Quantcast
Rare: We donít need to return to old franchises

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Rare: We donít need to return to old franchises

Mr Puggsly said:
Bobo012893 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:

From what I've played I'm really not sure that's true. I don't think they would have much more success on Wii or DS than on 360. The games just don't seem to have the charm and quality of previous Rare games. If they were constantly releasing cutting edge material, what's made them release average products now? I don't doubt they're profitable, but why have they been relegated to being a pet project of Microsoft's?

If you look at their previous games you can see quite a range of games and a varied portfolio of sucessful games (both critically and sales-wise). After joining Microsoft they haven't produced anything with the critical and commercial success experienced before. Microsoft's takeover of Rare should be held up to the rest of the industry as how not to do a corporate buy-out.

To be blunt, Rare is competing with high quality developers on the 360. Their games are easily over shadowed by high quality games being released all the time. The same games they've released on the 360 would get a lot more attention on the Wii because they appeal to a younger audience and the Wii has a very weak library aside from 1st party titles. Their games weren't good on the N64 either, there just wasn't much to choose from on the N64.

In a nutsehll, Rare has huge competition on the 360 and they would have little competition on the Wii.

Edit: You should also bear in mind that expectations were much lower in previous generations and are still pretty low on the Wii. Its not that their games have gotten worse, they just aren't up to par with high quality Xbox 360 and PS3 games of today.

I'm sorry but the games on the N64 were compared to all the greats of that gen on all consoles, (including the great games on the PS1) to the point where many want remakes or remakes are being made via PC mods. They were both critical and commercial successes. Critics review every game on every console and if they reviewed Rare games highly back then I'm inclined to believe they were among the best of that gen.

Even on the Wii the quality of all the first-party titles would so far outshadow the quality of the Rare games currently released I don't see how sales would be significantly higher. Most 3rd-party's complain about the competitions from Nintendo. Expectations might have been lower in previous gens, but that's only relative to what we have now. Most devs like Rare would be improving and should be learning to cope with the changing market especially with the resources Microsoft has at their disposal.

Competition is really a poor excuse as to why they've had such a fall from grace.

 

And I'm saying the type of games Rare made sucked on all consoles during that time. It was also easy for those games to shine on the N64 because there was very little to choose from on the N64.

The games they made back then weren't better than the games they make today. Expectations were very low at that time and Rare can't seem to compete with todays expectations.

The Wii has very few good games to choose from outside of 1st party. The type of games Rare makes would be successful on the Wii because that's their audience. They dominated past Nintendo consoles and they could do it again. They just don't create the type of games 360 owners want.

Rare hasn't made genuinely great games since Donkey Kong Country on the SNES and Killer Instinct. It seems releasing mediocre games has finally caught up with them in my opinion.

Dude Im gonna get banned for this, but fuck you. You are totally speaking out of your ass right now. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazzoie and Conquer weren't great? Do you have any idea what a good game is?

Hah, yeah I know great games. Nothing you named was great thought.

I mostly played fighters, racers, and RPGs during that gen. It wasn't until I got a Dreamcast that I really enjoyed shooters and 3D platformers.

umm...



Feel free to add me as your friend-PSN ID: Bobo012893

Around the Network

So we get Banjo and Viva Pinata games instead?!?!?



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

Bobo012893 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Bobo012893 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:

From what I've played I'm really not sure that's true. I don't think they would have much more success on Wii or DS than on 360. The games just don't seem to have the charm and quality of previous Rare games. If they were constantly releasing cutting edge material, what's made them release average products now? I don't doubt they're profitable, but why have they been relegated to being a pet project of Microsoft's?

If you look at their previous games you can see quite a range of games and a varied portfolio of sucessful games (both critically and sales-wise). After joining Microsoft they haven't produced anything with the critical and commercial success experienced before. Microsoft's takeover of Rare should be held up to the rest of the industry as how not to do a corporate buy-out.

To be blunt, Rare is competing with high quality developers on the 360. Their games are easily over shadowed by high quality games being released all the time. The same games they've released on the 360 would get a lot more attention on the Wii because they appeal to a younger audience and the Wii has a very weak library aside from 1st party titles. Their games weren't good on the N64 either, there just wasn't much to choose from on the N64.

In a nutsehll, Rare has huge competition on the 360 and they would have little competition on the Wii.

Edit: You should also bear in mind that expectations were much lower in previous generations and are still pretty low on the Wii. Its not that their games have gotten worse, they just aren't up to par with high quality Xbox 360 and PS3 games of today.

I'm sorry but the games on the N64 were compared to all the greats of that gen on all consoles, (including the great games on the PS1) to the point where many want remakes or remakes are being made via PC mods. They were both critical and commercial successes. Critics review every game on every console and if they reviewed Rare games highly back then I'm inclined to believe they were among the best of that gen.

Even on the Wii the quality of all the first-party titles would so far outshadow the quality of the Rare games currently released I don't see how sales would be significantly higher. Most 3rd-party's complain about the competitions from Nintendo. Expectations might have been lower in previous gens, but that's only relative to what we have now. Most devs like Rare would be improving and should be learning to cope with the changing market especially with the resources Microsoft has at their disposal.

Competition is really a poor excuse as to why they've had such a fall from grace.

 

And I'm saying the type of games Rare made sucked on all consoles during that time. It was also easy for those games to shine on the N64 because there was very little to choose from on the N64.

The games they made back then weren't better than the games they make today. Expectations were very low at that time and Rare can't seem to compete with todays expectations.

The Wii has very few good games to choose from outside of 1st party. The type of games Rare makes would be successful on the Wii because that's their audience. They dominated past Nintendo consoles and they could do it again. They just don't create the type of games 360 owners want.

Rare hasn't made genuinely great games since Donkey Kong Country on the SNES and Killer Instinct. It seems releasing mediocre games has finally caught up with them in my opinion.

Dude Im gonna get banned for this, but fuck you. You are totally speaking out of your ass right now. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazzoie and Conquer weren't great? Do you have any idea what a good game is?

Hah, yeah I know great games. Nothing you named was great thought.

I mostly played fighters, racers, and RPGs during that gen. It wasn't until I got a Dreamcast that I really enjoyed shooters and 3D platformers.

umm...

Well the games you named were probably the best for their time of those genres (console shooters and 3D platformers). However, that doesn't make them genuinely good.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

At least they have the good sense to know that the simply no longer house the talent to do anything other than sully the good names of their great franchises.

At Puggsly: Did you actually play those games during that gen? I ask this because if you have only played them on XBL it's hardly a fair, the first gen of 3D games have aged very poorly, much worse I feel than SNES-gen games. If Rare's best N64 games don't qualify as great then nothing in that gen was.

We do agree on one thing though, Rayman 2 was awesome, the equal of any other platformer that gen and a much overlooked game.



Mr Puggsly said:
Bobo012893 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Bobo012893 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:

From what I've played I'm really not sure that's true. I don't think they would have much more success on Wii or DS than on 360. The games just don't seem to have the charm and quality of previous Rare games. If they were constantly releasing cutting edge material, what's made them release average products now? I don't doubt they're profitable, but why have they been relegated to being a pet project of Microsoft's?

If you look at their previous games you can see quite a range of games and a varied portfolio of sucessful games (both critically and sales-wise). After joining Microsoft they haven't produced anything with the critical and commercial success experienced before. Microsoft's takeover of Rare should be held up to the rest of the industry as how not to do a corporate buy-out.

To be blunt, Rare is competing with high quality developers on the 360. Their games are easily over shadowed by high quality games being released all the time. The same games they've released on the 360 would get a lot more attention on the Wii because they appeal to a younger audience and the Wii has a very weak library aside from 1st party titles. Their games weren't good on the N64 either, there just wasn't much to choose from on the N64.

In a nutsehll, Rare has huge competition on the 360 and they would have little competition on the Wii.

Edit: You should also bear in mind that expectations were much lower in previous generations and are still pretty low on the Wii. Its not that their games have gotten worse, they just aren't up to par with high quality Xbox 360 and PS3 games of today.

I'm sorry but the games on the N64 were compared to all the greats of that gen on all consoles, (including the great games on the PS1) to the point where many want remakes or remakes are being made via PC mods. They were both critical and commercial successes. Critics review every game on every console and if they reviewed Rare games highly back then I'm inclined to believe they were among the best of that gen.

Even on the Wii the quality of all the first-party titles would so far outshadow the quality of the Rare games currently released I don't see how sales would be significantly higher. Most 3rd-party's complain about the competitions from Nintendo. Expectations might have been lower in previous gens, but that's only relative to what we have now. Most devs like Rare would be improving and should be learning to cope with the changing market especially with the resources Microsoft has at their disposal.

Competition is really a poor excuse as to why they've had such a fall from grace.

 

And I'm saying the type of games Rare made sucked on all consoles during that time. It was also easy for those games to shine on the N64 because there was very little to choose from on the N64.

The games they made back then weren't better than the games they make today. Expectations were very low at that time and Rare can't seem to compete with todays expectations.

The Wii has very few good games to choose from outside of 1st party. The type of games Rare makes would be successful on the Wii because that's their audience. They dominated past Nintendo consoles and they could do it again. They just don't create the type of games 360 owners want.

Rare hasn't made genuinely great games since Donkey Kong Country on the SNES and Killer Instinct. It seems releasing mediocre games has finally caught up with them in my opinion.

Dude Im gonna get banned for this, but fuck you. You are totally speaking out of your ass right now. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazzoie and Conquer weren't great? Do you have any idea what a good game is?

Hah, yeah I know great games. Nothing you named was great thought.

I mostly played fighters, racers, and RPGs during that gen. It wasn't until I got a Dreamcast that I really enjoyed shooters and 3D platformers.

umm...

Well the games you named were probably the best for their time of those genres (console shooters and 3D platformers). However, that doesn't make them genuinely good.

I'll repeat what I said before:

"...the games on the N64 were compared to all the greats of that gen on all consoles, (including the great games on the PS1) to the point where many want remakes or remakes are being made via PC mods. They were both critical and commercial successes. Critics review every game on every console and if they reviewed Rare games highly back then I'm inclined to believe they were among the best of that gen."

I'm more inclined to agree with the views of critics who play far more games than any of us than your personal opinion. Also, all games are "genuinely good for there time". Later generations will never be able to truly appreciate quality old games, especially from the early 3D era. e.g. The terrible controls on Metal gear Solid, yet it was and to me still is one of the best games ever created imo. Or the dated interface of Final Fantasy VII, yet still heralded as one of the greatest JRPGs created.



Around the Network
hsrob said:
At least they have the good sense to know that the simply no longer house the talent to do anything other than sully the good names of their great franchises.

At Puggsly: Did you actually play those games during that gen? I ask this because if you have only played them on XBL it's hardly a fair, the first gen of 3D games have aged very poorly, much worse I feel than SNES-gen games. If Rare's best N64 games don't qualify as great then nothing in that gen was.

We do agree on one thing though, Rayman 2 was awesome, the equal of any other platformer that gen and a much overlooked game.

Rare's "best" N64 games were released around 1997 - 2001. There were a ton of great games outside of what Rare was releasing.

On the N64 I mostly played the wrestling games and some of the Mario games. But I primarily played my Saturn and PS1 games.

In 1999 I began playing like Half Life, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Phantasy Star Online, Shenmue 1, Shenmue 2, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Jet Grind Radio, Skies of Arcadia, Grandia 2, etc.

Perhaps I wasn't impressed by the Rare games because I was playing even more cutting edge titles.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Scoobes said:

I'll repeat what I said before:

"...the games on the N64 were compared to all the greats of that gen on all consoles, (including the great games on the PS1) to the point where many want remakes or remakes are being made via PC mods. They were both critical and commercial successes. Critics review every game on every console and if they reviewed Rare games highly back then I'm inclined to believe they were among the best of that gen."

I'm more inclined to agree with the views of critics who play far more games than any of us than your personal opinion. Also, all games are "genuinely good for there time". Later generations will never be able to truly appreciate quality old games, especially from the early 3D era. e.g. The terrible controls on Metal gear Solid, yet it was and to me still is one of the best games ever created imo. Or the dated interface of Final Fantasy VII, yet still heralded as one of the greatest JRPGs created.

Like I said, those games might have been some of the best of their time. Perhaps reviewers were just happy N64 games worth playing finally existed so they inflated the scores. If I reviewed those games I know I wouldn't have given them high scores. But you're free to respect their opinions if you want.

Rare games haven't done a great job passing the test of time. However, Final Fantasy and Metal Gear has. Perhaps those are genuinely great games and the Rare titles were over rated?

Opinions change and those N64 games aren't look as good as they used to. But I can make a long list of PS1 games that are still awesome today.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

 

Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:
ns were much lower in previous generations and are still pretty low on the Wii. Its not that their games have gotten worse, they just aren't up to par with high quality Xbox 360 and PS3 games of today.
Mr Puggsly said:

 

 

Rare hasn't made genuinely great games since Donkey Kong Country on the SNES and Killer Instinct. It seems releasing mediocre games has finally caught up with them in my opinion.

 

 

I agree with this. Spot on.



Mr Puggsly said:
hsrob said:
At least they have the good sense to know that the simply no longer house the talent to do anything other than sully the good names of their great franchises.

At Puggsly: Did you actually play those games during that gen? I ask this because if you have only played them on XBL it's hardly a fair, the first gen of 3D games have aged very poorly, much worse I feel than SNES-gen games. If Rare's best N64 games don't qualify as great then nothing in that gen was.

We do agree on one thing though, Rayman 2 was awesome, the equal of any other platformer that gen and a much overlooked game.

Rare's "best" N64 games were released around 1997 - 2001. There were a ton of great games outside of what Rare was releasing.

On the N64 I mostly played the wrestling games and some of the Mario games. But I primarily played my Saturn and PS1 games.

In 1999 I began playing like Half Life, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Phantasy Star Online, Shenmue 1, Shenmue 2, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Jet Grind Radio, Skies of Arcadia, Grandia 2, etc.

Perhaps I wasn't impressed by the Rare games because I was playing even more cutting edge titles.

Sounds like you were well invested into the N64 library.

I usually wouldn't mind too much if you just came across as someone who has radically different game tastes from me but considering you rate Half Life, Shenmue, Rayman 2 etc that doesn't appear to be the case at least in some genres.  I really have to question how much and how many Rare games you actually played in the day.  I could understand you not rating all of them but given the fairly diverse nature of their releases and their widespread critical acclaim I'm left feeling you either just don't like Rare for some reason or really haven't played many of their games.

If I am wrong then I apologise and I revert back to my original suggestion that we just have radically different tastes but I think many people would disagree with the suggestion that the N64's best games have aged more poorly than the PS1's.



Mr Puggsly said:
Scoobes said:
 

I'll repeat what I said before:

"...the games on the N64 were compared to all the greats of that gen on all consoles, (including the great games on the PS1) to the point where many want remakes or remakes are being made via PC mods. They were both critical and commercial successes. Critics review every game on every console and if they reviewed Rare games highly back then I'm inclined to believe they were among the best of that gen."

I'm more inclined to agree with the views of critics who play far more games than any of us than your personal opinion. Also, all games are "genuinely good for there time". Later generations will never be able to truly appreciate quality old games, especially from the early 3D era. e.g. The terrible controls on Metal gear Solid, yet it was and to me still is one of the best games ever created imo. Or the dated interface of Final Fantasy VII, yet still heralded as one of the greatest JRPGs created.

Like I said, those games might have been some of the best of their time. Perhaps reviewers were just happy N64 games worth playing finally existed so they inflated the scores. If I reviewed those games I know I wouldn't have given them high scores. But you're free to respect their opinions if you want.

Rare games haven't done a great job passing the test of time. However, Final Fantasy and Metal Gear has. Perhaps those are genuinely great games and the Rare titles were over rated?

Opinions change and those N64 games aren't look as good as they used to. But I can make a long list of PS1 games that are still awesome today.

I would say Goldeneye is still heralded as the local MP FPS of the 90s. A Source mod has even been made of it.

Has Metal Gear passed the test of time? Or Final Fantasy for that matter. The old games sell well on PSN but wouldn't Goldeneye, or Banjo sell well if released on WiiWare or Live? I would argue that the only reason those games "appear" to have stood the test of time is that they've had good quality sequels to keep the titles relevant and fresh in people's minds.