Am I alone? Unimpressed w/all next-gen consoles

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-11-22 10:54pm

My only problem with the new gaming consolues is the lack of anything truely knew in them.

Variants on a them, sure, but rarely anything that felt 'new'

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-22 10:54pm

Hey, I liked Armoured Core back on the PSX. How is it like Digimon? It had terrible balance, a list of largely worthless components, and really lame missions, but I liked the flexibility with tanks/hover/legs/etc.

Only mech game where Flash could make a heavy tank mech and I could make a ninja mech... and expend all my ammo into him while dancing around like a crazy person and RUN OUT before he died.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-11-22 10:57pm

I remember playing Armored Core on my friend's PS, and the combat was nifty, but I hated the maze levels. Do they still do those, while saddling you with mechs that tromp along at a leisurely pace?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-22 10:59pm

I haven't played it in many iterations (like DW, an interesting idea from the PSX rehashed with almost no changes for half a dozen games = fuck off), but those maze missions were stupid. I did like the 'mech' part, so one day they'll actually fucking change the game and give you nice big levels with actual goals that aren't stupid. Remember, the bio-missions were put in for a reason. A really important reason.

That's SECRET.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2006-11-22 11:02pm

Stark wrote: A really important reason.

That's SECRET.

To give the Bio-sensor a use. Because just using dead aim against those bug things was soooo hard.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-22 11:08pm

You know the SECRET!

Even in the first game it was lame that they threw in those stupid animals just to give the head a new role... but after the sequels (where they introduced all kinds of new mechanics and roles for different parts) keeping it and bringing the same animals back over and over was even worse.

Where is Armoured Core: Sandbox? That I would buy. Just like Dynasty Warriors: A New Game Honest. I'd buy that too.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2006-11-22 11:24pm

The Arena mode from Project Phantasma was pretty fun for experimenting. You had a wide range of opponents and a lot of good stages to play in. On the note of useless ideas, you obviously don't remember the dreaded Bomb Dispensers. You know, the weapn that fired bomblets that landed a at your feet. There was also a noise canceller option in the heads that prevent your FCS from being jammed in all of one mission in AC 1...

If anything, at least Armored Core proved that robot games work well with a good physics engine and player emersion. It's not like Journey to Jaburo where Mobile Suits have all the grace of ASIMO or Mechwarrior in where 'Mechs are just tanks that walk.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-22 11:34pm

Yeah, the particular style of Armoured Core was neat. In 1997 it was awesome that landing too fast would make your legs stumble.

I was talking more about open-plan sandbox levels, though: like an FPS or GTA instead of the 'five corridors and a big room' levels of Armoured Core. Half the weapons are useless in half the levels because of how they launch or their range/lock envelope. Out in the open or larger citiscapes (like the Mechwarrior games) you'd really be able to use the agiliy and range the game offers.

Wait, is THAT what the noise canceller was for? I never worked it out!

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2006-11-22 11:45pm

Yeah that's what the noise canceller does. You only get jammed in the "Destroy oil tanks" level. I like that level if only because the game designers just hand you the Karasawa "Ultimate Kill the world" rifle. A more open Armored Core game would be great. I swear the guys at From Software are responsible for the sudden influx of games that have some arbitrary boundary that you can't cross. If you ever use the replay function in the Armored Core 1 expansions you see just how massive some of the levels are but you just can't go there because of that damn boundary. It's madness. I hear AC 4 has something like 16 person online play so that might have opened things up.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-11-22 11:57pm

Cause here's a fucking revelation: if I didn't like the 1st Zelda, the 1st Resident Evil or the 1st Halo, why the fuck should I care about the latest and greatest evolutionary incarnation?

Because the first Zelda is nothing like the latest Zelda game, just as the first Resident Evil is nothing like the latest Resident Evil game.

Do you realize how stupid your statement sounds? "I didn't like this 8-bit game, so why would I like this new game that's out over ten years and four console generations later?"

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-11-23 12:08am

SPC Brungardt wrote:
VF5SS wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote: That would be nice, in regards to Gundam games.
And an actual physics engine wouldn't hurt either. =D
Then they wouldn't move at all, haven't you a HAB-shaped bone in your body?

My HAB bone tells me Gundams move just fine until they run into anything tank shaped.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-23 12:30am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Do you realize how stupid your statement sounds? "I didn't like this 8-bit game, so why would I like this new game that's out over ten years and four console generations later?"

Surely you mean 'this game which is related in only the most tenuous plot sense, rather than any stylistic or practical way'. Wind Walker was somewhat similar to OoT (except it didn't suck), but the others are all different enough for me. ZOMG we should never make another 2d fighter or FPS, because they made on once and I didn't like it!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-11-23 12:37am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:over ten years

Twenty.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-23 12:41am

Oh don't get specific, just laugh at him because he hates franchise games but want to play Mech Game X and Plane Shooty Awesome. Remember folks, he hates unoriginal rehash games!

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-11-23 12:43am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Cause here's a fucking revelation: if I didn't like the 1st Zelda, the 1st Resident Evil or the 1st Halo, why the fuck should I care about the latest and greatest evolutionary incarnation?
Because the first Zelda is nothing like the latest Zelda game, just as the first Resident Evil is nothing like the latest Resident Evil game.

Do you realize how stupid your statement sounds? "I didn't like this 8-bit game, so why would I like this new game that's out over ten years and four console generations later?"

Maybe those were bad examples although I certainly don't mean to juxtapose an 8-bit game and something on the Wii. Comparing the Gamecube and the Wii is satisfactory enough, it's recycling franchises in genres I don't necessarily care about that I mean to get across.

Since the N64 Zelda games play similar enough. Resident Evil's got a nice overhaul but it's still in that bastard schizophrenic genre and still not scary, just like scary movies. Lame. Halo? It's an FPS on a console, that is the definition of frustrating controls, along with the Armored Core franchise.

Stark wrote:Oh don't get specific, just laugh at him because he hates franchise games but want to play Mech Game X and Plane Shooty Awesome. Remember folks, he hates unoriginal rehash games! Rolling Eyes

Meh, I don't like many of Nintendo's go-to franchises and a lot of what I started to like was new in the last genre. I'm wondering how new content's gonna come along with such a drastic change in console balance.

I'll get far more bang for the buck for something with a good multiplayer or co-op, Zelda's not that, Mario's not that. Smash Brothers is good shit though I suck at it.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2006-11-23 12:45am

I think the problem is that the new consoles really can't do anything the previous generation couldn't, gameplay-wise. Every previous generation of consoles made at least a few things possible that couldn't have been done before.

The Pong-clones started the whole mess, the Atari VCS and its ilk introduced swappable games, the NES allowed games to have large numbers of pre-designed levels with diverse environments and gameplay styles, as well as having enough memory to allow for the rudiments of a plot.

The 16-bit systems were able to do easily what the NES struggled with and allowed for even more complex games (and, of course, better graphics.) The 32-bit systems introduced 3D, but kinda choked when trying to render full 3D scenes (just look at the pathetic draw distances in games like Medal of Honor and Soul Reaver, and the N64 had its own problems.)

The last generation of consoles were the first to be able to really do 3D well, with models detailed enough to really look like the things they were supposed to look like, textures with enough resolution that you don't really notice the blurriness under normal gameplay, and draw distances far enough that the fog doesn't really impact things much. They basically represented the 3D equivalents of what the 16-bit consoles were for 2D.

And now we've got the newest wave of systems which, with the exception of the Wii (which is mostly notable for a controller that could easily have been made as an add-on for the Gamecube,) are pretty much the same as what we had before but with better graphics. They don't offer anything gameplay wise that the PS2 and its ilk couldn't do, they just look better. And the last generation of consoles already looked pretty good.

Really, the only reason to buy an X-Box 360, PS3, or even a Wii is that their arrival signals the end of support for the PS2, X-Box and Gamecube. If you want the new games, you have to get a new system, not because the games couldn't have been made for the previous generation of consoles with slightly less detailed graphics and possibly requiring a plug-in peripheral or two, but simply because they won't be. It's simply a matter of forced obsolescence, not an example of a new technology that actually offers any new possibilities.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-23 12:50am

At least he freely admits he's just trolling, by complaining that they make profitable games like Halo and Zelda instead of his pet plane/mech games. AWWW DIDDUMS DO YOU WANT A HUG?

I find it deeply amusing that he seems to be suggesting that if 'innovative' games were developed he'd like them, even though he appears to hate every genre of console game except perhaps racing games.

EDIT - 'Forced obsolescence' is garbage. I'm a consumer, and I want neat looking games. Once one new console is released, everyone has to compete. The lack of processing grunt in PS2/Xbox era hardware seriously limited games beyond simply graphics... but people who miss the 'consumers like graphics, hence better graphics sell, hence we need a better system' are strange.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-11-23 01:07am

Stark wrote:At least he freely admits he's just trolling, by complaining that they make profitable games like Halo and Zelda instead of his pet plane/mech games. AWWW DIDDUMS DO YOU WANT A HUG?

I find it deeply amusing that he seems to be suggesting that if 'innovative' games were developed he'd like them, even though he appears to hate every genre of console game except perhaps racing games.

The title was self-explanatory enough wasn't it? I'm a largely uninitiated console-gamer, I got a PS2 cause it had everything in terms of choice. GT, Ratchet and Clank, FF games, mech games, sorta FPS [not really though], fighters, racing, music [like Frequency], Grand Theft Auto.

Cause of that I unfairly glossed over the details in Nintendo, that their name-brand franchises have stayed largely the same but gameplay wise have evolved a greatly over the years. Maybe I overreached -- I'm just not overly impressed with anything right now cause there's not enough to choose from. On top of that, the PS3's success is a question mark as is X360 Japanese support. Unless Nintendo can get the support it's lacked the last 2 rounds, then consoles are something I'm always finding reasons NOT to get.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-23 01:10am

Man, you're just digging it deeper. Ratchet and Clank? A FRANCHISE GAME based on OLDER GAME with many sequels? And you like it? PFFFFT.

Just be honest. You simply don't like Nintendo games. Don't make up absurd, contradictory reasons for it like 'I hate constant sequels'. I'm not a console person myself (I basically only play Singstar and Guitar Hero these days) but you don't see me attacking the whole idea of sequels.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-11-23 01:40am

Stark wrote:Man, you're just digging it deeper. Ratchet and Clank? A FRANCHISE GAME based on OLDER GAME with many sequels? And you like it? PFFFFT.

All I meant to get across in the last post [besides damage control] was that PS2 had good games in just about every genre, and a lot of more niche stuff. R&C actually isn't something I've but seen my friend play, it looked fun but really it was just funny.

Stark wrote: Just be honest. You simply don't like Nintendo games. Don't make up absurd, contradictory reasons for it like 'I hate constant sequels'. I'm not a console person myself (I basically only play Singstar and Guitar Hero these days) but you don't see me attacking the whole idea of sequels.

I don't like Nintendo games! If it sounded like I was hiding that sorry, my gripe is: if this round is default to Wii, what happens to my games? The 2nd gripe is how do the 3rd party games break down cause of it? I mean, Nintendo's usually been very 1st party dominated. (that Nintendo recently got Resident Evil is a bloody coincidence though cause I've ALWAYS hated that franchise and that genre)

My rationale left a lot to be desired, I just don't want 3rd Party exclusives to fuck everything up in this round of consoles, since I won't even flippantly consider a PS3 until it has a price drop [X360 is pushing it as-is]. That's why I really want the Wii to get 3rd party support, their system's perhaps not the best but they got their shit together.

(although I just realized Frequency is SCEA, god that sucks)

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-23 02:03am

Well Wii has four times more 3rd-party launch titles than Nintendo titles, so they're off to a good start. If there are more non-kiddie games like Red Steel and such down the road it should have a broader appeal than GC.

Along with the VC, Nintendo seems to be courting developers much more actively this time around. I guess they learned their lesson?

PS R&C is awesome

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2006-11-23 02:04am

Sriad wrote:
SPC Brungardt wrote:
VF5SS wrote: And an actual physics engine wouldn't hurt either. =D
Then they wouldn't move at all, haven't you a HAB-shaped bone in your body?
My HAB bone tells me Gundams move just fine until they run into anything tank shaped.

I believe they mean how every MS is pretty top heavy.

Anyways, I never liked ZF that much, even mobile suits without Luna Titanium took forever to kill from the front with an MG, or J2J, I have to stand directly in front of someone to fire a beam sniper rifle with any accuracy...

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-11-23 02:05am

Stark wrote:Well Wii has four times more 3rd-party launch titles than Nintendo titles, so they're off to a good start. If there are more non-kiddie games like Red Steel and such down the road it should have a broader appeal than GC.

CoD3 is going to be on the Wii and I heard GTA as well, so it seems like there is at least a start of a good supply of 'mature' games.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2006-11-23 02:11am

atg wrote:CoD3 is going to be on the Wii and I heard GTA as well, so it seems like there is at least a start of a good supply of 'mature' games.

Wait, wait, wait... GTA on the Wii? As in Grand Theft Auto? On the Nintendo Wii? Where the hell did you hear this?

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-11-23 02:20am

Temjin wrote:
atg wrote:CoD3 is going to be on the Wii and I heard GTA as well, so it seems like there is at least a start of a good supply of 'mature' games.
Wait, wait, wait... GTA on the Wii? As in Grand Theft Auto? On the Nintendo Wii? Where the hell did you hear this?

A computer magazine:

PC Authority, December Issue wrote:Halo 3 is still releaing sometime in 2007, while Grand Theft Auto 4 will release on all three next-generation platforms at the same time.

To be honest I'm not sure if its true or not, as I've not heard anything else about it anywhere else. Apparently this magazine had a Wii brought over to them by Nintendo Australia to get a preview of and they discussed upcoming games then.