Sheikah

Every single game that was then 3D had to come up with new 3D gameplay. Indeed, most games released today are in 3D. It's no surprise that this caused more types of gameplay we'd never experienced before. The jump to 3D was a huge step; 2D and 3D Mario games are extremely different. The same can be said for side scrolling shooters and FPS games. One trick pony? Pfft. More like the platinum-plated magical unicorn that broke open the lid of a whole new era.

So what should we compare with? Gears of War? Still an FPS with a concept like many before it. Metal Gear Solid 4? Praised for its cinematics and complex story, but made a transition further from stealth game to more of a third person action adventure shooter. Resistance 2/Killzone 2? Not like the core gameplay there has never been done before. Metroid Prime 3? See MP1 and 2. Most games that are excellent today still aren't groundbreaking in terms of the core gameplay they offer, bar the odd title like Wii Sports. Ok, this made you lose any credibility you (possibly) had. I'm fairly sure you haven't played this game. If you had, you wouldn't be saying that.

Well this is just me, but games that aren't fresh - no matter how good the game's graphics and content is, will never be as good as the originals when it was all new to us. You could argue that you could use gaming newcomers to judge; but we're certainly not in that category, and we're judging here. Examples! Pokemon (Red and Blue were amazing, then every game was pretty much the same since) 3D Zelda games (mostly very similar), Halo - yes they have a good online mode for 3, but the game is EXTREMELY similar to the point of disbelief across the three games. Then the golden example - GTA! Since the first proper 3D game on PS2, the map style, gameplay and concept is EXACTLY the same! Once you've played GTA3, no matter how good the newly added motorbikes/ability to own property/ride helicopter perks, the same core gameplay; what you will spend most of your time doing, is almost identical! That's why while at face value the current gen games can be seen as superficially 'superior', but they fail at a pivotal area of judgement - how fun they are to play by veterans of the series! The same is true for so many FPS games today. Trawl through dungeons, usually starting with a shitty pistol/assault rifle. Go through the game to find (among slight variations): - Some generic sniper rifle - Brute force weapon - RPG or grenade launcher - Melee/sword type weapon - Shotgun - Magnum - Flamethrower - Different grenade types - A few random weapons Usually you'll clear out enemies to progress through the stage, and break crates/look around for ammo. Often the whole thing will be arranged into acts/worlds, each with 3 or 4 stages, culminating in a boss. So come on, let's be serious. You can't all really be saying that these games are the best ever made. If they're the best games ever made then I must have missed a trick, because finding that sniper rifle and Master Sword for the tenth time in better graphics with 40 hours more of sidequests isn't quite doing it for me anymore. When something different does come along it is genuinely a pleasure to play...probably why I love Wii Sports so much!

lol, I wonder if anyone could plot a graph of perceived attractiveness against overall photoshop usage? :p

It's good to live in a town that's not a busy city, but has easy links to the city. That's my situation; I live in a town with a 6 minute interval metrolink to Manchester. Voila!

To be honest, I don't really care what someone so immature thinks of me. I can only assume that your over-reliance on petty, foul-mouthed insults is down to an inherent inability to express yourself in a meaningful manner. In the past few months you've deliberately posted to troll and cause offense; often in topics that I've posted in. If you have a problem with other people's opinions, just put them on your ignore list.

It also introduced far more to the FPS genre than it borrowed, and undoubtedly shaped the FPS genre as a whole.

That post brilliantly points out the fatal flaw of video games currently. They have to adhere to a standard. This means that they have to include certain previously repeated elements in order to be accepted by fans of those particular genres. Games these days just recycle gameplay. Obviously there are exceptions, but as I said, I prefer the N64 era for having far more inspired games than average. If you're able to embrace every new game as if it's something groundbreaking, then I applaud your ability to forget previous games! Put it like this - If you gave a person who had never played a video game before a copy of Goldeneye 64 and a copy of, say, Resistance 2, it's no doubt they'd see Resistance 2 as the better game. But what you're doing there is comparing the games entirely at face value; which is completely wrong. If this was what game review websites did, they would constantly readjust their scores of video games each week - Ocarina of Time would probably be around 6/10 now due to its 'outdated visuals, small game map', etc. It's incredibly shallow to toss aside classics simply because a company has had the audacity to rip away the heart of a few games, include a new story and bettered graphics, then call it a different game. If I've played a FPS these days, I feel like I've played them all. That's why new games should be rated on 'freshness'. For that reason, GTA3 would be seen as pretty awesome (which it rightly is), while consecutive sequels would be marked down for being essentially the same. I'd say you're probably second to Choze in terms of PlayStation products. But probably right up at the top in terms of trying to provoke arguments.

A game only defines a genre if it's fantastic. The N64 had far more than average of these games, thus it's definitely (for me) the best genre. You're all blind if you think FPS games that will use reasonably the same formula until the end of time (but in HD!) mean that the current generation is the best ever. If that's the case, the most recent generation will always be better than any previous ones. Ya know, because it has 'improved'. Think about it - how many times can you play reasonably similar games and then still claim that the next one you play is the best of its kind ever made? If you played Super Mario 9 for the Wii 6, would you still claim it to be the best platformer ever created? Even if it's using the same Mario formula? For a start, I'm not a raging fanboy. =D

Putting your immature insult to one side, it's quite obvious why I prefer the N64 era. For the sake of justifying my opinion, let's just take a look at some of the N64 games that popped up: Mario 64 - defined 3D platform gaming. Since then, every 3D platformer (including later gen Mario games) has followed in its ways. Therefore, the most groundbreaking 3D platformer was on the N64. Ocarina of Time - Since this game, every single main console Zelda title has followed the same overall formula. Therefore, the most groundbreaking 3D Zelda game was first seen on N64. Goldeneye 64 - Again, this shaped FPS games ever since. It was really such a great game. You really don't have groundbreaking games these days. It's a bit like GTA - when GTA3 hit, with its hugely interactive world and third person (ground level) view, this was a great game. Since then, every console GTA has just used the same formula. For that reason, any GTA sequel is never as fun for me, since I've played the same sort of game several times over. Also, any FPS game around often uses similar weaponry and a reasonably similar battle system. The N64 brought a load of titles that had something quite new. Most titles these days have been done so many times before. Have games improved? Of course they have. Better graphics, greater lifespan, multiplayer options, etc. Does this make them better games? No, because the core content isn't fresh, so is nowhere near as entertaining as when the genre benchmark games cropped up years ago.

I think you're quite a smart guy.

The trick is to not have high expectations. Once you know that nothing as great as the N64 era will ever come around again you can never be disappointed.

Your old one broke so they offered to sell you one for that price? I would have harassed the shit out of them until they offered to fix it for something like £50. Did it break by itself?

What, you'd rather have fungus poking out of the woodwork? :p I quite like the modern approach...I daren't post my setup as it is at the moment as it's a bit messy.

I might be able to come, but that depends on the day my Masters course officially starts (hopefully it's the following Monday). Although I can drive, I'm currently motorless, so it would be the connecting bus from Stoke for me. Doesn't sound too bad though; it's only 50 mins to Stoke from Manhcester anyway, then a 35ish minute bus journey from there. Nice to see some of you showing.

I used to use RPG Maker a LOT...got quite far on one game that included the members of a forum I used to frequent. It wasn't half bad either - the people who I let try it out were surprised that I had actually made it. I had quite a good Zelda level that felt just like when you were in the Lost Woods area (think that was it) in LTTP. Looking back on it, it was a great tool for slagging off people you didn't like, lol.

Wow...surprised the staff didn't buy it themselves and stick it on eBay for £30. Crazy good price, that.

Death. . . .

What...they're allowed to do that? What do they think will happen in 3 years that will be any different, meaning you can then apply for a visa? What pigs.

Super Mario Land is indeed awesome; you get a great sense of satisfaction when you complete it!

Yeah, because I was using Metacritic as a basis of fact. If I did, then I'd be saying Metroid Prime is the 'better' game. I was pointing out that it's hardly 'funny' (as dwarf found it) to see one game compared to the other; they're both considered amazing games. I have to say, I've chuckled a little at you trying to tell me to accept games that aren't graphically stunning in this day and age. My favourite games are all over ten years old. What exactly is your point, if you even have one?

Well, I guess some people have difficulties accepting that other people think differently. Anyway, let's drop this. You find Metroid Prime to be the better game, and I find Bioshock to be better. There's nothing more to it than that.

Really? I mean, really? I prefer Bioshock, but I can see why people might prefer Metroid Prime. If you honestly think the gap in public favourability is so huge, I suggest you check out the Metacritic scores for both games. 96% to Bioshock, 97% Metroid Prime. I would say that pretty much puts them on an even keel in terms of what a lot of people thought about the games. Ergo, it's not hard to see why two people would consider either one to be the 'best'. I'm sorry. I shall have to tag 'I think' to everything in future. Let's try using some common sense; it should be obvious that I am stating an opinion. Just as people who say "Ocarina of Time is the best game ever" are stating opinion, despite the omission of 'I think'. I love how little common sense floats around these days.

I know I'm not alone here, but I found MGS3 to be the best by a mile. So this is definitely a good thing.