BlueYoshi

My only beef with the game was the multiplayer mode. I would have much preferred to battle against a friend's clan than "compete" with them in a points style format. That was one of the rooting factors that put me off from playing FFTA to the bone. Oh well.

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Although, having said that, it's also probably true that Mario Sunshine has more rapid movement than Wind Waker. So, 3D doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have the kind of "twitch" controls that you see in 2D games.[/color][/quote] Yeah, I agree with that. This is one of the areas in a lot of games where neither 2D or 3D really matter, because a game's rapidity is solely reflected by its mechanics. You can use the Mario games as a good example. In the Mario games (particularly the 2D ones), you generally choose if you want to run through the courses as wildly and recklessly as possible, or if you want to play it safe and go past them like a turtle, but really, as long as that key attribute of rapidity is there, then the game can be as challenging or as difficult as you want it to be. And that's the exact same principal of the 3D Mario games, though there are one-off areas in the games where rapidity is more or less forced upon you.

[quote name='Desbreko][color=#4B0082']Overall, I do prefer 2D games over 3D, though there are some exceptions. But mainly, I like how easy it is to pick up and play 2D games. Controls are rarely complicated, movement rarely requires time to get used to it (assuming the game doesn't have bad play control), and action/combat is usually a lot more fun, at least for me. For the most part, I enjoy 3D games for somewhat different reasons than I do 2D games.[/color][/quote] This is an important thing to bare in mind, I think. There has been talk of how 3D environments allow for players to interact with them, but with all that fuss going on, we're forgetting how some games are particularly effected by those environments in terms of controls and simplicity. RPGs, for example, will need to be somewhat deep or unique if they are to aspire in the rankings. While a lot of the best ones are extremely basic and easy to play, like LttP (though it's an adventure/action RPG), I still wouldn't mind seeing some depth in the control system of various others. FFVIII and FFX aren't the best RPGs out there, but a few of the elements that were implemented to the battle system were pretty innovative, if not decent. I would much rather rely on myself to have to pull off Limit Breaks or Overdrives, simply because it's a lot more fun that way, and it adds a level of depth and involvement to some degree, as opposed to waiting around and countering the damage dealt with an overpowered attack of some sort, *cough* Omnislash. In a way, you could call what I'm talking about here a "three dimensional control mechanism". [quote name='James']Ocarina of Time is fun because it's easy to play. I mean, it's easy to jump in and move your character around in a seamless and direct way. Swordfighting is fun because it's intuitive and fluid; it doesn't feel unintuitive or repetitive, even though it has plenty of repetitive elements to it.[/quote] Now here, this is the exact opposite of what I was saying previously. OoT, with its amazingly realistic 3D graphics and engine, managed to keep its mechanism completely on level to that of LttP. Even with the assorted three dimensional pad of the N64, it remained relatively easy to play with. But, like Shinmaru said, along with the 3D designs came a slowdown in the difficulty of certain different areas in the game, namely the bosses. It's not a huge problem, really, and it's understandable, since it's the first transition of a 3D game for the Zelda series, but all in all, the feeling just wasn't there. I totally agree with SM64 and OoT being near flawless, too. The only thing I can think of that I didn't like in OoT that regards the mechanics was that stupid minor freeze that occurred each time after Link made a forward roll.

Ah, somebody's been doing their homework lol. I've put SMT3 off my agenda for some reason as of late. I don't know why, but it's something that's happening often with me these days. Never the less, I'm glad you made the effort to distribute this stuff, and that shot of the battle screen is well worthy. Looks very similar to FFX, actually. Thanks.

The only experience I've ever had with ICO was when I played the demo version of it that was released a few years ago with an issue of OPS2 magazine. I never thought much of the game back then, as I was quick to judge it by the rather slow first impression that I got, so I let it go beyond me and haven't taken much thought of it ever since. However, it's news like this that makes me realise what a jerk I was back then lol. The graphics are astonishing, and by that one shot, I can tell that the engine won't have any trouble in setting moods and things of the liking. And the concept of incorporating the giant's bodies to play the roles of the game's "dungeons" opens the opportunity for many new things. I can't help but notice how that giant looks so... innocent, though lol. Definitely looks the part.

[quote name='James][color=#707875']I think that the GTA example is better than this one. There's nothing inherent in FSA's 2D graphics that formulate a particular gameplay style that you couldn't achieve in 3D. Fundamentally, FSA's biggest attribute is probably the overhead perspective, in terms of how viewpoint/graphics has a relationship with gameplay.[/color][/quote] Hm, I agree with your views (particularly your comments regarding SM64 and Crash Bandicoot), but when I said "3D", I actually meant 3D as in FSA undertaking the third-person perspective like in OoT and TWW. I thought I made that clear by my statement about the "split-screens", but obviously not. Sorry for the confusion, heh.

[quote name='Shinmaru']Many franchises made the leap from 2D to 3D back in the N64/PS/Dreamcast era, and Zelda pops to mind right away for me. With Zelda's jump to 3D there was both an upside and downside, for me. The upside was that the dungeons and puzzles became more intricate, because you can accomplish some more unique things that you couldn't do in 3D. The downside to it all was that the bosses, for me, became way, way too easy, even though they looked far better than they ever did in 2D.[/quote] So in a way, you can say that some things get cancelled out in the process. It's a shame really, because only a handful of games have managed to evenly balance [i]everything[/i] out, from bosses to visuals to gameplay. Right now, only MGS2: Sons of Liberty comes to mind. That game took advantage of a lot of what 3D environments had to offer, and many of the new features that debuted to the series were effectively put to use, I thought. Fatman is a good example, as you had to switch to the first person mode in order to get a clear shot at his head if you wanted any chance of defeating him. Sure, there was the distraction of the C4 explosives that were scattered around the place, but that only helped to make hitting him more difficult, since your mind would be spinning in all sorts of directions lol. Plus, certain camera angles helped to add suspense to the scenes during those tight spots in the game, like when you creep through a long, narrow corridor while being followed by your own shadow, or the supplementary camera that replaces the radar during the cleanings. Those can't be achieved in 2D, or at least, not as well. Also, I think you're absolutely right about Resident Evil and Silent Hill. How in the hell can you get the same feel from them in 2D as you would while playing in 3D? The genre plays a huge factor as to how effective the game's format will be, and that proves it.

[quote name='Alan][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I'm more predisposed towards 3D, but I don't really care that much. I mean, in all a cases, its the gameplay I care about, not the shininess (or lack thereof) of the graphics.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] Well, true, but you're forgetting that gameplay can be effected by the type of engines or graphics style that games run on, since factors like bugs and glitches can pose a problem and ultimately bare some decisive action on the outcome of the game's playability. But yeah, I'd have to agree with you on GTA's rendered style not being a mere gimmick because it actually helped the game to progress more. It's kind of like how Metroid Prime was developed, as both that and GTA switched to fully utilized 3D environments that upped exploration and offered a lot more freedom, as opposed to their predecessors.

Personally, I don't have a preference. Graphics hardly appeal to me in games, but some games are suited to different kinds of layouts if they are to be played effectively. If I'm playing a game that I feel is "perfect" in almost every manner, then I won't question it in terms of the dynamics of the graphics (or anything else for that matter), because I'll know that another layout may not be beneficial towards it. For example, take a look at FSA. A 3D version of FSA would look pretty and all, but there is no way on earth that the multiplayer would be as polished as it would be in the 2D version. Split-screens won't cut it for a game of that principal, as there is a lot more to FSA's teamwork aesthetics than combat, like having to push obstructive large rocks, or solving puzzles... both of which are attributes that promote how fun the game is. Another example is the evolution of the GTA series. The PlayStation releases were composed with a bird's-eye view (which is optional in GTA3, too), and the controls were very basic because of it. The GTA games of today aren't perfect, but having a 3D atmosphere really helps the fundamental core of the game, as missions become far more interesting and fun to undertake, plus, it opens its doors to introducing new styles of play, [spoiler]like the mission where you have to throw a grenade through some guy's window in GTA3[/spoiler]. So generally speaking, this subject has its ups and downs, but my question to you is; which do you prefer? Or, if your views on it vary like mine, in which sections would you prefer one or the other in any existing game?

I'm not really a big fan of the GBA Dragon Ball Z games, but I've heard that Buu's Fury seriously touches up on a lot of the things that The Legacy of Goku II missed out on. Mostly, I'm just glad to see that Webfoot have actually considered the technical and gameplay issues, and haven't just gone for aesthetics. It could do well, I don't know, the previous games seem to have... I've heard that the story coincides with the game accordingly, so that should interest potential fans or buyers of it. Looks pretty, too.

Some more of my most memorable boss fights came from Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. All of them were crazy and had their own sense of style, and Nintendo refrained from making them too repetitive as there were ways to defeating them other than having to jump on their heads three times, which I liked. However, when I think of the bosses in that game, Bowser comes to mind. Dealing with the first stage of the fight wasn't all that much of a big deal, but when Kamek super-sizes him, it gets interesting. I really liked the way that all of the factors that made it so exciting added up, and they coincided with each other perfectly. Before making sure that you weren't standing on any of the potentially unstable platforms, you'd have to keep Bowser as far away from you as possible, which means good egg-shooting skills, but then that raises the issue of having a sufficient number of eggs to fend him off with. But, in your upcoming attempt to obtain the eggs from those roaming floating balloons that pass by, you'd have to be dodging his attacks, and possibly the falling boulders at the same time while repositioning yourself to a new platform. So as you can see, the battle is fairly constructive, and there's a reasonable amount of difficulty. If you're sad like me, you'd have noticed that Bowser's attacks are synchronized, [spoiler]as in, he'll shoot fireballs after every three steps he takes towards you[/spoiler], so once you get the hang of it, it pretty much becomes child's play. Still good, though, and the music rocked.

[quote name='Sol-Blade][B]Note:[/B]There [I]were[/I] boss fights [I]outside[/I'] of the Final Fantasy games people...:rolleyes:[/quote] Haha, yes, I hear ya, mate. Turn based RPG boss fights don't require much knack, anyway. All you really need to do is make sure you're in tact with your abilities, weapons and armour, and your HP and magic limit. After that, the battle becomes chicken scratch and you're good to go. Regarding the question, though, I'd say that my most memorable boss fight came from The Hand in SSB. It was the most bizarre thing I had ever seen in any game, and it really managed to catch me off-guard. After playing through the one player mode just once, I could already tell what type of a game SSB would be, and I was constantly contemplating in my mind just how well the Nintendo characters had been utilized, but, a hand as the big cheese? Some really mad stuff. I guess it was memorable for me because I was expecting any one of the uber-evil bosses from any other Nintendo game to play The Hand's role, or at least, to have either one of them incorporated in a way as effective as The Hand was. It was an awesome idea, I think, and seeing both hands in SSBM was a classic, not to mention hard as hell.

Yeah, Medal of Honor had a few stealthy moments, but nothing so serious that it would have to go to the extent of clear-cut planning. It was more of a trial and error thing, I'd say, since you'd suddenly get trapped in the moment without any premonition or warning, as opposed to the "knowing your enemy" routine that features in the tactical squad based games. Both styles are different, though. I know which game you're talking about, too, James, heh, but the name has also slipped me. I can agree with your points on the matter because that particular Rainbow Six game was one of the earlier ones. It existed in a time where graphics weren't such a big deal, and evidently gameplay was the number one priority (in most cases, anyway). These days, developers are living in the fantasy world of sugar-coating, where they'll front graphics as the games highest spectacle. Many games take after Rainbow Six, as you said, and I know that the Tom Clancy games are trying their hardest to steer away from that direction, too (take Splinter Cell for example, which, might I add, follows that trial and error route I aforementioned above, whilst being able to attribute the various stealth elements). So all in all, the genre's timeline varies, but in the present I think things are looking fairly downhill. EDIT: Typos-abound here. You'll have to bare with me for now, as I'm typing on the worst keyboard to exist on the face of the earth lol.

It's good to know that people see what I see, heh. I thought that interactivity would help raise the standards of these games, too, but they prove to just be as uneventful and plain as they are as normal FPSs. Personally, I don't think that online play can help very much to staple the genre in general. Multiplayer is another story, though, because all of the interaction that take place is in real-time... you know, in an "atmospheric" kind of way. [quote name='Siren']I'd really love to see the FPS/War-FPS to get back to just blowing sh-t up, quite honestly...just all-out chaos, like Medal of Honor: Frontline's Normandy Beach.[/quote] Yeah, exactly. That's why I really liked Halo; there was no fancy crap involved. You just did what ever it is that you had to do. Medal of Honor shares that attribute, too, as there's a decent plot and some good, all-round, solid gameplay to top it off further. Great games.

I don't know if this will get a major response but it's worth a shot, I suppose. And, sorry if I've come off at the wrong end of the stick here, because I know a lot of my comments are negative and all, but, ultimately, this is how I feel about this stuff, so, bare with me. So I was watching The Sopranos on TV last night, and during the commercial break I came across the commercial for Conflict Vietnam. Usually, when commercials for games come on, I stop what ever it is that I'm doing and will subconsciously gaze at the TV screen while taking it all in from beginning to end (as they hardly ever come on over here). Anyway, I caught some in-game footage of Conflict Vietnam during that commercial and it struck me as to how a lot of these warfare-sims, are very similar to each other in almost every aspect. Gameplay-wise, and in terms of concept and style, these games typically consist of having a four-man squad, or a platoon of some sort, with each character having their own specialisation and weapons, and a set of fairly constructive CPU AI commands. This concept has been overused, in my eyes. I'm not saying that everything has been applied poorly, it's just that there are so many warfare-sims I can play before getting bored with them. The Tom Clancy games (with the exception of Splinter Cell) aren't very innovative in the sense of how exactly you'd go about doing each mission. I can understand that there is a strong emphasis on stealth (or at least, action is out ruled by it) in these games, but having to sneak around all the time and sniper a certain someone, or retrieve or sabotage or destroy a certain something gets plain, fast. I know that the games are based on his novels (which I have never read), and it's probable that part of the aim of the games are for the players to relive the experiences dictated in them, as well as sales, but what's to stop developers from a decent stronghold? The ability to plan the actual sieges beforehand was the highlight of the Tom Clancy series, to me, but that was something I gave up trying to figure out rather quickly lol. There's no fluctuation in these games, the only major changes would most likely be a shift in location or a brand new terrain... or something along them lines. Back to the Conflict games. Conflict Vietnam's predecessors, Conflict Desert Storm and Conflict Desert Storm 2: Back to Baghdad sold quite well. However, it wasn't because they were totally special or unique warfare-sims, but mostly because of the events where the games took place in (Gulf war, and, of course, Iraq, which, again, proves that gameplay is one of the last factors that a few gamers will take into consideration). The games were by all means playable, and there were some sharp graphics that looked very attractive, along with a storyline, but that's not enough for it to be acclaimed as one of the exceptional war games of today. Plus, whilst on the subject, I've never played Full Spectrum Warrior before, but from what I've read, it sounds like another version of a Tom Clancy game, though it's got history so it must be special or something lol. But, because of the content of the Conflict games and Full Spectrum Warrior, I'm led to believe that there's nothing left for warfare-sims, gameplay wise. Anyways, my point is, do you think that warfare-sims (don't confuse this with god-sims and all-out action FPSs) have run their course? If a totally revamped version of one came out that was to totally revolutionise the genre, would you get it? Would you even anticipate it? Me? I lost hope after Rainbow Six 3's disappointing performance... I was so looking forward to that game, too :(.

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Other than that, I'd really like a keychain that features Mario's glove or something goofy like that. Goofy keychains are great, in my book. ~_^[/color][/quote] Reading that post makes me want one of the awesome keychains that are getting handed out with each sale of the GBA releases of Final Fantasy I+II over in Japan. How craptastic and envious must I feel right now.

I wasn't a big fan of Eternal Darkness, but I liked the way the chapters were arranged so as you weren't stuck playing as Alex all the time. Change is good, heh. For me, I was incredibly surprised by the lack of dungeons and lifespan in TWW. I mean, come on, I was expecting a load more from it seeing as it was the first LoZ game to be released for the GameCube, and judging by the quality of LttP and OoT, I'd expect it to have [i]some[/i] replay value. I always felt that the time spent looking for the Triforce shards could've been invested into more dungeons, just so as the game would end up on-par with the other LoZ games, or at least make it just as timeless. I suppose I'd be even more hysterical had the dungeons been underachieved, but they were reasonable enough. In my view, the never-ending sailing and the many, many bonuses and secrets that TWW had to offer seriously overshadowed the main aspects of the game. Hopefully, Paper Mario 2 won't wind up like it, as the two have such a sheer resemblance in looks, but you never know lol.

[quote name='Desbreko][color=#4B0082']Bizarre difficulty in Maximum Velocity? What do you mean?[/color][/quote] I found the game to be next to impossible, even with the extra cars. I swear, the only thing I managed to do just about right was perfecting the timing for the boost start. And the worst part for me is that I've not had the chance to get my own back on the game because my jerk-off cousin stole it from me years back. [quote][color=#4B0082]If the ones in GP Legend and Climaxes are still just flat like the ones in Maximum Velocity -- even if GP Legend (and I assume Climaxes also) is being made to play more like GX -- I don't think I'll be buying them.[/color][/QUOTE] I'm afraid so.

Yup, after hearing the news on Climaxes yesterday, I kind of got on an F-Zero high, so I went out and picked up F-Zero GX today. Good stuff.

AM3 are currently working on a new system, promptly named Advance Gashapon, that is able to download the GBA Video shows to custom 32meg Advance Cards. Again, a waste of life, but Nintendo are really out doing themselves with the GBA, so the future ought to be good. At the moment, while currently being tested at the Nintendo Centres over in Japan, only Pokemon is available for it, though many other shows are expected to follow by the end of the year. Also, there's this: [quote]There are plans for more than just video, however. SmartMedia cards will allow mp3s, e-books and e-manga (them backwards reading funny books) to be used on GBAs, and am3 plans to allow these cards to connect to digital cameras so that pictures can also be displayed. Even with the approach of the Nintendo DS this fall, it seems that the GBA will continue to be actively supported by both Nintendo and outside companies in ways people never expected, or even wanted.[/quote] Looks like another one of those 'Japan-only' things, but even still, I wouldn't buy it. Come to mind, I think Nintendo are heading in the direction of the PSP. They aren't providing things that people want, but what the people think would be good, unrealistically. Ought to pull their socks up, really. Hopefully this technology will serve a better purpose in the future, though.

F-Zero Climaxes was just recently announced in Japan to be the next F-Zero game for the GBA, with its key feature being a Course Editor... a first for the GBA F-Zero games. Providing the game's mechanics actually make Course Editing work to a decent degree, then I think it'll be worth it, especially if it's to the extent of how F-Zero: X worked out. It's about time Nintendo introduced this, too, because I think it's crucial that many of the half-decent racers out there have this feature so as players don't have to be stuck doing the same tracks over and over, and it'll also leave a little more than just racing. Hopefully, for Climaxes, bugs and glitches won't be a problem. It would be a real shame if it was, because I've seen some pretty good racers get totally annihilated due to them, along with poorly structured track designs. Apart from that, things look ship-shape. The graphics engine takes after Maximum Velocity and GP: Legend, and also, whether this is new or not for the GBA, vehicles have the ability to attack others, rather than them just being able to hopelessly bash away at each other. I don't know about Wipeout-style missiles, though. I hope Climaxes will have a massive variety of vehicles, though. Maximum Velocity (if you could get past its bizarre difficulty) was extremely vague in that sense, while GP: Legend will have a huge array of them, however, I'm led to believe that that's only because the game is very partial to the F-Zero anime in Japan, so, a little depth would be nice. Anyway, I'll only feel content on getting this as long as GP: Legend does well, because they both seem strikingly similar. What do you think?

Holy crap, I never commented here. Better late than never, I suppose. This game looks absolutely stunning. It's like it got a big, fat makeover from the devil himself, or something, because everything about it is so much more grotesque than the first game, with its moody new look and everything. And blood and gore are always welcome in my books... does nothing but make it look even more dazzling. By the looks of it, I seem to be the only one here who has played the first game properly, unless, against all odds, one of you picked it up during these short three months, but that's highly unlikely ;). As you all said, the edgy battle engine was a little bit of a mishap; it wasn't perfect, but at the same time, it wasn't poor. There's a lot of tweaking left to be done in regards to that, so hopefully the cranked up freeform fighting system will do it good, and apparently, PoP2 won't lose any of TSoT's favoured gameplay elements, like the way that wall jumps were implemented and what have you, but I suppose I'm with you lot, I really want to see a polished battle engine. Anyway, regardless of the new name and what ever trait the game may pick up after, the ability to mess around with time will be there, so I presume TSoT will have something to do with it.

As for the GBA, I'm mostly looking forward to getting Metal Slug Advance and CT Special Forces 3: Bioterror. They both share the same concept, genre, and look almost identical in terms of visuals, plus, for both games, the storyline is only there to serve as a lame excuse for you to get shooting (as was so thoughtfully heralded elsewhere), which should state what the games are all about. My main concern with the two, however, is how they both lack in lifespan. With games of these sorts, you'd expect there to be insane levels of difficulty, especially as you progress further regardless of the meter's settings, but with MSA only having five levels (or something short of that), I don't possibly see how difficulty will be effected... unless they make the whole game super-mega-ultra hard from level one, which would be stupid. I think that is what's urging me to get both games, rather than just the one, because I'll be able to fall back on the other once the one I'm playing taps-out on me. Also, I might get Pokemon Leaf Green or Fire Red for the sake of the free Wireless Adaptor they come with. Once I've got it, I'll refund the game without including the adaptor, just like with FFCC and the GBA Connectivity Cable, and voila, I'm laughing.

Just upload it as an attachment with your post.

[quote name='Shinmaru']Paper Mario 2 also has my eye. The game looks very sharp, and if it can improve upon the humor and solid gameplay of the original Paper Mario, I'll be a happy camper. GameCube needs more good RPGs.[/quote] Yeah, what he said. When you have both a platformer and a RPG rolled into one, you just can't go wrong. Though, how Nintendo will handle the English translations for some of the cheesy Japanese jokes is beyond me lol. Until a few weeks ago, I was all for getting LoZ: FSA, but when I realised that I'd most likely be the only person in my area code with the game, I started to have second thoughts about it. I don't think the game is by all means bad; past reviews say likewise and people around here have generally good impressions on all of its aspects, but many claim that the game is at its peak when in the multiplayer mode with other human players. I don't mind playing single player, as I'd have done that anyway, but I definitely want to kick start things with a group of people rather than on my own. There's also Phantom Brave, the sequel to Disgaea: Hour of Darkness, but I've already mentioned that enough, so I'll spare you.