Which games (Nintendo systems for this thread) do you want to see made? Think sequels, ports, or compilations. And don't list games that have been confirmed to be in development(like the WW sequel, Mario 128, etc.). Here's my list, in no particular order:
Gamecube:
-3D Fire Emblem
-3D Advance Wars
-2.5D Sonic game
-A 3D Mega Man game done right
-another F-Zero
-a Pokemon RPG
Gameboy Advance:
-Mario RPG port with the All-Stars version of Mario 1 included (this could be Mario Advance 5)
-Super Metroid port
-Metroid II remake ala Zero Mission
-Fire Emblem compilation featuring every single pre-GBA FE game
-Fire Emblem: Sword of the Seals (the first GBA FE, the one that we didn't get)
-another Castlevania
-Castlevania compilation, with all of the pre-PSX games (or including the PSX game if they can port it)
-an original Mario game, a real sequel to Mario World
-the Earthbound 1&2 cart brought over here
N5:
-Zelda remake compilation, kinda like Mario All-Stars. It would include every Nintendo Zelda game ever made, with updates graphics. Since there are so many Zeldas, splitting them up into seperate volumes would be alright. Maybe vol. 1 would have remakes of Zelda 1-4, vol. 2 would be the GBA Zeldas, and vol. 3 would be the 3D Zeldas (the N64 games would need a pretty nice upgrade). I put this on the N5 list since I don't expect to see such a compilation disc in the near future.
Your Fire Emblem one may come true. It sounds like the next one is going to be announced very soon, and hopefully for GameCube. I would definitely like to see a Fire Emblem compilation, but I could do with just the Super Nintendo games and a port of Sword of Seals. I'd also like to see a new Earthbound game since that was one of my favorite RPGs and Nintendo could use some exclusive RPGs.
Wait, which one will come true? Sword of Seals or a GC FE? Man, I hope you're right about either one.
Although if IS makes a GC FE, I would think that it would be in gorgeous 2D since they don't seem to like 3D very much. Unfortunately that wouldn't sell as well as a 3D game, so perhaps someone else will aid them with the 3D artwork?
All I want is a port of Final Fantasy IV for the GBA. That's all. If Nintendo and Square can give me this, I can die a happy man.
Wishlists get depressing when you list games you know won't be made for a long time if ever... :(
PC
---
(won't happen any time soon if ever)
Planescape Torment 2
Baldur's Gate 3
Fallout 3
Netstorm 2
Zone 66 2
Traffic Department 2XXX (sequel to TD 2192)
Master of Magic 2
The Last Express 2
Space Quest 7
Quest for Glory VI
Grim Fandango 2
Hardball 6
...
On the more possible side...
Starcraft 2 (inevitable, but unannounced)
Warcraft IV (same but farther away)
Giants 2
Jedi Knight 5 in the style of JK2
Rollcage 3
Hexen 3
a new Lemmings game
TIE Fighter 2
Wizardry 9
another Gettysburg-engine game. Or a similar game using a new engine, that one's getting old.
NGC
-----
side-scrolling Mega Man X game
Fire Emblem
Advance Wars
another F-Zero
another Excitebike
another Rush
more Sonic
more Wipeout for Nintendo (will never happen.)
an actually good 3d Mega Man
Eternal Darkness 2 (or maybe N5...)
a Golden Sun game
Mischief Makers 2
Hydro Thunder 2
Battletanx 3
Bionic Commando 3D
GBA
-----
More SNES ports, yeah... Super Metroid, Mario RPG... hmm... Secret of Mana, SD3, plenty more... Gradius 3, for instance.
Earthbound 1&2
Bionic Commando (new)
Fire Emblem (more)
Metroid II remake (WAY too easy to get lost!)
Mario (platformer in 2d! If they release it this year it'd be the 10th year since the last one...)
Wario (a platformer, and a Wario Ware$ 2...)
Golden Sun 3
Mole Mania 2 (Lolo 4 would be okay but Mole Mania is better...)gt
[QUOTE]N5:
-Zelda remake compilation, kinda like Mario All-Stars. It would include every Nintendo Zelda game ever made, with updates graphics. Since there are so many Zeldas, splitting them up into seperate volumes would be alright. Maybe vol. 1 would have remakes of Zelda 1-4, vol. 2 would be the GBA Zeldas, and vol. 3 would be the 3D Zeldas (the N64 games would need a pretty nice upgrade). I put this on the N5 list since I don't expect to see such a compilation disc in the near future.
Erm... having every GB game available on the NGC and GBA isn't good enough for you?
Need to go, I'll continue this later. I'm sure I can think of plenty more. :)
edit -- added some. They're mixed together. Deal with it.
I'm glad that you can follow directions, ABF.
Quote:Erm... having every GB game available on the NGC and GBA isn't good enough for you?
Notice the word "remake". Look it up.
They don't really need to remake most of the Zelda games though. Unless you just mean the NES games?
As for making 3d versions of the 2d games, I don't know... it'd be a huge change and I don't know if it would work well as actual games and not just 'that's cool' things... you'd need to rework everything, for sure...
Quote:I'm glad that you can follow directions, ABF.
Your instructions are stupid. :)
My instructions are there for a reason! There's a multi-console forum for PC stuff!
And I'm talking about graphical updates for the 2D ones and the two N64 games for a compilation. Not turning 2D into 3D.
The GB and SNES ones look just fine, IMO... same with the N64 games actually... well, maybe improve texture quality. You really don't need to redo the graphics, they have great style as they are...
The graphics are outdated. That's why we get remakes/updates. Ever play a little thing called Mario All-Stars before?
Yeah, and it was kind of nice, but hardly needed... and again, updating the NES games would be fine. But the SNES and GB? Yes the GB is 8-bit, but those games look a lot like the SNES game...
And they already "improved" LA with LADX. But I like the original graphics more. :)
Oh, I made my list longer now.
You don't think 2D can look better than SNES graphics? Hoo boy...
My wishlist:
A compilation disc on the N5 of every single game previously released on every console ever. And throw in every computer game as well.
Of course 2d can look better than SNES. But, I think, SNES is at the level where it is "good enough"... NES is not there yet, but SNES is.
Compare Final Fantasy 7's backgrounds to Super Mario RPG. Big difference. Or compare Legend of Mana to Chrono Trigger. Again, big difference.
1. Super Mario All-Stars. It's such a fucking insult to have to pay full-price for each individual game yet AGAIN.
2. Final Fantasy 4, 5 and 6 Advance.
3. Chrono Trigger Advance.
4. An NGC remake of Mario 64.
5. Silent Hill.
6. ...actually, that's it, really.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Your point?
The point is that SNES couldn't do
this in a million years. 256 colors is not 'good enough' and hasn't been for about ten years. Neither is SNES's 320x240 resolution limit, but I know arguing THAT tangent is a waste of time. :kiss:
This game is six years old, therefore by my standards, any 2D game has to be better than this to be 'good enough'.
It's still beautiful though, and apparently it's going to be released in America as a PS2 port! God I hope so, I've admired this game for years.
That game has some very nice 2D graphics.
Seems like I've heard about this game before...
http://www.disciples2.com/D2/elves/
Several years later Disciples 2 is still my choice for the PC game with the best 2d graphics and artwork. That game is just so beautiful...
But still I do think that the SNES is 'good enough'. Games just don't have to be the best looking to be the best... yes better looking is nice, but SNES graphics are good. Go ahead and improve the graphics, but it won't really make the games any better, it'll just make them prettier... compared to NES to SNES, where you really can inprove the gameplay by making the graphics better. Now resolution, yes, increasing that can really change a game, but that's going nowhere on consoles until everyone has HDTV.
-New Eternal Darkness game
-Chrono Break (er, for any system really, I'd buy an XBox if it came out on that)
-Er, any video game that isn't a piece of shit (as most games I find are, really)
Great Rumbler Wrote:That game has some very nice 2D graphics.
Seems like I've heard about this game before...
I've posted about it a few times before here.
An African-American Falcon Wrote:http://www.disciples2.com/D2/elves/
Several years later Disciples 2 is still my choice for the PC game with the best 2d graphics and artwork. That game is just so beautiful...
But still I do think that the SNES is 'good enough'. Games just don't have to be the best looking to be the best... yes better looking is nice, but SNES graphics are good. Go ahead and improve the graphics, but it won't really make the games any better, it'll just make them prettier... compared to NES to SNES, where you really can inprove the gameplay by making the graphics better. Now resolution, yes, increasing that can really change a game, but that's going nowhere on consoles until everyone has HDTV.
Disciples does look very pretty indeed.
The reason SNES isn't good enough is because even standard TVs can display better than what the machine is capable of. Rhapsody is 640x480, which is, give or take, what most SDTVs use. SNES again is also limited in color pallete, which is another big crutch.
I think SNES was great, and good enough also, at one time. Even now the games are not ugly by any means. But that time of the graphics being adequate is quite past us now. Now it's good enough for handhelds. But SNES ceased to be 'good enough' somewhere around the time Castlevania: Symphony of the Night came along and did things the SNES could never do.
Well put, Weltall. I remember you posting screens from that game back in 2000/2001. :)
SNES-quality graphics are definitely not "good enough". We still play those games because they're fun! But the graphics are definitely outdated now.
Well, expect for some really artsy games like Yoshi's Island. :D
There are obviously better graphics out there, but why improve graphics just for the sake of improving graphics? Does improving graphics actually make the game any better or something? I wouldn't say so. Not unless the change has some major effect for some reason, which it wouldn't unless you changed the game as well...
Running too long on the same level isn't so great, but on the same token improving just for the sake of improvement and nothing else isn't too helpful either.
So you'd be happy if all 2D games had NES-quality graphics? Or if Sword of Mana looked identical to FFA? Or that 3D doesn't need to look better than N64 stuff?
You're weird.
DO YOU NOT READ WHAT I SAY
Go "read" my posts first...
The 3d comment is a bit different though. First, I need to remind you... when I got OoT it was not exactly the best looking game I'd ever seen. By fall of '99 I'd seen far nicer quality graphics on PC. So I kind of saw the whole N64 thing as not current graphics, but more as a certain look... but OoT still impressed me immensely. Oh, the walls around the zones look silly, and the textures are absurdly low in resolution, but they all blend together to form a amazingly beautiful overall look in the game, irrespective of the actual graphics quality. I just think that if you tried to improve it it'd be way, way too easy to mess up and make it worse, because that game kind of hit perfection in that category in every way it could...
And I didn't say that graphics shouldn't change! Stop reading more into what I say than I actually say! I said that for existing 2d games, SNE0S and up, I don't see much of a point unless you're fully remaking the games and not just doing a graphical facelift. That is different from what you suggest.
As for 3d, early 3d is ... very simple ... and in many cases amazingly ugly and out of date, and it makes playing those games far more painful than anything of a similar age that is 2d. By the N64 they'd improved though so that it's still tolerable, I'd say. Oh, improving graphics is always nice, but I think by the N64 we'd gotten to the point where now going back it isn't hard to play a lot of those games (until you get used to it again) like I would say it is for things like Star Fox...
A Black Falcon Wrote:There are obviously better graphics out there, but why improve graphics just for the sake of improving graphics? Does improving graphics actually make the game any better or something? I wouldn't say so. Not unless the change has some major effect for some reason, which it wouldn't unless you changed the game as well...
Running too long on the same level isn't so great, but on the same token improving just for the sake of improvement and nothing else isn't too helpful either.
That makes no sense. Why improve graphics for the sake of improving graphics? Because it makes the experience more immersive, that's why.
I'm not one of those people who lies and says graphics mean nothing. They most certainly do. The better they look, the more detailed they are, the more believable and engrossing the game will be. Obviously graphics aren't anything, but they are the single most important factor in how a game draws you in.
Games on the SNES can still draw us in because we remember them well and love them. We remember when they WERE the best there was, and how it was able to immerse us. But new games done at that level cannot do that, because it's nostalgia that does it for SNES and before.
I remember playing Maniac Mansion on NES, and I had, at the time, never seen a more realistic-looking videogame in my life. At the time, it was better than good enough for me. But now, when I replay it, I still have fun with it but I've seen so much better since then that it does not have that same immsersive effect on me. It's not good enough for that anymore. There are several other games I can say the same thing about: Kid Chameleon, Chrono Trigger, FFVII, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid... All excellent games, and all still fun for me, but none of them as graphically immersive as they were when I first played them. None of them are 'good enough' graphically. They've all been bested.
Honestly, the only reason graphics aren't still what they were in the 2600 era is because they were improved for the sake of sheer improvement. They were improved because they could be, not because they necessarily had to be. Designers were able to make games look better, thus, they did. All the time were there games that were the greatest graphically, but eventually something got better.
Anyway, I digress. The main reason SNES graphics aren't 'good enough' is because 2D looks much better on stronger platforms.
Quote:I'm not one of those people who lies and says graphics mean nothing. They most certainly do. The better they look, the more detailed they are, the more believable and engrossing the game will be. Obviously graphics aren't anything, but they are the single most important factor in how a game draws you in.
Oh, you're right, graphics definitely matter. But style matters just as much... lots of games could stand to be improved but sometimes a game looks great with a style that was limited by technology and improving it wouldn't help the game much at all...
But as I said in my post before yours there, when you first play a game matters a lot. If when you first play it it's on top graphically then yes there is a higher chance that in the future you'll wish for it to be better and match what you thought it was in your mind... but if you play it later, when it's already not the best? I'd say that it's a different story then...
But then I've also seen far too many remakes and "improvements" of games that just did not work to really support the idea wholeheartedly. Even very well done ones, like Link's Awakening DX, have issues...
Gamecube:
Jet Force Gemini 2
IGN just had a little discussion similar to this, and they mentioned Star Tropics. I remember seeing comemrcials for this game and thinking it looked good, but I never played it and don't know anything about it. Searching for info got me a whole bunch of Game Genie codes and descriptions like "It was a NES RPG". Did any of you play it and if so did you enjoy it? Would it be worth buying to play today?
I hope nobody already discussed this, I just sorta jumped down to the quick reply after reading a couple posts.
IGN? Gamespot just recently did a fourth edition of its 'which old games should get sequels' list, with some less popular ones this time, including StarTropics... which was probably one of the better-known games in the group. As they say in the intro page, it's a strange group this fourth time...
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6086894/index.html
Just ignore ABF, Weltall. Remember that this is the same guy that insists on using a 640x480 monitor resolution. :S
LL, I have Star Tropics but haven't played much of it so I can't comment on how good it is. I'm not sure what they were talking about with a GBA sequel, though. I know there wasn't any ST sequel released here at least.
LL: Star Tropics is most definately worth picking up. I used to play it all the time back in the good ol' days, and it still remains one of my favorite NES games of all time.
I wouldn't call ST an RPG, but then, I wouldn't call Zelda an RPG either. As a matter of fact, it plays a lot like Zelda. It stars a boy named Mike (I think?) who sets out on an adventure to investigate the abduction of his uncle. Equipped with a yo-yo that "may look like a toy but is actually very strong", you go through multiple towns and dungeons, solving puzzles and destroying monsters in a very Zelda-esque bird's-eye view. You also get additional weapons/magic on the way, but unfortunately, their use is limited to the dungeons in which you find them.
The farthest I've gotten is Chapter 6 (without the god damn cartridge erasing my game! :(), and the game, to me, was pure goodness. It's one of the most underrated NES games, yet it's fun factor and challenge are comparible to most Nintendo-made games. Definately pick this up the next time you see it in the store!
Oh yeah, and a new JFG game for GameCube would be... beyond orgasmic. Dear god, how is this game so underrated?! I've started playing it again recently, and I have much difficulty playing for less than an hour at at time! And this is a guy whose attention span can't be held captive by most games for more than 15 minutes!
'Damn shame this game sold so poorly... I bet we could have gotten a sequel if it raked in more cash. I'd even be willing to buy an X-Box if Rare were to make a new one!
Quote:Just ignore ABF, Weltall. Remember that this is the same guy that insists on using a 640x480 monitor resolution.
Couldn't you at least be accurate? Is it SO hard?
And I don't see anything wrong with saying "these games look good and just improving the graphics will not improve the games". I can't think of a better position, actually... what, so better graphics make games better OB1? Do you really think that?
We're talking remakes, though. I always believed the purpose of a remake was to improve the aesthetics of a game (ie graphics, sound, etc) rather than actual gameplay.
Hmm, they often change the gameplay too you know... like REmake...
That's a good example of a nice remake... nice if not for the terrible controls. That game so need a D-Pad and the one on the GC controller is too small and way too far from the edge to be of any use. Analog sticks just don't work for what is essentially a 2D game.
Yeah, for a remake that one was good... hmm, what are some others...
Yes ABF, graphics can make a game better.
In some ways yes, in some ways no...
Better graphics did not make Mario Sunshine better than Mario 64. Nor TWW from OoT. Or LA from LttP. And I wouldn't say that the SNES graphics in Mario Allstars actually improved those games any. F-Zero GX isn't better than F-Zero X because of graphics. It is better, unlike some games on this list, but it's because of other things like the bigger and better tracks, story mode, car creation, etc... and Warcraft III isn't better than Starcraft because it has nicer graphics... I could go on for a long time on this line... Civilization II vs Civilization III? Extreme-G 2 vs. Extreme-G 3? TIE Fighter vs X-Wing Alliance?
Yes the nicer graphics in the newer games are nice. I won't deny that, it is obvious. But do they make those games better than their precessors? No way (regardless of which side you stand on those game comparisions...)!
If there were two games EXACTLY THE SAME except on had SNES 2D graphics and one had high rez, 2 million colors 2D graphics, I'd pick the latter.
I prefer Sunshine over Mario 64, but of course that has little to do with the graphics. The gameplay is better. Better level design, better controls, higher difficulty. If the graphics were identical to Mario 64 then Sunshine would still be better. And yes, I definitely like WW more than OoT. But LttP is better than both of them even though it has far inferior graphics. We're talking about graphics enhancing games, not being more important than gameplay. Like GR said, which would you rather play, the original NES Marios or the prettier All-Stars versions? I'd choose the AS ones since they're easier on the eyes.
A Black Falcon Wrote:In some ways yes, in some ways no...
Better graphics did not make Mario Sunshine better than Mario 64. Nor TWW from OoT. Or LA from LttP. And I wouldn't say that the SNES graphics in Mario Allstars actually improved those games any. F-Zero GX isn't better than F-Zero X because of graphics. It is better, unlike some games on this list, but it's because of other things like the bigger and better tracks, story mode, car creation, etc... and Warcraft III isn't better than Starcraft because it has nicer graphics... I could go on for a long time on this line... Civilization II vs Civilization III? Extreme-G 2 vs. Extreme-G 3? TIE Fighter vs X-Wing Alliance?
Yes the nicer graphics in the newer games are nice. I won't deny that, it is obvious. But do they make those games better than their precessors? No way (regardless of which side you stand on those game comparisions...)!
It DOES make the games better. It's the same thing with a much better look. Thus, the overall package is better.
Anyway, LA doesn't have better graphics than LTTP.
Erm, my points with all of those examples is that the older-and-not-as-good-looking one of the two is NOT a worse game than the other, newer one because of graphics, and in many/most of those cases I prefer the older one!
LttP has better graphics than LA. However, which one is the better game is debatable. Same for all those cases... some more so than others. :)
No one here said that graphics make up for inferior gameplay. We're saying that when the gameplay is the same, better graphics can make for a better game.
OB1 Wrote:No one here said that graphics make up for inferior gameplay. We're saying that when the gameplay is the same, better graphics can make for a better game.
Exactly. When you take two identical things, and make one look better, then that one is superior to the other.
I don't know how much simpler I can put it.
It depends, really. Do they keep the spirit of the original? If not, no, better graphics would not make it a better game. If they are it's closer but still... unless you're talking a remake where the gameplay as well as graphics are improved, it would not be a significant difference at all.
Quote:Exactly. When you take two identical things, and make one look better, then that one is superior to the other.
I don't know how much simpler I can put it.
With ABF you'll just have to repeat yourself a few hundred times before he gets it. :p