was terrible across the board, not just on Wii. Nintendo's console didn't make it bad, Sega did. I don't much care for Sonic games generally though, so it's not much of an issue for me.
I'm not saying it's the Wii's fault; Sonic games have been going downhill since it first went to 3D (SA2 was great, but others were less than stellar). But constant movement made it feel like a racing game...yet not. If Sega hadn't been so inclined to do motion sensor controls, that part wouldn't have happened. And that, in my opinion, is what makes the game virtually unplayable. I can hardly control myself because I try to go backwards and the motion sensor glitches and sends me way forward.
Because it's a good game.
I wasn't talking about the game entirely...it IS a good game. I'm saying what does multiple planets have to do with anything?
Look, your a cool guy, but you slam new games just because they try to do something different. It pisses me off. Bringing Metroid into the FPA genre was a logical step for Metroid. And they were good games (except for Hunters. That one was mediocre at best). But who knows, you may get your wish of a 2-D Metroid with WiiWare. Nintendo may follow in Capcom's footsteps with the new 8-Bit Megaman.
I've already addressed this in my response to derek.haines, but I'll re-adress it here. I don't have a problem with FPA in general, obviously it was logical. I have a problem with FPA and nothing but.
Same thing for WiiWare. I want 2D Metroid to continue normally, not as a spinoff "fool around" (which is what WiiWare is for) title. It deserves more than that.
Mario Galaxy? Fantastic game. It introduced a revival in the platformer franchise. We had a few Kirby games, Ratchet and Clank, and... nothing else. Then Galaxy comes along, a fantastic game that did innovate (yes, I dare say it did have some fresh and original ideas in it. The gravity system, for starters), and it's starting to revitalize interest in the Platformer genre, which is my favorite genre in general.
I love platforming. I hated Galaxy. It didn't revitalize anything for me. I don't see how this did anything.
Plus, if any game follows in its footsteps as a platformer, it'll only be viewable as a copy of Galaxy. Mario won't be able to pull it off again because people will say it's Galaxy 2.0. So it really won't do anything more than one game. Revitalize platforming my ***.
Hardcore games are hard games. It can't mean anything else. I can tell that you consider Super Metroid hardcore. Well, it's a hard game. Matter of fact, give me the names of your favorite games. I guaruntee you they will be hard.
I'm not saying it's not a requirement, just saying it's not the only one.
Definition of hardcore from dictionary.com:
unswervingly committed; uncompromising. Yeah. You have to be committed to a hardcore game to beat it. Why?
It's hard.
No. STOP QUOTING DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. Hardcore isn't even necessarily a fitting term for "hardcore" gamers or the games themselves, it's just sort of a term that stuck. I don't particularly care for the term, there was even a topic about it somewhere on SmashBoards, but I use it because everyone else does and if I were to find and use another term, no one else would have a clue what I'm talking about.
But your problem is innovation. Yeah. Twilight Princess? No innovation. Still an excellent game. It isn't as easy to innovate as it was 20 years ago, because not as much was done. In today's age, it's hard because we've done so much with gaming.
I never said TP was bad. Not as good as past games in my opinion, but as I said, second best for Wii in my opinion.
You shouldn't expect something new every time. The same old may not be as exciting, but if you came back to it, it's probably good.
Woah, woah; you're accusing me of not liking the old stuff? Have you heard me begging for another 2D Metroid? I phrased it wrong before. I don't like games that go backwards in terms of how good the game is because they're so focused on motion sensor. It's like games that suck because they spend so much time on graphics. Motion sensor is to the Wii as graphics are to Xbox/PS. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it can screw up games.
Okay, why do you play Video games THIS generation? You seem forced and you said it sucked.
"Suck" was mostly exaggeration. All of the consoles have some large downsides.
In any case, I didn't realize the Wii would be a casual fest until I got it, so I'm kind of stuck with it now unless I sell it. But it's probably better than the other consoles anyways, so I'm not. The Wii has a few good titles, they're just few and far between.
Metroid Prime 3, (only played on a friends Wii)once you learn the control scheme the challenge dissipates, multi player may still have some potential. (even though it's multi player sux compared to Halo)
Metroid Prime 3 doesn't have any multiplayer. And it still rocks compared to Halo, it's the most overrated game in the world.
ROFL. You obviously haven't played much brawl then.
You obviously are still blinded to the gaping downsides of Brawl as I used to be. It requires some skill, but very minimal skill.
I've played melee competatively in tournaments for a very long time. Melee is of course better than brawl in technicality. But saying Brawl is not competative is not true. As someone who plays both games competatively, brawl will still have tournaments.
Having tournaments =/= being competitive. A person can live on a farm with pigs and act exactly like they do. Doesn't make him a pig.
