New Mario Wii U Game Coming to E3

[Icarus4578]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Haha, exactly. No book cover instantly tells you what the book's about. You find out by reading the back or looking up other stuff. You even answered yourself there. You look at the screenshot, then you'd read about it somewhere else. Nice work.

I would never purchase a game based solely on its description.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Bit of a weird point. You do realise, because of modern technology, there's generally a wider variety of enemies in games because we can put them in. Old games were limited by the hardware. Oh and I have played Magician Lord, it was re-released, and I fought the same enemies over and over. The gameplay hadn't aged well, it was alright. Probably would have enjoyed it more back when it was released.

You're right in that older softs were limited, so developers had to work extra hard to make the most of the platforms. As for enemy variety, not really. Most stuff has maybe a dozen or so different enemy types spread throughout the entire game, whereas older software generally had a much more varied mix between areas to keep things fresh.

Originally Posted by KingOf Sentinels

How am I wrong? The Witcher 2 is very realistic and strives to be, but has monsters and magic; realistic graphics doesn't mean a realistic game. That may not be a realistic game, but the graphics attempted to emulate realism as best as was possible back in those days, with many games having similar graphics because they were doing the same.

Some did, certainly. And I'm not going to diss the games you showed in their entirety predicated off of one odd screen capture. However, from those shots you selected, I cannot tell much about the software in question, good art or not.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Ignorance is bliss.

Ok.

[Icarus4578]

Originally Posted by darren

isn't that what reviews and previews online are for?

since the media is moving format it would make more sense to watch videos not look at stills .. it would be like judging a film based on a single screen shot .. you watch the moving trailers to figure out what its about not a single still

Two completely different things. Movies don't work the same way as you have no direct control over their progress. Besides, my contention is with the creative aspect of gaming, mostly from a visual end. Imagine a FPS but with a setting like Contra, with bosses and mid-bosses to break up the action, not to mention scaling walls and ceilings, somersaulting, cool weapons, a variety of foes, tons of varied, ever-changing locales and hair-raising situations, etc. The art style is also great. You never see something like that with today's technology applied to it.

[darren]

it is the same thing .. its easy to see what a game is like when you actually see it going.

[KingOfSentinels]

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

I would never purchase a game based solely on its description.

No one's asking you to. But you don't base a purchase on a single screen shot. Bit of a weird and stupid thing to do. You read about the game and tell if you'll like it or not. If, like Limbo, in reviews and press it's a 2D platformer and puzzle game, I instantly become interested and I got it during a Steam sale. And I was extremely impressed.

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

You're right in that older softs were limited, so developers had to work extra hard to make the most of the platforms. As for enemy variety, not really. Most stuff has maybe a dozen or so different enemy types spread throughout the entire game, whereas older software generally had a much more varied mix between areas to keep things fresh.

No, again, more ignorance as to how modern games work. Stop doing this weird all-encompassing thing you're doing and thinking every modern games are like this way; pretty sure you don't really play barely any of them anyway and therefore don't have enough authority to tell us how modern games are when all of us have likely played more. There is a healthy variation of monsters and enemies in modern games, and I've seen more variation now than in older games simply because the hardware can now handle it.

Older games did a good job in fitting in lots of different enemies, but modern games do just as good a job.

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

Some did, certainly. And I'm not going to diss the games you showed int heir entirety predicated off of one odd screen capture. However, from those shots you selected, I cannot tell much about the software in question, good art or not.

I'm not dissing the games based on their screenshots; unlike you, I've actually played the game you posted, and can say it wasn't all that special. I've played better side-scrolling retro games than that.

But the thing is, you're not supposed to. You even admitted to seeing a book cover, and then reading the back. You see the screenshot, and then you read the game description or the like. I don't know why anyone would base their entire opinion of a game off 1 screenshot. I like to make my own mind up, but to do that, you read up on the game, watch videos, do more than just look at 1 screenshot basically, and figure out if it's worth your time.

I'm not a fan of puzzle games so I held off Limbo till it was on sale. And it was a shame I waited so long since the game was awesome.

[Icarus4578]

You mean watching it online? Sure, that's a given.

[KingOfSentinels]

Interrupted!

[darren]

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

You mean watching it online? Sure, that's a given.

that is my point .. its the same as cinema .. i could see a still from a film and have zero idea what the film is about .. watch the trailer its much easier to see ..

which is why i have no idea why saying you cant tell from a single still is so important. its not anymore .. might have been pre internet maybe if you couldnt be arsed to read a review/preview or the back of the box i guess

[Icarus4578]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

No one's asking you to. But you don't base a purchase on a single screen shot. Bit of a weird and stupid thing to do. You read about the game and tell if you'll like it or not. If, like Limbo, in reviews and press it's a 2D platformer and puzzle game, I instantly become interested and I got it during a Steam sale. And I was extremely impressed.

I don't base my purchase on a single screen shot, either, but seeing the game in action is what really drives my interest.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

No, again, more ignorance as to how modern games work. Stop doing this weird all-encompassing thing you're doing and thinking every modern games are like this way; pretty sure you don't really play barely any of them anyway and therefore don't have enough authority to tell us how modern games are when all of us have likely played more. There is a healthy variation of monsters and enemies in modern games, and I've seen more variation now than in older games simply because the hardware can now handle it.

Some have decent variety but most don't, at least as far as stuff like Dead Space, Gears of War, etc. Maybe there's more variety in stuff like Skyrim or The Witcher 2. You can answer that.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Older games did a good job in fitting in lots of different enemies, but modern games do just as good a job.

...

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

I'm not dissing the games based on their screenshots; unlike you, I've actually played the game you posted, and can say it wasn't all that special. I've played better side-scrolling retro games than that.

But then I never claimed that Magician Lord was the be-all, end-all of side-scrolling action games. You're beating around the bush. I'm talking solely about creativity.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

But the thing is, you're not supposed to. You even admitted to seeing a book cover, and then reading the back. You see the screenshot, and then you read the game description or the like. I don't know why anyone would base their entire opinion of a game off 1 screenshot. I like to make my own mind up, but to do that, you read up on the game and figure out if it's worth your time.

Now you're being presumptuous. Where did I formulate an opinion of the entire game based upon one screenshot? I couldn't tell whether or not they're any fun. Heck, I couldn't even tell what you're supposed to be doing.

[Icarus4578]

Originally Posted by darren

that is my point .. its the same as cinema .. i could see a still from a film and have zero idea what the film is about .. watch the trailer its much easier to see ..

which is why i have no idea why saying you cant tell from a single still is so important. its not anymore .. might have been pre internet maybe if you couldnt be arsed to read a review/preview or the back of the box i guess

It's important because it's what you see when you're playing the game that's most important, not the cinematics inbetween or conceptual artwork outside of the gameplay experience.

[KingOfSentinels]

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

I don't base my purchase on a single screen shot, either, but seeing the game in action is what really drives my interest.

Then go do that...

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

Some have decent variety but most don't, at least as far as stuff like Dead Space, Gears of War, etc. Maybe there's more variety in stuff like Skyrim or The Witcher 2. You can answer that.

Dead Space has a healthy amount but yeah, not all that much compared to other games, but still quite a bit compared to games of old. Gears of War actually has tonnes of enemies, you can see on this list on enemies on horde mode. That's a lot of stuff. Skyrim and Witcher 2 both have a lot too, but all of the games, bar perhaps Dead Space, will likely have more variation of enemies than most retro games quite safely.

The beauty of modern games is there's never just 1 skin for the enemies. For retro games there was little variation, if any, of the same enemy. The screens you posted depict numerous enemies looking exactly the same in terms of design and animation, stood exactly the same. Modern games at least throw that around a little and make them act different and look different. There's very rarely one enemy skin.

...

I don't understand the ... there.

But then I never claimed that Magician Lord was the be-all, end-all of side-scrolling action games. You're beating around the bush. I'm talking solely about creativity.

So was I. Very derivative, as I said, of Altered Beast and Zelda for it's storyline and gameplay, evil wizard takes over Kingdom and man goes to save it, and the graphics emulating the average realism style of games back then weren't very great either. Nothing particularly new or exciting at all, even for the time. Definitely not a memorable game.

There's even this little bit of a review about it:

A portion of the game's problems lies in its arcade quarter-muncher roots. The design is simple, Elta's health bar is tiny, and every level is packed with the same repetitive enemies. Worse, though, are the unresponsive controls and sluggish pace.

http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/ma...pdates;title;1

So it suffers from the problems you think modern games do then, repetitive enemies and a boring design. So not a game that helps your argument, more shoots it in the foot.

Now you're being presumptuous. Where did I formulate an opinion of the entire game based upon one screenshot? I couldn't tell whether or not they're any fun. Heck, I couldn't even tell what you're supposed to be doing.

You concentrated on that point quite a bit though, led me to that conclusion.

[Icarus4578]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Then go do that...

Later I will check those out and get back to you.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Dead Space has a healthy amount but yeah, not all that much compared to other games, but still quite a bit compared to games of old. Gears of War actually has tonnes of enemies, you can see on this list on enemies on horde mode. That's a lot of stuff. Skyrim and Witcher 2 both have a lot too, but all of the games, bar perhaps Dead Space, will likely have more variation of enemies than most retro games quite safely.

I found Dead Space to be somewhat lacking. The enemies themselves were cool enough but there wasn't much in terms of variety. Those little exploding alien baby things were cool.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

The beauty of modern games is there's never just 1 skin for the enemies. For retro games there was little variation, if any, of the same enemy. The screens you posted depict numerous enemies looking exactly the same in terms of design and animation. Modern games at least throw that around a little and make them act different and look different.

There was no need to drudge up a full enemy chart, but believe me, if I were to do so, it would embarass most contemporary software.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

I don't understand the ... there.

Simply meaning that I had no comment.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

So was I. Very derivative, as I said, of Altered Beast and Zelda for it's storyline and gameplay, with the graphics emulating the average realism style of games back then. Nothing particularly new or exciting at all, even for the time. Definitely not memorable.

I'll politely disagree. Magician Lord had exceptional enemy/boss design, save for the final boss which was outright stupid.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

You concentrated on that point quite a bit though, led me to that conclusion.

Point taken.

[KingOfSentinels]

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

Later I will check those out and get back to you.

Don't watch too much of Limbo footage though; since it's a puzzle game, having puzzles spoiled can ruin the fun of figuring it out. They don't get too difficult till later on of course.

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

I found Dead Space to be somewhat lacking. The enemies themselves were cool enough but there wasn't much in terms of variety. Those little exploding alien baby things were cool.

That was actually a problem with the game itself; everything jumped out of vents. The enemies did look different, they were disgusting in lots of different ways, but they all just appeared from vents so I didn't like that bit. And the baby aliens were horrible! Hated them. Dead Space 2 has more variation of monsters and some of them don't jump out of the vents this time.

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

There was no need to drudge up a full enemy chart, but believe me, if I were to do so, it would embarass most contemporary software.

Just proving that there are a lot of enemies in this game, and Gears wasn't even praised for it's variety of enemies and so you can see that many games have more.

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

I'll politely disagree. Magician Lord had exceptional enemy/boss design, save for the final boss which was outright stupid.

Yes, he was. But the game did feel derivative through the entire thing, I wasn't playing anything I hadn't played before, with the transforming just being Altered Beast, and the storyline being what every Zelda does. But like in the review I posted, repetitive enemies and bland design was noticed by many. It got released on the VC so reviews for it have popped up and that's a common thing said.

I think if it was 1990 and I played it, might not feel that way. But looking back at games I played beforehand, like Zelda, it didn't really stand up.

[justin_credible]

Remember when this thread was about Mario? I haven't seen mention of the word Mario in pages now so now I'm gonna mention Mario.


MARIO.

[Einhander]

Originally Posted by Icarus4578

The first shot is nice and colorful, but the game itself doesn't look appealing. I can't even tell what sort of game it is.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Yeah, you really are proving yourself to be one stubborn person in regards to this

But continue being so ignorant and missing out on truly great games. It's you who suffers. And kind of us too, for having to keep hearing it.

Jesus Christ, just let it fucking drop. Not everyone likes the same thing as you. Get over it.

Can we move this discussion to the PC forum please?

Originally Posted by justin_credible

Remember when this thread was about Mario? I haven't seen mention of the word Mario in pages now so now I'm gonna mention Mario.

MARIO.

I'm not even that big a fan of Mario games, but I'd rather discuss that.

[KingOfSentinels]

We're just talking and, funnily enough, can talk if we want to.