Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

Yes, could you tell by my foul language?

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

lol. pwned :P

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

I remember the days when people here were salivating over one little funky screenshot of Kameo, and when people were saying Rare was Nintendo's answer for Square at the Sony camp... hmm, I've been going to these (and Nintendose/nintendodolphin.net) forums for 4 years now... hmm...

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

Yeah well that was in the period when we were playing Golden Eye, Banjo Kazooie and Perfect Dark. :rolleyes: Now look what we have: SFA and Grabbed by the Ghoulies....

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

A early generation game that was overhauled to put a Nintendo licened character in it and the first obviously rushed game Rare makes for Xbox... real fair comparison. That's about as valid as Square fans saying Squaresoft seemed to be losing there touch when Bouncer was released on Ps2.

I'd rather not jump to conclusions until Conker, Banjo, or (most importantly) Perfect Dark is released... until then I take all bitching about rare as people here being mad Rare left Nintendo.

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

And i'll take some as ppl being mad, and some as ppl just seeing whats infront of them.
on the flip side i'll take some that refuse to see it as people clinging to a hope that ms didnt waste money on rare.

;) not that thats anyone here. just yanno. in general :p

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

I see what's in front of me just like the next guy... I didn't expect SFA or GBG to be any better than they were. I just find it funny that people bash them and say they a crap for games that weren't a part of what made rare good in the first place.

Hey... I'l admit... I'm a perfect dark fanboy. Until they burn me and make a crappy version of Perfect dark (or a crappy FPS in general) I will be clinging on to the fact that Rare hasn't shown there post sale potential yet. If rare was still with Nintendo I would think the same exact way (even though in that case they would have much less excuses for having GBG and SFA being there last two games).

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

i didnt say you. ;) hehe

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

I don't like the model either and I don't think there's anything biased in it. I personally would hate it the same if it was in the GC. And really, are you that impressed with what rare has done so far this generation? Rare hasn't really made me happy of owning one of their games since the late N64 days (Perfect Dark and Conker being the only two exceptions). I was hoping for the company to return to its roots of great gameplay mechanics and productivity but man, my patience isn't infite. Star Fox left a bad taste in me and the company takes foever and a day to make one game now. Not only that but Rare now kept only their name becuase most of their talent went away.I.e. they're pretty much an empty shell IMO. So who knows how the games might turn out to be? I am still expecting PD and Conker but this conker model (Suposing it is not a joke. And I think they changed Perfect Dark to cell shading which is really far from what the series began like) is really bringing my hopes even lower. If they don't really deliver with these games I might just forget about the existence of the company.

So this goes from waaaaay before the company was bought by Microsoft. Really, I think it's a cheap scapegoat to frame every one who dislikes rare stuff now as a fanboy. You better come up with something else.

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

"Can't be a joke. Came straight from IGN"

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

Heh heh heh

Well, that's good to know ;)

No... but do I have to be impressed? Do you watch sports? Think of Rare as a star player traded early in the season... you can't expect him to be an MVP again just because it's him, he has to get used to his surroundings and eventually will fit into the team, and be good. Oh, and think of Star Fox adventures as that player's last effort on his old team before he got traded (and he knew he was getting traded, which took away the desire to perform well)

Anybody in to sports will understand what I mean... if you are not, well, the fact is Rare hasn't burned me on the titles I liked from them, thus I'm not passing judgment. I think your expectations are just set a little too high, did you honestly like EVERY single game Rare released on N64 and SNES?

I bet if Nintendo was sold to Microsoft and the only game they made for the first year was Mario party 4, a true Nintendo fan wouldn't call them crap and would patently wait for them to screw over Mario or Zelda (which they did to a certain extent ;))... that's how my relationship with Rare is working, GBG is just like Mario party to a Nintendo fan, not somthing I would use to measure the state of a certain company. I'll patently wait for them to screw up Perfect Dark before I kick MS in the nuts for buying them.

As for the developers leaving the company... remember, only the original company can completly rip off everythiong that made the last game great. Also, I'm sure they have enough developers around from the old game to reproduce it, I don't think Microsoft is that stupid...

Where did you hear that? I only heard that they are changing the Joanna Dark Model, and not the whole game to cell shading...

Also, Microsoft isn't a scape goat for why people are bashing rare so bad nowadays, it's the only reason they are getting bashed. The fact is, once rare left Nintendo Rare became the enemy to most, and people started to bring out all there flaws. It has nothing to do with there preformance on Xbox... I remember when rare said they will try to release 5 games for Xbox in it's first year. Nintendo fans "Oh no! Microsoft is ruining them by making them release too much too fast, they won't give them the time to make there games great like nintendo did"... Now microsoft gives them time: "Oh, rare is crap, they haven't released a good game in years... even though SFA got decent scores and GBG is rushed I'd rather ignore everything buy these two games and call them crap"

Yes... people who bash Rare right now piss me off. But oh well, bitch all you want, eventually the truth will come out. If the truth is that they are bad, or good, I'd rather wait and see before passing judgment on such bad examples.

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

Before continuing I'd like to explain that since this thread was pretty much about rare games coming out after a long time I thought Concker's model was a joke as in he looks reaaally old in that pic. I always liked it that Conker looks cute but is really a devil and that was part of what made the game fun. I don't see any reason for them to put that effect (or at least in the exagerated way they did) there. About Johana's model... I said I wasn't sure just that I thought they had changed it. The only thing I saw was the model.Having that out of the way I'll continue with the topic at hand.

I'm not a big fan of any sport, and really I think if I'm to follow your analogy, rare has been showing decadence since the N64 days. They don't produce nearly as much and in their last games they have just made games that depend waay to much on senseless collecting. The fact that you aren't impressed shows they're not in the same level as before.

Getting used to its sorroundings? What are you talking about? They had begun development on Dinasour planet since before the GC had begun. They were one of the first companies to have development kits (had begun development on that game years before that) yet took a considerable amount of time to make the game - They could have at least fixed the inecessary collecting in the game in that time and show they learned from DK64's errors. Now they have MS backing them up and the Xbox is easy to work with. Even if they had to get used to whatever sorroundings it is you're talking about I don't think it should take THIS much time.

I had put as an example in the past (not sure if in this thread) the fact that Factor 5 could make a whole game -and add the latest sound technology in the last three months of development- in just around 8 or 9 months -Can't remember exactly how much. You might be right in that I may be setting my hopes too high for them. I'll give you the benefit of doubt there but after waiting so long for SFA (and other games too) and it not coming near my expectations I think it is inevitable to be like this.

It's also interesting that you claim you have read people being negative after Rare being sold to MS. I don't remember anybody being THAT optimistic in any forum I went to. Without any kind of sarcasm I say I'd like to know where you read people saying that stuff. The way I remember it, people were really quiet about them. All I ever read after that were vague comments which I wouldn't really say were optimistic. After all, they had nothing to praise them for at the moment since the company was inactive. But I only come here and to gamingforce so I'll give you the benefit of doubt here also. I just don't like to go to places where threads are pretty much like "Ohhh, I'm so right and you're so wrong111111eleven111eleven" 'No, you're so wrong and I'm oh so right!!!!!1one1111one111one!'

The difference between the Nintendo example and the rare example is that Nintendo takes a lot less time to develop games and they haven't really let me down on a game I was really anticipating (Unlike SFA). I am giving them a chance to redeem themself with PD (Had you read my last post closely you would have noticed) so I don't see why you are saying I'm not giving them a chance. I have much more to write but have to go now. I'll continue when I get home.

Edit: Back home.

I can also understand some people saying that Nintendo "screwed Mario and Zelda to a certain level) since they were trying something new. Had Rare tried something new I'd be in the same stance about them. But like I said, they just repeated the same errors. The bottom line... Nintendo may have its ups and downs but Rare seems to have stuck in a down and I'm still waiting for them to get their up.

And to finish my "bitching" let me remind you what started your "bitching". One guy says he doesn't like the Conker's model and you go on saying he has hard feelings towards rare and is a fanboy. I already made it clear why one can not like Conker's new model. I can't accept Paranoia as a way to measure other's opinions and that's just what that is: Paranoia. It's not like they can't feel frustrated about Rare. As Stu already said, it's pointless to try to come to conclusions about what might have caused some one to think they way he or she does. So, until you have some better argument I'll just consider this a cheap scapegoat. I hope I made myself clear and that you understand, if not... Oh well...

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

Ha... nice to see someone responded while I was gone.

Your post wasn't laid out very well, so I'm going to take it one topic at a time:

1) What the topic is about and who started the "bitching"

"And to finish my "bitching" let me remind you what started your "bitching". One guy says he doesn't like the Conker's model and you go on saying he has hard feelings towards rare and is a fanboy."

Maybe you should take a second look at the begining of the thread... I wasn't swaying it off topic, others were. I called nobody a fanboy, and my first post to even look off topic came at the end of the second page where I was just saying what I had seen over time.

2) Rare and new surroundings

You underestimate how hard making a switch like that is. Rare was loved in the N64 days but they were never a developer who could toss out high end games fast... period.

As for SFA, it's delays had nothing to do with Game quality, It was coming up on the end of the N64 generation and they decided to change it to gamecube... so all the work they put into it was ripped down and built back up on GCN. Then, after that, Nintendo decided to change the game to have a Nintendo licenced character in it... did they do this because it wouldn't sell without Star Fox on it, or because they were about to sell Rare and wanted to keep it exclusive? We'll never know... On top of that undenied Rumors of Rare being sold were circling around the net before Star Fox was even released. If Rare knew they were getting sold wouldn't they want to wrap up there last GCN projects? Thus rushing a game that was delayed out.

Also, Rare didn't know who they were getting sold to, and had no reason to start to learn and perfect development on Xbox. Upon getting sold they had the option to port or rebuild games from the ground up, looking at the amount of time Kameo is taking I think they are rebuilding.

Don't compare someone like factor 5 to Rare... Rare never was one to just unload a ton of great games without long development cycles, and in there prime (on N64) they were slower than they had ever been. You are expecting them to adapt to a whole new company and hardware in less than 2 years when it took them more 2 years to make a game on hardware they understood and had masterd (N64)... yes, you are expecting too much. If Rare was getting games out fast they wouldn't be the same Rare they were on N64.

3) Nintendo/Rare comparision

"The difference between the Nintendo example and the rare example is that Nintendo takes a lot less time to develop games and they haven't really let me down on a game I was really anticipating (Unlike SFA). "

No, the difference is that you simply like Nintendo's games more than Rare's and Nintendo has yet to go through the same situation as Rare...

"I am giving them a chance to redeem themself with PD (Had you read my last post closely you would have noticed) so I don't see why you are saying I'm not giving them a chance"

I wasn't refering directly to you when I said people aren't giving Rare a chance. But at the same time I am... Your wounds may run deep with Rare, but mine don't. SFA and GBG are games I'm turning a blind eye to because I didn't expect them to be good, I wasn't anticipating them, and those games in no way could have influenced my opinion on Rare.

You, on the other hand, were expecting SFA to somehow be better than previous Rare Adventure games? It's your fault for expecting too much. SFA still got decent scores, and from what I have played it felt just like a Rare game. Like Breakabone said, Rare is hit and miss with there adventure games... some people love (BanjoK, JFG, and Conker) and some people hate (BanjoT and DK). SFA was neither crap nor great, and I didn't expect anything more than what I got out of it.

Expectations are the base of opinions, so in my opinion your expectations were way too high. I mean, what exactly made you think SFA would be great? The second they put star fox on it I could tell there would be problems.

4) Microsoft used as a scapegoat for Rare bashing

There was only one person in the forums I remember who used to bash Rare left and right, and that was gekko. But everybody hated gekko. There was no major foul talk about Rare here until they were sold to microsoft, and that is a fact. I can see that as a lame excuse all you want, but everything points toward people looking down upon Rare more now that they are with MS.

Like I said before, I prefer to wait until there flagship titles come out then bitch about them now like you are. I don't care if they lost 99.9% of there developers and if SFA and GBG were the worst two games released in gaming history, until they screw up Pefect Dark, I'm not judging them. But that's me, you can set your unreasonably high expectations wherever you want them.

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
 

Jesus christ people, all I said was I dont like the look of Conker. I never said anything about its gameplay, or in fact ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL besides that I dont like the way he looks.

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005