S.C.G Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Having played Rares latest offerings for a reasonable period of time, I would say No, yes it is true that they dont have *exactly* the same charm as their N64 titles but don't forget that both Kameo and Perfect Dark Zero have been created with not just the hardcore Rare fans in mind but unfortunately the casual (spits) market as well. However in their transition for what they have lost they have also gained a new type of charm which is evident from their two Xbox 360 titles, also they havent forgotten about their past either, I won't go into too much detail but their heritage is still important to them, this is reflected in the intros to both PD Zero and Kameo, plus their are also hidden references in Kameo to it's long development cycle and a few other bits of info hidden away. So No, Rare hasnt lost it entirely, it knows what it's doing, even though I'm happy to admit that PDZ has it's issues (story, voice acting) and Kameo isnt perfect (longevity issues) but Rare can still hold it's own out there, and even if their recent titles may be lacking slightly they are still better than about 80% of the developers out there. (in my opinion ) Anyway, as it stands for Rare, they have continued well with their developing career and have managed to create two overly decent titles for a launch of c console despite having the challenges of changing platforms twice and for that I still have a certain ammount of respect for Rare and hope that they continue to create games with the same ammount of effort that they have put into every other title. In the meantime, my advice is to enjoy Rares current offerings, true they are flawed but theyre still nonethless brilliant in their own ways. Plus Rares work can only get better. (hopefully) :wink:
Bren Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 I thought kameo was pretty gdamn gud but pdz has got some serious crapness attacthed to it, its just not my style of play, far to slow. After playing cod2 for a few hours, with all out action every couple of seconds, then going such a slow paced game, its just not fun.
Segnit Posted December 26, 2005 Author Posted December 26, 2005 I’ve played all of Rare’s recent games. And I think that there is more then enough evidence to indicate that their quality and more particularly their output has been dwindling. They don’t “suck†but there is certainly an evidence of underachievement. Only a very tiny minority would flat out deny it. Although I hate spitting on people’s fond memories of their games, I also hate being spitted on by the very companies I love and support. For example: I hate when people are split into two camps about an ‘X’ game - love it or hate it. The ideal situation would be that the ‘X’ game is so truly amazing that everyone enjoys playing the game before going online and chatting about it. Thus the perfect game. But in reality such unanimity rarely happens. Let’s take Star Fox Adventures as our prime example. Was I excited about it before release? If you count as hunting down for every last picture and info on it as excited then, yeah, I was excited. Did I like the game? No. Did I have a bias against it? If I did, then why was I sooo excited about it before release? Was I faking the hype for myself? When jerking-off privately, do I prematurely tell my self “That orgasm was the best†even though I still haven’t climaxed? Do I fake my enjoyment to myself? Does anyone? Do I like the fact that I bloody hate SFA? Do I like to tell someone who bought it and enjoyed it, that I hate the game? No and No. I’m firmly against jeopardizing happy memories of people. In fact, I hate the fact that some people can enjoy SFA where as I’m stuck in the “Hate camp†unintentionally. Rare caused the split in fans. I blame them for the fact that the game was wrongly hyped “You can go anywhere you see†(NGC Magazine) and wrongly advertised to many fans who were avidly waiting for years for the games release. Going one step further, let’s look at the timescale for the game. It was in the making for approximately 4 and a half years, give or take 6 months. With the notion that time is money; should people look and base their opinions on the game solely on its own merits or should opinion be of a more relative nature? Now this is the topic it all boils down too. To this day even top reviewers are mostly undecided whether to rate games on a more relative scale or “base your opinion of the game On its Own Merits (OiOM)†type of scale. Almost all reviews have elements of both types of marking system. But the type which is used most prominently is the “On its own merits†(Henceforth refered to as OiOM) scale. I believe that a likely explanation for this is that OiOM the more lenient of the two. And since fans can be easily aggravated over bad scores of their games, most publications simply remain faithful to their own optimistic, let’s call it… ideals. If however, the games industry had its own living breathing God and all he did was love and foster his own industry for its ultimate growth. What system would he employ? Many different people would answer this question relatively compared with where they are in their gaming life. An entry level gamer would probably (not definitely) want games to be rated based on OiOM. Since this newbie gamer hasn’t played other games to compare, a criticism like “been there done that†wouldn’t necessarily apply to him/her. Thus it’s not a stretch to say that OiOM goes well with less experienced gamers. Conversely, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine a Relative system doing well with more experienced gamers. Think about it this way, if game developers mutually agreed to stop making advancements in game design, then everyone would have ended up playing all types of games at some point or another in their lives. Everyone would have “been there done thatâ€. The conclusion that I want to get to is the following: Did I enjoy SFA? Sadly I did not. Did I enjoy DK64? No, I honestly didn’t. I've been there and done that with both. Did Rare return to form with Kameo and PDZ? According to me, ABSOLUTELY NOT. But will Rare ever make a game to justify their heritage? They most certainly will. Although I’ve been harsh on Rare for the last, I don’t know… 6 years; nothing is stopping me from loving their games again in the future except for Rare themselves. Let’s not kid ourselves though; many people have lost confidence in Rare no matter who their owner is… whether it is Nintendo or Microsoft.
scubahood Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 I don't think rare have lost their touch as such but whilst they're been away probably trying to choose which console to actually put kameo on the industry evolved. I mean in between PD and PDZ a lot of good FPS shooter games came out the one of the most relevence is halo as thats what it gets compared to most. Rare are just gonna have to step their game up next time round
Stocka Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Well I got my Xbox 360 and my first games for it are both Kameo and Perfect Dark 0, and although I haven't played much of either I'm really enjoying both of them... PD0 the most at the moment. What annoys me about Kameo at the moment is although being colourful is nice, its almost too colourful at times that its painful for the eyes. Is it just me who thinks this? Pretty good so far though, I look forward to really 'getting into it'. Can't wait to play PDZ online when I get LIVE, single player is great fun. That rooftop level I did earlier was awesome.
Meik Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Has Rare lost it's glory?Judging by Perfect Dark Zero, yes. Apparently Rare don't know how to implement a decent aiming system into a dual-analogue FPS. Anyone who disagrees with this hasn't played Halo 2. And judging by Kameo, no. I may of beat it in 9 hours or so, but those were 9 enjoyable hours. Once they patch in online co-op it should be great.
bryanee Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Judging by Perfect Dark Zero, yes. Apparently Rare don't know how to implement a decent aiming system into a dual-analogue FPS. Anyone who disagrees with this hasn't played Halo 2. And judging by Kameo, no. I may of beat it in 9 hours or so, but those were 9 enjoyable hours. Once they patch in online co-op it should be great. Aiming in Perfect Dark 0 is flawless, try adjusting the sensitivity to 70/75. Works a treat. Oh and theres hardly no auto aim unlike the tripe that is halo 2 which makes hitting everything a piece of cake. PDZ actually takes some skill to aim. And Kameo is by and far the best adventure game I've played for a good couple of years.
dannyg Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 What? The aiming in PDZ isn't perfect, but it gets the job done.
Aimless Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 but pdz has got some serious crapness attacthed to it, its just not my style of play, far to slow. After playing cod2 for a few hours, with all out action every couple of seconds, then going such a slow paced game, its just not fun. Too slow? Can I have your copy of the game, as the one I'm playing is far too frenetic for my liking. For me, PD:Z's biggest flaw is an unavoidable one: it just isn't Halo. It was never meant to be. It was never meant for me.
Meik Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Maybe it's the fact that i've played Halo 2 for too long then, I don't know. It seems a bit weird when any other shooter i've played (including the 360 version of Call of Duty 2) seems fine whereas PDZ doesn't. Right now i'm just not liking the aiming, and if that makes me a "noob" who has to rely on auto-aim then so be it, i'd rather just have fun then spend my time having to adjust/practice. If you enjoy the game then that's great, don't let me stop you. Edit - regarding the "Halo is tripe" comment - lol.
Caris Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 Considering what rare have been through changing from cube to xbox to 360 and producing 2 amazing launch games that were VERY rushed (damn ms) for launch i think there there back to there good old days simple answer. NO.
Wesley Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 Everything I am about to say is based on me watching my friend playing on new Rare games and what I ahve heard from other people and review scores. I don't think Rare suddenly suck, but I do think that Rare have lost their "spark" so to speak. I'm not sure if this is because a lot of the team left, or that the brothers aren't interested because they have lots of money or if it's simply the change from Nintendo consoles to Microsoft consoles. The last Rare game I played was Starfox and that didn't have that Rare "magic" but still had the Rare feel. So I think that game was just simply an average Rare game, just like Kameo looked like to me.
Hellfire Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 I think so too. i can't help but think that Nintendo did have a lot of hand in their games. Grabbed by the ghoulies was what we all knnow. Conker is a nice remake with horrible multiplayer (I know some people here don't agree, but it's my opinion) a crappy combat system and no upgrades where it needed. Cameo is good, but it doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Banjo and such, it just isn't very polished, not to mention the horrible, horrible art. Haven't played PDZ though. They're still a good developer with good IPs, but they're not what they used to be.
Link Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 Rare's glory days ended when all their best developers left and created Free Radical.....I now have more repect for free radical than Rare....
JinX Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 Rare blows now, compared to its old days with nintendo. Making 2 games in like 3 years, thats lame.
Enigma Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 I lost interest in Rare´s games a long time ago (the N64 years). Their SNES titles were awesome, but afterwards it´s only declined. I must admit I never played any of their N64 games for import reasons. I did play Golden Eye at a time and the multiplayer of that game was really fun. In short: Yes, Rare has lost it´s glory. None of their games seems interesting anymore.
bryanee Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I completed Kameo last night my god how easy was the last boss? I had far more trouble with the boss before it.
CooInTheZoo Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 Im about 4ish hours into kameo. its fucking brill, im enjoying it alot more than the first four hours of...say banjo kazooie (which is a bit overrated imo)
MunKy Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Rare have declined because it isnt Rare anymore! Most of the team is gone for christs sake. Also They've lost Nintendos helping hand. You think Retro would be as good if Nintendo werent helping them?
Caris Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Rare have declined because it isnt Rare anymore! Most of the team is gone for christs sake. Also They've lost Nintendos helping hand. You think Retro would be as good if Nintendo werent helping them? shhhh, listen can you hear that? careffully listen... JEALOUSY
Ollie Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 I would have to say no. Kameo is awesome, it looks great and plays well, and some of the voice acting is sooo funny. PDZ is awesome too, the aiming is hard to begin with but with some practice it is even better than normal as you can really go for headshots instead of some crazy auto aim screwing thigs up. Let me just say, if you have doubts about PDZ, play it some more!
system_error Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 The problem is that a lot of the driving force behind RARE is gone. A lot of the former RARE team are now developing under the name "Zoonami". PDZ is not my type of game anymore but I do like Kameo - not because of the graphic but because it is so much fun even though a bit too short for my taste.
Caris Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 The problem is that a lot of the driving force behind RARE is gone. A lot of the former RARE team are now developing under the name "Zoonami". PDZ is not my type of game anymore but I do like Kameo - not because of the graphic but because it is so much fun even though a bit too short for my taste. i agree to a certain degree, but then the new members, whats stop them from being just as good?
Recommended Posts