I KNEW Nintendo wouldn't mind re-releasing Donkey Kong Country even though they already ported it to GBC.
http://pocket.ign.com/articles/382/382748p1.html
It comes out in June. Since Rare isn't part of Nintendo, I don't think Nintendo is letting them work on this (keeping them as far away from franchises as they can now I think). I figure it'll have all the extra levels and stuff in the GBC game, and some more stuff, but now all in SNES level goodness. Now I'm glad I didn't get the GBC remake :D.
If it only includes the first DKC game I won't be buying it.
Well it's also got the GBC version levels most likely :D. But yes, I see what you mean. All these ports of ports are getting annoying aren't they? For a company that originally stated they didn't want the GBA to be a home for just a bunch of SNES ports, they really seem to be on the leading edge of that movement.
It's just that they already ported it over to the GBC. And I don't like DKC enough to buy it a second time, like I did with Mario World, Yoshi's Island, and Zelda.
My initial response is a kind of "eh." I enjoyed playing DKC at a friend's house and ended up getting DKC2, but something about a GBA port of DKC doesn't seem enticing. I know DK64 was on N64 and all, but something about that game's terrible discontinuity and repetiveness put an emotional barrier between me and the Donkey Kong series. Honestly, DK64 might beet out Mickey Racing when it comes to Rare's worst N64 outing.
It wasn't that bad. It just paled in comparison to Banjo-Kazooie, which came out before it.
Quote:I know DK64 was on N64 and all, but something about that game's terrible discontinuity and repetiveness put an emotional barrier between me and the Donkey Kong series.
*nods*
I liked DK64 more than Banjo-Kazooie... probably because I played DK64 first. It seems most people seem to like the one (of those two) they played first more.
As for DKC GBA, it is annoying that Nintendo is just using the GBA as a SNES-Port-Machine... they need more original games!
ABF, I do believe that's true. I actually also liked DK64 more than BK, and I too attribute this to me playing DK64 first. It is indeed a good game, however it didn't really innovate...anything aside from character switching.
However, DK64 aside, Donkey Kong Country (all 3 games in the series) are some of the SNES's greatest games.
Yeah, just about everyone who played DK64 before BK all say that they like DK64 more. That's because DK64 was similar to BK, although I definitely prefer BK's speed, level design, and absence of an extreme amount of stupid collecting and character switching that DK 64 had.
DK64 was... unfortunate, but the DKC series was terrific. Three of the best games made, ever. All of the ports seem a little annoying though, 'haps they should've released all three on one cartridge (if even possible).
Well, DKC was a 32 megabit cartridge. I do believe I heard that the maximum size cartridge the GBA can handle is 64 megabits. If DKC2 and 3 are also 32 megs (very likely), then MAYBE they could fit two on one cart (they would have to make sure the ports, which would have to be recoded, were a little smaller than 32 megs each, and then stick in a small selection menu between the games). In other words, the DKC series is indeed one that has an excuse not to be released on a bundle cart.
N-Man, it's nice to know someone who doesn't like DK64 but didn't place all their dissappointment into hating the DKC series. Those three games certainly were 3 of the best platformers ever, and I'll rush to get my ax should anyone challenge that!
If my memory serves me right, GBA carts can hold at least as much as N64 carts, DJ. That's 512 megabits (Mb), or 64 Megabytes (MB). No SNES cart took up more than 32 Mb of space, so you could put more than a dozen DKC games onto one GBA cart. The biggest N64 cart was RE2 (and Tactics Ogre, I believe), which took up 512 Mb of space (64 MB).
I'm not sure what the price difference between different cart sizes are, though.
I don't think so, OB1... I thought that their max was 64mb.. or 8MB - same as Mario 64, but not 512mb like the N64 got up to with its biggest cart.
I'm pretty sure that I'm right. I remember reading up on this before the GBA came out. But I'll try to find out if I'm correct.
I was very close. Check out
Ign's Old GBA FAQ.
Quote:Cartridge
34.5mm x 60mm x 9.5mm
Maximum 256 Megabit (32 megabyte
Hmm... I wonder if games will get that big. If you recall, the N64 never pushed cart sizes as big as it could... I remember before it came out in Nintendo Power they said somewhere it could get up to like 900mb eventually or something... well for sure I know that 512 wasn't the max. Big carts were just too expensive.
Anyway, even 256mb might not be enough for three 32mb SNES games... that's 96mb for the three. It probably would be plenty, actually... the emulator/remake probably wouldn't be TOO big (for an emu) or make the filesize grow twice as big or something... so they COULD. If that 256 is accurate and Nintendo would actually make a cart that big.
However, they won't, given how the Mario series -- released in one SNES All-Stars cartridge YEARS ago -- is $30 per game...
That has nothing to do with cart space. They're selling the Mario games seperately because they'll get more money that way. Greedy bastards.
I also remember someone at NOJ talking about how cheap cartridge prices have become and how inexpensive GBA carts are, so price really isn't a huge issue.
Yes, OB1, that's exactly what I said in my post right above yours -- that they are just doing it because they know people will buy them. Um, did you think I said something else?
Why don't they take a clue from Sega, and make a 'smash pack' collection of these old games?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well you kinda contradicted yourself there, ABF. Read this more closely:
Quote:Anyway, even 256mb might not be enough for three 32mb SNES games... that's 96mb for the three.It probably would be plenty, actually...
Wha? 256 Mb might not be enough... then it probably would be plenty?
Umm... thinking while I was typing?
Yeah, it would be plenty. There would still be room for a selection menu and an emulator, IF they decided to make it emulated. However, with the Mario Advance games, they actually port it. Emulation would be kinda tough, since I'm not sure the GBA is more powerful than the SNES enough to do a full hardware emulation at full speed. They would have to redo the code for the GBA, like with other ports. How much more room would the remake take up? Well, if they did a good efficient job, it would probably be pretty close to the same, with a little more room for DKC after adding the GBC bonuses (and giving them GBA quality graphics and sound). There would then be PLENTY of room for anything they did with the game selection menu. But of course, they won't be doing that. They may add Donkey Kong Arcade to each one as a second option (maybe including the arcade game's turn based multiplayer, maybe not), just to really tease us like with Mario Bros. Classic (which wasn't classic, the gameplay was very much changed with SMB2 physics (and the SMB2 high jump), an extra POW block, and changes to the enemies) in the Mario Advance games.
The GBA's resolution is lower than the SNES'. And the sound is worse. But everything else is better.
Pardon me if that didn't seem like an adequate reply. I only half-read your post.
But is it better enough to actually do a full emulation of SNES hardware? Emulation needs roughly twice as much power as the system it's trying to emulate, because it's running twice the amount of code (the code of the game it's emulating, and the translation of that code into code the system it's being played on can understand). If it's designed for that system to start with, it's just normal usage, as the game's code is already understandable by the system. Well, that's a simple explanation, from a simple person :D. Anyway, remember that just because it's a 32 bit system doesn't mean it's twice as powerful as the SNES.
Yeah, bittage doesn't tell much of anything about power... or the Virtual Boy, GBA, PSX, Saturn, and 32X would all be roughly equal in power... :)
Oh... the power emulation needs really varies. For example, on PC, emulating a N64 game requres WAY more than twice the power of a N64 (no way would a N64 emulator run on a 180mhz computer! They all want computers about as fast as you can get them, because they requre powerful systems to run well...).
SNES to GBA, can't really be directly emulated, true, because of resolution... you need to alter the game to work on the smaller, lower-resolution screen... but it can be pretty close, as all the SNES ports have proved.
Also... it would be really cool if they included the classic DK games... maybe the first one could have DK, the second DK Jr. and the third DK 3... :)
Quote:SNES to GBA, can't really be directly emulated, true, because of resolution... you need to alter the game to work on the smaller, lower-resolution screen... but it can be pretty close, as all the SNES ports have proved.
That's what I was saying.
But the GBA is at least twice as powerful as the SNES. It actually has the 2D graphical capabilities of the N64, which is why they were able to port over Yoshi's Story perfectly. I could name several GBA games that could never be done on the SNES. Hell, it does 2D even better than the PSX.
Yes... which is why its too bad that most GBA games are ports which don't even try to push the 2d power of the system... there are a bunch of games pushing it in 3d, and some in 2d, but most are ports... which is good for sales and easy for development, but not as good for showing the system's potential...
Which is why I've been complaining about Nintendo's ports so much. DJ thinks that they've reached the pinnacle of 2D visuals, but I strongly disagree with him. There are plenty of ways that Mario 2 and Mario World could have looked better. And no, I'm not talking about crazy mode 7 backgrounds or anything like that. I'm talking about more colors, more detailed sprites, etc.
If you think 16-bit was the best 2d graphics can look, you haven't seen what they can do... because, yes, there are plenty of ways to improve them. The GBA can do some of those... and I really wish Nintendo would make more original games and not be the #1 culprit in the reason that the GBA has so many ports. I mean, Nintendo itsself shouldn't be greatly encouraging this not that great trend... but it is. Not good. Well, except maybe for sales...
I think it's great that they're releasing so many ports, but I also think it sucks that they have released so few original titles. Gimme an original Mario and Zelda game, damnit! And nothing crappy like those Mario Land games. I hates those. The second one was okay, but still paled in comparison to the NES and SNES Mario games. Their handheld Zelda games have all kicked ass, though.
The two Mario Land games (there are only two of them... after that Nintendo went to the Wario Land series...) are both good platformers. Maybe its because its one of the first two GB games I got, but I always liked Mario Land... its fun. As good as the other Mario platformers? Probably not... but its still a good game for when it came out...
Mario Land 2 of course is better, and has good graphics for the GB. The only problem was it was very short and easy... so was the first one, but that one was harder because of limited continues and no saving. The second one had saving, making it a lot easier... even so it was fun.
I liked Wario Land 1 best from the Mario/Wario Land series best, though. The best platformer of them before they got into the not that great no-die stuff in WL2/3.
Nintendo's original handheld Mario games just didn't do it for me. After growing up with the console Mario games I just couldn't settle for anything inferior.
Inferior? Why? The graphics? Sure, SML doesn't have very good graphics... and it is pretty short at just 12 stages. But its fun! It plays in many ways like Super Mario Bros., but with differences... like the two scrolling shooter stages. Or the different locations... how the different stages were really different in looks.
As good as SMB? No... but a good platformer? Definitely. Its a good game... and the second one is better... and has good graphics, too.
I will say, though, it would have been nice if they were as long as the major console ones. They really are too short.
Of course, SML was the first Mario game I owned... but I had played some of the NES games before that (and I got Kirby's Dream Land at the same time... that was a good game too...).
[sarcasm]Yeah, I'm talking about graphics! I didn't like those games becuase of their graphics, since I hate all games that don't have great graphics. [/sarcasm]
Like you said, they weren't as good as the console Mario games. Good platformers? Sure. But when it comes to Mario I expect a certain level of quality.
Compare them to Game Boy platformers instead of Nintendo and SNES ones and they look a lot better... and makes more sense, too...
Why should I expect something worse just because it's a handheld? Their GB Zelda game was terrific.
You shouldn't... but the fact is, the vast majority of GB/GBC games are mediocre... many of those being not very good platformers. So compared to those, it stands out as great... because developers just don't care much about making good GB games.
Especially when you consider the first SML came out right around launch of the GB...
Zelda? LA is my favorite game on the GB (or GBC). It stands out as brilliant among the many good-to-decent games on the system...
You're right, most GB/GBC games are pretty bad. But there's no reason why Nintendo's own games should have been so average (aside from the Zelda's). Thankfully there are plenty of excellent GBA games out right now, with many more to come.
Metroid 2 was also a steller game, and Tetris GB was the best version of Tetris at that point (beating out Tengen and the official NES one easily).
Anyway, when did I once say they reached the pinicle? I didn't say that. I said the graphics were fine in Lost Levels and didn't really need improving. Sure they could be, but really what's the big deal if they didn't? They might also change the way I play the game increasing the graphics too much, like if they went as far as to remove the tiling look of the ground, which would mean I couldn't count how far I've moved any more.
ABF, there's no need to "correct" the universe EVERY time you talk about he Mario Land series by saying "AND THERE"S ONLY TWO BECAUSE THE THIRD STARED WARIO AND WAS A WARIO GAME NOT MARIO DANGIT!". I know you aren't nearly that angry, but it sounds like a pet peeve of yours how you keep mentioning it whenever you talk about it.
Metroid 2 is good, as are the Pokemon games and a few others. I was just generalizing Nintendo's GB games. Most of them did suck.
And I want better graphics for the ports because they're just that: ports. I already have those games, and it would be a better deal for everyone if we at least got something like better graphics.
Quote:. Most of them did suck.
No, they did not. I can't think offhand of morethan a couple bad GB Nintendo games... almost none of the ones I have are bad, for sure, and I have a lot... SML, SML2, WL, WL2, Kirby 1, 2, Block Ball, and Pinball, Zelda - LA, Donkey Kong, Mario Bros. Deluxe, Yoshi, Mole Mania, Kirby Tilt n Tumble, and Ken Griffey Jr. Presents Major League Baseball.
Not to mention 2nd party or Nintendo published ones, including Donkey Kong Land, Super RC Pro-Am, Pokemon Red, Bionic Commando - Elite Forces, R-Type DX, Warlocked, Zelda - OoA, and Zelda - OoS.
Of those, the only ones I'd say are bad games are Pokemon and Ken Griffey Baseball. Not exactly a lineup of bad games... And some of those are extremely, extremely good. In that list I'd put Wario Land, Bionic Commando Elite Forces, Mario Bros. Deluxe, the two Zelda Oracles games (Ages is better... actually maybe only Ages deserves to be here but they are really one game, not two), and Kirby's Dream Land 2.
No, Nintendo published good GB games.
Quote:but it sounds like a pet peeve of yours how you keep mentioning it whenever you talk about it.
I don't know... I really love Wario Land (despite the fact its too short and easy) and wish that it'd just been called Wario Land... putting 'Mario Land 3' must have helped sales, but it doesn't have Mario in the game so it doesn't really make sense as a title...
By "suck" I mean "not Nintendo's usual standards". And you didn't like Pokemon? *waits for LL to come in and slam ABF*
Quote:I don't know... I really love Wario Land (despite the fact its too short and easy) and wish that it'd just been called Wario Land... putting 'Mario Land 3' must have helped sales, but it doesn't have Mario in the game so it doesn't really make sense as a title...
What about Yoshi's Island? Do you consider that to be a Mario game even though you don't control him? It also branched off into a seperate series. But I do consider it a true Mario game.
Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Story are, IMO, the same as Wario Land -- Mario-type platformers from Nitendo, but not Mario games.
And I'm sure I've said all of this several times before at least... but hey, this is TC and we do seem to keep repeating the same arguments. :)
Same goes for my not liking Pokemon... I remember bringing that issue up before. Remember, how it took me half an hour of playing Pokemon to decide I never wanted to so much as put that cart in my Gameboy ever again (and, BTW, I didn't)?
I think I speak on behalf of everyone at Tendo City when I say that you, dear sir, are a weirdo.
ABF doesn't like Pokemon for the same reason he doesn't like a lot of RPGs. Random battles galore. I myself don't mind them, but he does, as well as some other people here. Pokemon DOES have lots of random battles, that's for sure.
That also turned me off while playing Pokemon.
Yes, between the really annoying random battles and the awful story, I saw no reason whatsoever to want to play that game...
I've grown to tolerate random battles more since playing Pokemon (it was years ago), but still find them annoying and, at best, only annoying... and the game better have really good other reasons for me to play, of which that game has none.
The fact I dislike random battles is why I still can't figure out exactly why I didn't mind them as much when I was playing Skies of Arcadia... unlike FF6, for example, where I quit after a few hours in irritation...
Although the story was just plain utilitarian, it wasn't needed if you enjoyed just the playing of it.
In ABF's defense before anyone claims he's some kind of story miser, I'm pretty sure what he meant was simply that the game itself wasn't that fun, and there was no story to fall back on to force one to want to go through the game.
As for me, I really enjoyed it mainly because I felt like it was quite possibly the longest possible multiplayer game I've played yet. The matches start the second you start up a new game and last for weeks up until you actually link up against your opponent and battle it out.