The Video Game Critic

Posted: **April 14th, 2007, 10:30 pm**

[QUOTE=Atarifever]

I think the generation, nearly as a whole with some, usually, Saturn exceptions, was a huge step backwards graphically and gameplay wise. We went from beautiful 16 bit games like Gunstar Heroes, Rocket Knight Adventures, Sonic 3 & Knuckles, Comix Zone, Link's Awakening, Super Mario World, Soldier Blade, R-Type, Metal Slug, King of Fighters, etc. to junky muddy eyesores. We went from great shoot em ups to 3D shooters where you spent all day flying in cirles blasting boring polygons into a set of boring polygons. We went from platformers that were so refined they were nearly flawless, to fighting with the camera just to see the freaking game. I suppose if I were more of an FPS fan I'd call it an alright generation, but that is something I am not.

[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I am not an FPS fan at all, but I absolutely love that generation of gaming. It introduced us to the brilliant survival horror brand for the first time in the mainstream (as horror-themed games existed before, but never with this level of production). Many of my favorites were also reinvented in 3D in that generation, especially Zelda and Mario.

I like all of the systems of the day: the Saturn, PS1, and N64; but the N64 is definitely my favorite at the time. Oddly enough, the Saturn was my least favorite of that generation.

Posted: **April 14th, 2007, 10:57 pm**

Interesting thread. I see our favorite Troll made his usual comments.

It reminds me of how sometimes people get really made at somebody really succesful, and when you ask them why they don't like that person, they talk in circles and sputter nonsense. That's because, of course, they hate them only because they are doing well.

In any event, though I'm also an "equal opportunity gamer" (finding good things in all the eras), I do think I understand people of Atarifever's ilk. Graphics did have to take a big step back to accomodate 3D early on. Symphony of the Night smoked most games from a pure aesthetic beauty standpoint.

Yet I felt that the ability to explore a three dimensional game world was worth the sacrifice. Mario 64 was a brilliant gameplay experience. It still plays great today, even though in many ways the art in Super Mario World looks better.

That said, many games from that era aren't aging well because of that quick step back.

To the question of Mario 64, well, yeah, the game's on a cart, carts cost more, of course the actual tangible product will run you $25 bucks. Shoot, the N64 games were crazy expensive new, so that's a bigger drop in price than you'd think.

-Rob

Posted: **April 15th, 2007, 12:52 am**

[QUOTE=feilong80]

To the question of Mario 64, well, yeah, the game's on a cart, carts cost more, of course the actual tangible product will run you $25 bucks. Shoot, the N64 games were crazy expensive new, so that's a bigger drop in price than you'd think.

-Rob
[/QUOTE]

Actually, we were talking about the DS Mario 64. I don't think anyone here is quite right about it. First off, the game isn't 12 years old; it is a very highly updated port of a 12 year old game. Still, $25 is a bit much, especially considering the high volume of great brand new games out for DS now. Of course, I don't know how Shawn can possibly try to argue that $25 is too much for an updated 12 year old game when there is a graphically updated version of the original NES Megaman for more than that on his true love, the PSP.

The Video Game Critic

Sony Cuts PSP Price...

Sony Cuts PSP Price...

Sony Cuts PSP Price...

Sony Cuts PSP Price...