| Mr Puggsly said: I don't care for the original Banjo games but I honestly didn't enjoy a lot 3D games of that era. I argue much of it didn't age well because it wasn't very good to begin with but I still think it has value for moving the industry forward. |
I loved the games from that era. At the time.
Now it's a chore to go back and replay any title, but I still value the titles highly that moved the industry forwards.
| Mr Puggsly said: I haven't played Sea of Thieves since it released. I really should revisit the game given it has had many updates and it became a hit. Either way, it might just be not for us. If a game is popular and there isn't anything inherently wrong with it, its just not for me. |
The same criticisms I have for Halo 5 generally apply to Sea of Thieves, whilst neither are a terrible game, both were light on content on release, resulting in me getting bored rather rapidly and moving onto greener pastures.
There are way to many games to stick around and hope something gets good with updates... And chances are, the multiplayer population would have likely imploded in Oceania anyway.
| JWeinCom said: I tend to judge games based on how well they hold up today. Because, sadly, I can't have the experience of playing them in their time again. If I'm going to play it again, it's going to be now, so I feel it should be judged based on how much enjoyment it will give me now. |
I don't necessarily disagree, but there are some things games do well during a generation that we cringe at later.
I mean Goldeneye 64 was an amazing title for the era, it set records, it was fun, it had great graphics and an immersive story... And the best local multiplayer on any platform until Perfect Dark came along and refined things.
Today? Not so much, the fact you can't jump feels limiting, the visuals have aged poorly and more. - It's still a game that led the FPS console pack during it's time, but other titles like Halo and Call of Duty are far better titles when judged by modern standards.
So it's best to judge Goldeneye (And other titles of the era) within an appropriate context.. And that is by keeping in mind the era the games originated from.
| JWeinCom said: Haven't played Rare's other stuff post Nintendo. I've been curious to check out Kameo but still haven't gotten around to it. Other than that, the games just don't seem like my cup of tea. |
Kameo visually aged fairly well considering it was a 2005 (14 years!) launch title for the Xbox 360 and was originally intended for technically inferior platforms, RARE's art direction really paid off there.
It's gameplay mechanics are fairly unique as well and a ton of fun when you get a grasp of it all.
Give it a shot if you get the chance, been years since I played it, but it was tons of fun.
| Cream147 said: Even Nintendo's AAA games feel somewhat like "AA" games to me, and I do mean that in the most positive way you can interpret it. Super Mario Odyssey does not feel like Nintendo chucked obscene amounts of money at it - instead they did exactly what they needed to do to make a supremely fun and unforgettable game and left it at that. Even BotW, which I believe is Nintendo's most expensive production to date, has a certain beauty to its restraint. |
I think Nintendo typically prefers to have a more conservative development budget anyway, it allows them to focus on the important aspects like gameplay... Also not having industry-leading visuals in it's titles generally means less investment is required to push the envelope on that front anyway so they can get away with a smaller budget.
I mean, Breath of the Wild is a very well made game, with some amazing gameplay mechanics, solid story and an expansive world. - But graphically it's a pretty average game.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
