View Single Post

Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005
Old 05-08-2004, 01:28 AM   #14
Blix
Harbinger of Cake
 
Blix's Avatar
 
Blix is offline
Location: Silent Hill
Now Playing:
Posts: 784
Default Re: Perfect Dark, not until 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
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.
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...
__________________
NNID: Blix11
X Live: Blyx11
Steam: Blix11

Last edited by Blix : 05-08-2004 at 02:47 AM.
  Reply With Quote