No decree of opinion can invalidate anyone's judgement on it's own. One can give arguments, appeal to this or that and persuade, but assigning a number to something is none of the above. Critics wet themselves over stuff that leaves me wondering why, and they pan some stuff that makes me wonder if I played the same build, or even the same game. Critic ratings have their uses. An objective standard is not one of them.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
I agree with this. Statements such as "run around in fog" sound like they were made to sound like the person actually played it instead of leaving it in a hall closet. IMO, OoT is only fog running for a five year old. Hell, saying OoT is fog running while Tomb Raider, the game that is practically a 30 ft. draw distance in plenty of places, isn't is asinine. This and the "vaseline blur" claim are just redundant to me. It's been proven that a lot of PSX games use interpolation filtering anyway, so the Vaseline claim is pointless when both systems are using it. As for the "fog", I think he may have gotten lost in the Lost Woods.Originally Posted by Kyle15
Sounds like you played something entirely different then the Ocarina of Time I know.
What PS1 games are interpolated (blurred)? I have only seen a majority of the popular titles use full screen dithering, which just so happens to blur the image on some sets.
Before the N64, game consoles (including SNES, 3DO, Jaguar, PS, Saturn, etc.) used nearest-neighbor interpolation. This method requires less CPU, but results in aliasing/pixelation when textures are scaled.
The N64 was the first home game console to feature bilinear interpolation in the hardware to antialias (or smooth out) textures. This removes pixelation when textures are scaled. The textures are smoothed out, no matter how much they're enlarged.
Bilinear filtering requires much more CPU power, which is why the N64's CPU is so beefy compared to the one in the PS.
The problem is the N64's limited texture cache (4 KB, or 2 KB when using trilinear mip-mapping). Textures were small and stretched over large areas, or were kept small and repeated. The PlayStation used a different technique that allowed for larger textures...but of course, those textures were severely pixelated and the PS had other problems, like the lack of perspective correction.
After a few years, developers like Rare and Factor 5 were granted access to the N64's microcode and were able to get around the limited 4 KB texture cache. That's why later games like Rogue Squadron, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Perfect Dark, Ocarina of Time, etc. look so detailed (and feature much more advanced lighting) compared to early games like Mystical Ninja, Bomberman, etc.
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-07-2011 at 04:50 PM.
Nothing is wrong with Discworld. Anybody is entitled to like anything they want. Super Mario 64 and Discworld are vastly different games, so if someone doesn't like Japanese 3D platformers so much but does love Western 2D point-and-click adventure games, then it's obvious which is going to be preferred. But it's also obvious that its appeal is niche and it's largely forgotten. I have no problem with the idea that some mega-popular games don't appeal to me while some of my favorite games are unknown, but some people have a problem with that.
That's like saying that God of War 3 is better than Dante's Inferno because the ratings are better on IGN and Gamespot, or anywhere for that matter.
Dante's Inferno 7.5 IGN/6.5 Gamespot
God of War 3 9.3 IGN/9.0 Gamespot
However. God of War 3 is an absolute piece of shit compared to Dante's Inferno. Dante's Inferno was a ripoff but was better in asbolutely every way except for graphical textures.
It's well known that Final Fantasy 13 is hated by most fans of the series. How many well known websistes gave it below an 8.5? IGN gave it an 8.9, but then what appears at #1 of most disappointed games of 2010? Final Fantasy 13. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/113/1136938p1.html
So they sing praises about the game and then basically saying that "it's a piece of shit game with great graphics." Atleast that's what I see.Being merely 'okay' isn't good enough for the Final Fantasy series. These games have a heritage and pedigree to maintain, and thirteen games in, this instalment indeed proved unlucky. The characters are routinely awful and uninteresting, the storytelling is a jumbled mess that meanders through bland subplot – and then there's the gameplay, which consists of essentially moving in a straight line for the first twenty hours, repeatedly hitting X.
Basically we know full well not to trust review sites any longer because most reviews that are highly rated are more than likely payoffs. There isn't any "this game is legitimately good or bad" it's "whoever pays us the most advertising or highest payoff you'll get a better scoring."
So saying IGN and Gamespot ranked 9.5 on Mario 64 makes no difference. Going by user reactions, 50% of the people hate Mario 64, the other 50% love it, yet ALL review sites give it a 90%+. Isn't it kind of odd that all these AAA titles never receive a bad rating from literally every single journalistic gaming site?
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
Fine. Going by user ratings only (not professional review scores):
Super Mario 64:
Amazon = 9.4
Gamefaqs = 9.0
Metacritic = 9.1
Gamestats = 9.4
Mobygames = 8.0
overall user score = 9.0
Super Mario 64 DS:
Amazon = 9.0
Gamefaqs = 8.5
Metacritic = 7.9
Gamestats = 8.8
Mobygames = 8.0
Gamespot = 8.8
overall user score = 8.5
Discworld:
Amazon = 7.4
Gamefaqs = 7.8
Gamestats = 7.5
Gamespot = 8.1
overall user score = 7.7
Descent:
Amazon = 9.0
Gamefaqs = 7.0
Gamestats = 6.7
Gamespot = 7.7
overall user score = 7.6
Destruction Derby:
Amazon = 6.0
Gamefaqs = 6.4
Gamestats = 7.4
Gamespot = 7.6
overall user score = 6.9
Based on user reviews only, Super Mario 64 still comes out on top (not 50% of people hating it like you claim). And in this case, it would appear the professional video game reviewers got it right, too.
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-07-2011 at 10:18 PM.
I was talking only talking about N64 when you brought up Playstation out of nowhere. So yeah, it sure seemed like you were out to making one system look better or worse than another.
I never said that the Playstation had a great, or even good, launch. I'm not sure why you're so intent on arguing about the Playstation launch.My simple stance is that, historically, the PlayStation launch has largely been forgotten and that I would, by far, rather play Super Mario 64 than those very early PlayStation games, which I feel is a sentiment that most gamers would agree with.
I really don't think that's true. Toshinden is widely reviled, regularly featured on "most overrated of all time" lists, with the sentiment being that it was only ever popular because of its graphics. Further evidence of this is the fact that two Toshinden games were released on Saturn, with additions to gameplay but worse graphics, and were complete flops. Tekken and Ridge Racer both have a lot of somewhat samey sequels and I can't imagine that many people would care to go back to the originals, which are pretty limited. Especially Ridge Racer, which only has one track.Your tastes seem quite opposite from the typical gamer. I would imagine that of all of those games, most people would pick Toshinden, Ridge Racer, and Tekken as the best of that bunch.
I don't know where I ever implied that those games get a comparable level of attention to Super Mario 64...?If you honestly think gamers are still frequently talking about and playing stuff like Discworld, Destruction Derby, and Descent, then you're just delusional. Those games wish they could get the attention that Super Mario 64 gets for its pinky finger.
You're really straw-manning here.Seriously? How many members does Digital Press have? How many of those have PlayStation collections? How many other collectors exist on other sites? I use "collectors" because most people that would still be playing PS1 would be game collectors. Although that doesn't mean they need to have large collections.
And you keep trying to switch the conversation to whatever you think suits your argument, just like how you pulled it off the launch day. The argument was how those launches and those games are viewed now. If you want to look at when they were new, it's still not going to work for you because Super Mario 64 was WAY more popular and loved back then too.
I haven't played Destruction Derby 64, but I thought it was a different game. It was released much later.
Last edited by j_factor; 02-07-2011 at 11:34 PM.
I can go by some random reviews too.
Discworld;
Electronic Gaming Monthly -85
Super Mario 64;
Gamer's Pulse -75
Or even better I can claim that Discworld is better because it's worth more money than Super Mario 64, it seems more people are willing to pay more for it.
http://www.videogamepricecharts.com/...tion/discworld
http://www.videogamepricecharts.com/...super-mario-64
I really don't care if Discworld is still remembered or not, it's still a good game. Super Mario 64 is still remembered more because it's a Mario game, people still play the newer and older games so of course they're going to know about the N64 game too. Swap the characters out and I doubt people will remember it as well. Even if most people prefer Super Mario 64, I don't and that's all that matters to me.
And I still don't get why people are bringing up Destruction Derby, good or bad it's on both systems so either it's a crappy game for both the N64 and Playstation or it's a good game for both the N64 and Playstation. It doesn't give one system an edge over the other one.
Most people don't write reviews about a game that they hate. If you play a game that you really enjoy, you'll more than likely want to make a review about it to tell people why it's such a great game.
There are plenty of people in this forum alone that have said they don't like Mario 64. Their reviews are most likely not in that data. Most bad reviews about a game is not going to be in the data because most people don't care about wasting their time reviewing a game they dislike.
Not only that, but Discworld has a whole five reviews. Of course there will be some lower reviews to bring down the score. Mario is extremely well known and there are a ton of Nintendo fanboys. Bring in the fact that most people don't review bad games and all the good ratings will pretty much cancel out the bad ratings.
Example. Tactics Ogre had a rating of 1/10, 4/10, 4/10, and 5/10, but because all the other ratings still came out with 8.1/10. Final Fantasy Tactics had similar, but again came out to 8.9/10. Why? These are two well known titles. Then there's Mobile Suit Gundam Encounters in Space(a US released Gundam title) which hasn't had a single bad rating and there's actually a lot of reviews with a 9/10 average, but then check out metacritic with a 6/10 which goes to show you that "legitimate sites" don't know what they're talking about.
Also a 1/10 score on Tactics Ogre at Gamefaqs? Even if you hated the gameplay the story and music were absolutely amazing so the game deserves much more credit than that. I'd say a 5/10 at the lowest if you absolutely hated the gameplay. The game is my favorite game of all time so if I was to write a review about it, it'd be a 10/10. I personally like five ratings better though, as there is no middle number in 10 and people always like to think 5/10 or 6/10 is a bad score when it's actually average.
Last edited by kupomogli; 02-08-2011 at 12:07 AM.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
I posted professional review scores, but you said they don't count because a lot of times pro reviewers are paid off by the publishers. Okay. So I posted user review scores, but now you're saying those don't count either because not enough people post bad reviews. According to you, professional reviews *and* user reviews don't count. So what does?
The bottom line is Super Mario 64 was and still is a masterpiece, hailed by critics and users overall for its use of technology *and* for its level design. Is it better to launch with one A+ game, or a handful of decent games?
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-08-2011 at 11:52 AM.
GameFAQs would like to have a word with you about that. >_>
No doubt. Reviews on GameFaqs, it's either taking the piss or raving fanaticism. And the few reviews that are worth reading get lost in the shitstorm. And one side seems to draw the other...
I think I've said too much.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
I have found gamefaqs (Gamespot) user reviews as useful as forum comments. That is, eventually, they accidentally describe the gameplay in a specific way. That usually leads to me looking into the game and finding something worthwhile about it.
Yes, again, too much said.
Agreed. It happens, but it's rare (on GameFaqs, happens here often enough).That is, eventually, they accidentally describe the gameplay in a specific way. That usually leads to me looking into the game and finding something worthwhile about it.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Forums have the downside of not being centrally located and easily searched. I suppose all those who seem convinced that wikipedia has worth could do me a favor and block quote the important bits with citations for each individual game. But, if you want a job done at all and all that.
While people do review games they think are bad, very few people do. Most people don't play shitty games and then are like. OMG. I NEED TO GO WRITE A REVIEW ABOUT IT!!! They're more interested in writing about a game they like so people know what it's about, know the gameplay, etc, because it's a game they'd like someone to play.
Again though. How many people have said how they dislike or hate the game in this thread alone. You don't see that many bad reviews about it in Gamefaqs. I can tell you I haven't written any bad reviews about Mario 64 and I think it's a pretty crappy game. Only one review at Gamefaqs gives it a 4/10 and mine would be somewhat similar.
Last edited by kupomogli; 02-08-2011 at 01:19 PM.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
I don't think Nintendo has ever changed much in this regard. Doesn't matter how well or poorly they are currently doing. If they ever ended up filing for bankruptcy or laying off the whole office (very unlikely), they are one of those companies who would continue to be arrogant right down to the bitter end.
Atari's profits were falling off a cliff in the mid-1990's. Didn't stop Sam Tramiel from threatening to sue Sony and saying the Atari Jaguar was far more powerful than the Sega Saturn to Next Generation magazine.
I tell you the worst thing about PS, pop-up, I mean you play Ridge Racer and all the sudden a huge mountain range pops up out of nowhere. Almost worse than fuzzy N64 graphics
Last edited by tom; 02-08-2011 at 01:34 PM.
N64 had horizon gnomes too...remember Cruisin' USA?
Don't go away mad....just go away!
Posting Permissions
FTC Disclosure Notices:
This site contains affiliate links for which I may be compensated. As an eBay Partner, I may be compensated if you make a purchase.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote
