Random Gaming Thoughts II ~News Items Beware~

Only bursts, sadly.

Athrun888 wrote:

Trolling aside I've never got the appeal of Mario. Sure they're cute games with typically top tier borderline-unparalleled level design,
but it's not a series that inspires the fanboy within me.

I mean you kind of said it yourself there. I value world design more highly than I do anything else in gaming, perhaps. It's the reason procedurally generated games get right on my wick. And Mario just does that best. Add in exploration, which I also love, and you have a potential all-time great.

Drunkalilly wrote:

I'm not saying it has to make me feel the same emotions Zelda did, obviously. What I'm saying is that in the past, Zelda has made me feel strngly about its world whereas Mario has made me feel strongly about the mechanics. Breath of the Wild combined the two, so I'm not sure whether Mario being much better at one, while not having the other, will be enough to make it the better game overall.

Mario's mechanics will always, for me, be fundamentally different to Link's. Possibly superior. Given a mountain, we gasped in awe as Link scaled it, slowly and tortuously. Mario would be wall-kicking his way up the Duelling Peaks in the time it took Link to refill his stamina meter. I think Mario is probably more fun to explore with - it's just, as you say, he doesn't always get the world to do so.

GJones wrote:

The beauty of Mario games is that they are enjoyed by all ages. My 5 year old loves Yoshi's Island, Mario Galaxy and "spin-offs" like Luigi's Mansion. Pretty sure she wouldn't have as much as fun in any of the Zelda games because they are aimed at the slightly older audience who are happy to read text or run around and not achieve anything in 30 minutes. If Mario starts being more like Zelda, it could actually hurt the essence and accessibility of Mario games.

I see what you mean since the Mario games are often way more playful in the way you can explore and generally move about BUT BotW bucks that trend & also has that playfulness in spades, my 6 year old nephew absolutely loves the game and even though he has had help at certain sections of the game (certain enemies or bosses) he has beaten the game yet he still comes back to play it quite often.

Balladeer wrote:

Mario's mechanics will always, for me, be fundamentally different to Link's.  Possibly superior.  Given a mountain, we gasped in awe as Link scaled it, slowly and tortuously.  Mario would be wall-kicking his way up the Duelling Peaks in the time it took Link to refill his stamina meter.  I think Mario is probably more fun to explore with - it's just, as you say, he doesn't always get the world to do so.

Part of me agrees, but there is an argument that having to treat the mountain with respect, with that slight edge of realism and challenge, is what makes the world more memorable. That's why the bits of a Pokémon game before you get fly, or the first Dark Souls where you can't always warp, are more memorable worlds because you had to move around them and learn them like a real place.

Drunkalilly wrote:

Balladeer wrote:

Mario's mechanics will always, for me, be fundamentally different to Link's.  Possibly superior.  Given a mountain, we gasped in awe as Link scaled it, slowly and tortuously.  Mario would be wall-kicking his way up the Duelling Peaks in the time it took Link to refill his stamina meter.  I think Mario is probably more fun to explore with - it's just, as you say, he doesn't always get the world to do so.

Part of me agrees, but there is an argument that having to treat the mountain with respect, with that slight edge of realism and challenge, is what makes the world more memorable. That's why the bits of a Pokémon game before you get fly, or the first Dark Souls where you can't always warp, are more memorable worlds because you had to move around them and learn them like a real place.

That's true. There is also that transcendental quality in certain games though, whereby the player goes through a metomorphosis from chump to champ, entailing that liberating, somewhat god-like, feeling of power - if done right. Where you do the hard toiling in early game is generally more memorable, but those memories also nourish the ascension to unbelievable heights in the late game. The player repeats old memories in the late game, even if those early techniques are now meshing with new ones in complex ways. But this sort of aspect of games is tangible beyond words - proper hard to explain, balance and difficulty curves and all that, but probably where the difference between fans of different, but similar, genres (or even just games) lies.

Must admit, BOTW is a strange one. Link does get stronger; you amass stamina, health, and better equipment. But I never really felt like the challenge changed a great deal until I got the Master Sword. That could just be because I was enamoured with its exploration rather than it's mechanical difficulty, other than the occasional boss that requires precise timing. I guess the scope of BOTW is such that you can challenge yourself with guardian encounters or do your best to avoid them, as I mostly did. Clever game.

I actually found the challenge getting easier. Dropping off the Great Plateau I found it a massive slog; things got better after that. (I also chose the Gerudo path, which feels like the final one, as my second.)

Also I do indeed remember Route 1 in RBY vividly, but mostly as an annoyance. If I'd had the opportunity to triple-jump over those patches of long grass I'd have done so. And I remember Bob-Omb's Battlefield more vividly than perhaps anywhere in gaming: blame my age and incompetence.

With Nintendo likely having the Number 1 & 2 GOTY 2017 and you could argue either could be the best game ever as well.

How in any way can Nintendo have a better 2018 then 2017? Just on Switch we will have Zelda, Mario Kart, Splatoon, 3D Mario, Pokemon Spin-Off, Fire Emblem Spin-Off, New IP, Mario Spin-Off, massive JRPG, plus a few more things just from Nintendo.

Sure we know some games for next year like Kirby and Yoshi but I don't think we can really compare them to Zelda and Mario.

Folk will have to reign in that expectation a lot BUT they won't and it'll be back to the norm of them whining about how what Nintendo are doing isn't good enough.

Nintendo only ever recycle their franchises anyway. When's the new stuff coming?!

On a more serious note, Kirby and Yoshi will likely be pretty good games, and there's always the possibility of Animal Crossing and/or Smash getting released. 2018 is unlikely to be as stellar for Nintendo as 2017 was/is still being but there's bound to be some good stuff around the corner.

Animal crossing really is a big one, isn't it? Tbh Nintendo seem to be making a much more aggressive push for third parties so hopefully the support continues there (e shop & retail stuff like Doom etc) & they fill any gaps should Nintendo leave some.

I do imagine they'll have a few new IPs for next year though.

Yeah 2018 could look like this Kirby, Yoshi, Animal Crossing, SMASH for Switch, Pokemon, Fire Emblem which is rather good.

I didn't put Metroid 4 as I think it or Pokemon will be 2019, which I guess is the same year as we may see Mario Kart 9.

Oh. Just posted about this elsewhere. Whoops!

Yep we'll get the usual raft of complaints. I would like to see Metroid Prime 4 next year, I think it would be oddly un-Nintendo-like to announce MP4 so far in advance (although I can see why they'd do it). But I don't mind seeing a scale-back from this year, which has been and continues to be phe-f**king-nomenal. Especially in the first half of 2018.

I wonder when they'll begin the journey to SSB5...

I was thinking like Kart we would get Deluxe SMASH in 2018 then in 2020 or something the SMASH5 as you got to think the Switch will last a good 5-7 years in some form.

And just a Deluxe Kart in the first 3 months then not a 9th for the System would seem odd ans same goes for SMASH.

---

Is the Switches first year the best ever maybe for a System (based on what Balla said elsewhere about 2017 as a whole)? I'd argue the Dreamcast had very good first 12 months with 25 bangers or the GameCube which had over 30 bangers including Sunshine and Wind Waker.

Considering I won't have as much to spend on games, and I'll still have a backlog from 2017, I would be more than happy for Nintendo to chill out with all the releases in 2018.

I don't know if any of you guys do the GameFAQs daily poll, but I have to admit to hating it when the option I actually am is not represented in the question list (Pokémon fan who's still not getting it). As a Maths teacher, I know you have to cater for all people in your questionnaires - where's the 'Other' option?!

Is because Nintendo a valid answer?

I ask this because MS have just added to Xbox One, OG Xbox games which look like they've been remastered that's how good they look along with streaming I believe.  

On PlayStation 4 we've had PS2 classics which have a boost in resolution, streaming and trophies.

The OG Xbox games are £9.99, PS2 games avg £9.99.

So when Nintendo bring us GameCube games on the Virtual Console and the games are more expensive then the games from the same era because Nintendo also based on what games from other Nintendo VC games have cost and nothing new or improve in anyway as we've seen the emulation on Wii U, yeah we've also seen the NES & SNES Mini meaning it could be great.

Shouldn't we be asking for more then that, I get we can play on the go now with Switch. I brought this up to EofGiz at work and his answer was because Nintendo and will buy them anyway.

I saw the TGS demo of Metal Gear Survive last night & it seems like it's going to be a kind of open world/horde mode/Tower defence style of game? If it is that then I am well up for it.

I hope it flops harder then a Inafune KickStarter project post Might Number 9.

Oh I forgot to put up the link to the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvsooZeVT1Y

Finally someone else who likes the look of it, seen plenty of comments complaining about it with the main criticism being that it isn't Metal Gear. Some of the same people who complained it isn't standard Metal Gear then went on to ask for a new Metal gear Rising...

Feel like it'll be a nice mix between new RE style gameplay with Konami's engine and more co-op play.

Sent from Topic'it App

How you feel about EA is how us Metal Gear fans feel about Konami and a shitty online only likely microtransactions heavy spin-off isn't going to make things any better.

Honestly, it doesn't look half bad. It'll never match up to the main series but that's perfectly okay - it's a spin-off, after all. I'll be keeping an eye on it.

Exactly, as a spin off it can't do any harm if it plays decent enough, I got a lot of time out of Metal Gear Online too so something that can build on that sounds promising.

Treesmurf wrote:

Exactly, as a spin off it can't do any harm if it plays decent enough, I got a lot of time out of Metal Gear Online too so something that can build on that sounds promising.

MGO was great fun, a bit janky in places with it's matchmaking/lobby system etc but trying to fulton extract your enemy for extra points always brought up funny moments. Hopefully the co-op approach of Survive sorts all of that & we get few of us playing it.

Treesmurf wrote:

Exactly, as a spin off it can't do any harm if it plays decent enough, I got a lot of time out of Metal Gear Online too so something that can build on that sounds promising.

If you're willing to buy this then why not something like Star Wars Battlefront 2 from EA, as I can only see Konami having a even worse system that means you paying more after buying.

I find it similar to remaster chat, its okay when I like the game or series.

You predicting it being worse than Battlefront isn't the same as it being worse than Battlefront.

Sent from Topic'it App