| Zod95 said: "Nintendo mastered the 3D movement with Mario 64" - This is an opinion, not a fact. I personally think that Sonic Adventure has mastered 3D movement much better than Mario 64. Non-linear story telling may range from "press X to win" like it is on Heavy Rain (which doesn't mean it is bad) to character full-control like it is on LA Noire. Animations-based gameplay is the opposite of that. I did play several Nintendo games and I tell you: they are fun but the gameplay is cheap. You, most probably, haven't paid attention to how I defined "cheap gameplay". Read it again, please. I didn't talk about worse or better games, I talked about cheap gameplay, which doesn't scare me at all (what am I afraid of?). Yes, it is indeed amazing. Nintendo is a good money printer: huge revenues, astronomical profits and obscene ROI are engaging to the eye of any investor. |
No, Nintendo setting the groundwork for TRUE 3D gaming with Super Mario 64 is a fact. Even several generations later, there are still big budget 3D action and platformer games that to this day struggle to have the quality of controls, physics, camera, level design, and game balance that Mario 64 had.
Sonic Adventure, while seemingly neat (with flashy graphcis) for it's time at DC launch, only paved the way for even more unbalanced, far shittier 3D Sonic attempts in the future. Sonic Adventure was a decent game, but to suggest that it "mastered 3D movement" at all, let alone infer that it did so better than Mario 64, is I'm sorry to say, highly laughable. Sonic has quite simply NEVER worked out very well in 3D. Mario 64 alone was an open, free-form, fully functional 3D world game. Most of Sonic Adventure basically felt like "on-rails" stages, something they've done ever since, and there were many parts where the physics, camera, etc., were straight up broken. It only got worse with SA2 onward. I am not debating Mario vs. Sonic. I am merely pointing out the actual features of both games. The only people on earth who are going to claim that SA is a better game than Mario 64, are massive long-time Sonic fans. And even then, even if you DO personally like Sonic games better than Mario games, which is perfectly fine, I am sure many Sonic fans would likely still concede that Mario 64 was all around the better made game.
And regardless, there was certainly nothing "cheap" about it. Your proclimations that Nintendo, their hardware, and what's more, their GAMES, are "cheap", are also highly suspect. If you are just not a big fan of Nintendo games, come out and say so. But to try and make their games, which even from people who are not big Nintendo fans, are usually regarded highly, seem "cheaply made", or that somehow their design or appeal or gameplay is "cheap", is just pointless. And what's more, you state right in this particular post that you have "played a few Nintendo games".....how much is a few? 3? 4? 7? Your wording insenuates (perhaps by accident) that you actually haven't played all that many Nintendo games at all. And IF that is the case, then your raging criticisms of their games and approach to gaming, doesn't honestly hold a whole lot of merit, does it? I am not a fan of Xbox exclusive franchises, but I would never waste my time or make myself look foolish by starting a huge thread post about how I think Microsoft sucks, and why their games are garbage, EVEN though I have very little experience actually playing their games. It's just not worth the time, nor is it terribly wise.
