Tendo City

http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/goegoe/ds/image/movie.html


If Konami doesn't release this here I'm going to punch their face.

Chance game will be good: 95%

Chance game will be great: 75%

Chance game will come out in the US: 25%. And that's being generous... we did get two of the N64 games, but as I showed last time we discussed Goemon... well, we don't get many of them. Including, I must note, the last four Goemon releases...

That looks really cool, but the odds of it being released here aren't too good I think.

They need to release more Goemon games here... they don't release enough of them. And some of them are great. :(

Never played a Goemon game myself. How are the N64 games?

N64 is my favorite system these days. I love buying games for a few bucks and have enough so that you're never in a state of stagnant N64 gaming. Had too much of game X? It's alright, you have a whole alphabet to choose from, just come back when you get the craving again, waking up in cold sweats and aches and awful hallucinations.

*shifty eyes* But yeah, anyway... Goemon, good? I could probably get it online somewhere.

Quote:How are the N64 games?

One if a 2.5D platformer and the other is a 3D platformer. They're both pretty fun and also really crazy.

I like fun and crazy games... and you were right about Mischief Makers, so who knows, you just might be right again.

I'd suggest getting Goemon's Great Adventure [the 2.5D platformer] first, it's my favorite of the two. But, I don't think you'd go wrong buying either of them.

Yeah, the Goemon N64 games were fun. And really, really crazy. I loved them. The 3D platformer seemed to have more crazy stuff like the Japanese songs and robot fights, but I think GGA had robot fights, too, didn't it? I can't remember. But I'm pretty sure it didn't have any stupid songs, or any PUUUHLAAAAAAAAAAAASUUUUUMAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Good fun though.

Quote:PUUUHLAAAAAAAAAAAASUUUUUMAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

:D

The second one was great pick-up-and-play fun, but I definitely prefer the first N64 game. It's Zelda meets Mario meets super crazy Japanese humor. And a really great soundtrack.

I think this DS game has a far greater chance of being released here because it is on the DS. I mean come on, we're actually getting one of those crazy Japanese court adventure games in the U.S.!

Quote:we're actually getting one of those crazy Japanese court adventure games in the U.S.!

I know! I really want to get that game to, and Electroplankton.

Oh, GGA crushes the first game, no question... it's the far better game. I really love GGA. Just got Mystical Ninja 64 (the first one) this February, and it's obviously older... and I don't see how anyone could prefer it. Far worse graphics, slow gameplay, almost zero difficulty (what is this "die" thing?), no multiplayer, and it's very short... yes, it does have the Japanese songs intact, and it's a Goemon game so it's worth getting, but no way is it as good as the greatness of GGA.

Goemon's Great Adventure: best N64 side-scroller, hands down... Kirby 64 and Mischief Makers are weak in comparison (though both solid games in their own rights).

It's a great sidescroller, but it's short and doesn't have much "meat" to it. The first one is a full Zelda-like adventure. Slow? You're insane. And who cares about graphics? It looks just fine. And obviously you barely played it if you think it's too easy.

"Meat"? But the second game is longer than the first one! In the first one, I got halfway through in one day of play (several hours)... with the second, it took a week for me to beat it. And I've come back regularly since doing that, and have beaten it twice more since then. The first one, I haven't played for long at all since that day I got halfway through (I played for a few minuites yesterday and ran over to the next castle (Festival Temple Castle, but didn't start it yet). I will finish it eventually, probably once I get home again after the semester ends... but it's definitely not as fun, and I doubt I'll replay it. It's like GGA's choppy and ugly little brother... it's clear which is the newer game, and it's also clear that they looked at what was wrong with the first game and fixed it in the second. :)

Sure, GGA isn't perfect... I wish it was longer (it's not absurdly short, but it's so much fun I definitely wish it was longer), some of the levels are annoying, I REALLY wish you could replay the castles (they are the best levels in the game! It's very dissapointing that the game doesn't let you replay them.)... but who really cares, it's a fantastic game. Simple? Sure, but so is the first one... "full Zelda-like adventure"? But the stuff you need to find is easy to find, for the most part, the enemies are simple (and usually easy to avoid -- though sometimes the shooting ones can be a pain, you get so much health you can get hit a bunch before you have to get worried)... it's a good game. It's fun, it's quite different from the second N64 game, it does sometimes have that "Zelda" feel (the 'it's a big world to explore, go ahead and run around!' thing)... I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying that GGA is definitely better. Everything is just improved... gameplay, length, challenge, graphics, ease-of-finding-things (in MN64, it can be a pain because of how the towns (like everything) are split into lots of pieces connected by doors... so you've got to memorize each layout, and which doors bring you where (as opposed to into the buildings -- another thing GGA improved, as you actually walk up to the people to talk to them and can talk to other people in the stores instead of just bumping into some platform to talk to the one person in the store you can talk to...)... oh, those NPCs are just as interesting in MN64, and it's just about as funny (missing things like the great noise Ebisumaru makes while crawling in GGA), but GGA just improves on all those things to make it a better overall game.

You're crazy. GGA is an extremely short game. I beat it one weekend! Mystical Ninja is much, MUCH longer, and it's much more than just a quick gaming fix. GGA does its simple thing better than MN does its much more complex thing, but Mystical Ninja is still the more meatier game.

I edited and added a bunch to the post. But I have absolutely no doubt that GGA is longer than MN64.

You're not exactly well-known for you great taste in games, remember...

I know I am far from the only person who prefers GGA to MN64.

And you know that your "point" that I have a bad taste in games is completely absurd... you just won't let yourself admit that it's stupid. And that, of course, is because you're stubborn and once you've taken a position it's almost impossible for you to change it.

You love Gauntlet, you think that the Rush series is the best street racer ever made, and you have a sickening affection towards the Cruisin' series. We've already established this!

The first is pure opinion. I know some people who completely agree with me and others who definitely disagree. It's very clear that Gauntlet Legends is, as I've said a million times, a love-or-hate game. You hate it. You just need to accept that the fact that some people love it means that it's got redeeming qualities -- and not just say "they love it because they're all morons who like bad games". That's a very stupid thing to say. Rush, is just awesome. "Street racer", though? You mean racing game in cars? Well, we've established that I greatly prefer racing games that are arcadish, and not just in cars, so that's not really saying a lot... that's one reason I like 2049 better than Rush 2, actually -- Rush 2 is more "realistic" in that it's set in the modern day, has longer races (slightly more like "real" racing), has no wings, etc, but I count those things AGAINST the game when I compare it to 2049... the setting is one of the things that helps make Rush 2049 better than the first two for sure, in my book. But that's just me. :)) Cruis'n I will not talk about again. Ten million explanations of how an arcade game can be fun to put quarters in and play in order to have some mindless fun are enough.


Anyway... to the subject. I showed a friend of mine both games (a few weeks back), and he definitely agreed that GGA is better. So as I said, it's definitely not just me. As with all games I like. It's not like I'm a fan of Deer Hunter or something... :) I don't buy, or play, games that are truly bad.

Your friend is dumb! And MN takes much longer to get into than GGA. GGA is a much simpler type of game, but in the end MN is more rewarding.

You are right that GGA is easier to get in to and MN64 has a slightly higher curve, but it's not that dramatic really. The main problem with learning MN64 is remembering the controls, they're a bit overly complex...

I disagree that MN64 is significantly more complex than GGA. I don't see it. Yes, it has a few more NPCs. It's got large areas, versus linear levels. But the big areas are easily explored and don't really take all that long to explore, so unless you're going to wander aimlessly, you'll probably spend at least as long in GGA's levels. The castles it's even more clear: While maybe in physical length they're similar in both games, GGA's are substantially harder, so they'll take longer... and you actually "die". That's not something I do very often at all in MN64, that's for sure! The added challenge definitely helps make GGA take longer, as you have to replay levels sometimes... makes the castles a bit of a pain sometimes, but oh well. That's better than beating everything without too much of a problem...

Now, I'm sure that the later parts of MN64 are harder than the first. But even just comparing the first halves of each game, GGA is still harder... and cooler too, for sure. I mean, what does MN64 have to compete with the water levels, or the first castle in GGA? :)

The fact that it's a 3D game makes it much more complex than GGA, which is a 2D game (in gameplay). And it's much more than a platformer. It's an action-adventure game as well.

I'd say that it's less of a difference than a 2d vs 3d Mario game, for instance.. most of the areas are relatively linear, or are big and open and can be quickly run across and the enemies ignored (that's really easy to do a lot of the time in MN64, ignore the enemies... something you can never afford to do in GGA, even in the first level...)... so yes, it's definitely quite different from GGA. And a bit more 'complex'. But I wouldn't say that just because it's 3d it's way more complex... this isn't the deepest 3d platform/adventure around.

'action/adventure elements'? You mean like how you slowly get more powers as you progress, and have to find those items to increase your health? Yeah, that does give it a bit of a Zelda feel... it's easier to get that stuff here than it is in a Zelda game, of course, but it's still fun to do. :)

One thing I really notice about MN64, though, is that despite its substantially worse graphics, it runs slower than GGA... GGA both upped the quality of the graphics and the framerate, which is an impressive task, really. MN64 is clearly and early N64 game.

Who cares, it's the gameplay that counts. The graphic are just fine.

And it's much easier to make a sidescroller than a Mario 64-styled one. Why do you think my game is a sidescroller??

GGA is hardly your average sidescroller... it's a pretty complex one. Perhaps it's easier than a 3d game, but in direct comparison... I don't think so. At worst they're even. I mean, it's simple-environments (I mean boxy terrain, not many things cluttering up the landscape, etc... as you see in most 3d platformers -- lots of empty space.) full 3d vs more complex environments sidescrolling or isometric 3d... I wouldn't be so sure that MN64's environments are much harder to design. GGA has the whole branching-paths thing, remember... and more graphical detail, which makes it harder to make.

GGA is a terrific sidescrolling platformer, but it was definitely easier to create than MN.

Complex sidescroller versus simple 3d action/adventure (I mean simple for a 3d platform-action-adventure, which it is)? I wouldn't be so sure. I'd put them about even in that category.

GGA is not a complex sidescroller. And MN is a Mario 64/Zelda hybrid before OoT came out. Trust me on this, I know which type of game would be harder to make.

MN64 isn't exactly as complex as Mario 64 or a Zelda game, though, you know... it's got elements that those games have, for sure, but it's really not THAT much more complex when compared to GGA. Sorry...

You're completely ignorant about this subject.

Can't you think of something better to say when someone disagrees with you? "You're stupid/ignorant" is pathetic, and virtually never true...

I've already explained it. Making a sidescroller is infinitely easier to create than a fully 3D action/adventure game. To argue this is ridiculous since you haven't the vaguest idea of how difficult it is to make games.

GGA isn't 2d, OB1. Yes, you run along a flat plane, but it's definitely not a 2d game.

I'm talking about gameplay, ABF. Polygons don't make much of a difference. It's the gameplay that matters.

If you're talking about programming, though, a sidescrolling-3d game like this is certainly harder to make than a normal 2d game... how does it compare to a full 3d game? I'm not sure. Probably depends on the nature of the 3d game. :)

Gameplay? Sure, GGA is simple at heart... run, jump, hit things... but really, is MN64 oh so much more complex?

Yes, it is.

Programming the graphics engine won't be tough, but for controls, camera, etc., that's all much more difficult to do. So is the actual gameplay design, level design, etc. Everything.

GGA has more complex level designs, sidescrolling or no.

Controls? Well, it's 3d, so I'd expect yeah it would be a bit harder to program in MN64. Camera? Perhaps... but the GGA camera does need to curve along those paths and stuff, not just 'follow player as they go right'... that definitely makes it harder. As for MN64, I don't know about how you'd program a 3d camera... it follows behind the player, obviously. But I'm sure there's more to it than that (trying to avoid having the camera be in a bad place where it's hard to control the character, namely...)...

Gameplay design? I really don't see a big difference here. So MN64 has a 3d-adventure structure... so? It really isn't that much deeper, gameplay-wise, than MN64... same run-and-jump-and-hit gameplay, same 'talk to the npcs in the towns to learn things and get quests/sidequests' town design, same 'the castles are the big hard part' thing... where's the huge difference in gameplay design that makes MN64 a more complex design? Just because it's got an increasing healthbar and that 'large world' design doesn't mean that it's vastly more complex... and remember, in many ways GGA is complex for a platformer.

Quote:GGA has more complex level designs, sidescrolling or no.

No it does not. Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:Controls? Well, it's 3d, so I'd expect yeah it would be a bit harder to program in MN64. Camera? Perhaps... but the GGA camera does need to curve along those paths and stuff, not just 'follow player as they go right'... that definitely makes it harder. As for MN64, I don't know about how you'd program a 3d camera... it follows behind the player, obviously. But I'm sure there's more to it than that (trying to avoid having the camera be in a bad place where it's hard to control the character, namely...)...

See above reply.

Quote:Gameplay design? I really don't see a big difference here. So MN64 has a 3d-adventure structure... so? It really isn't that much deeper, gameplay-wise, than MN64... same run-and-jump-and-hit gameplay, same 'talk to the npcs in the towns to learn things and get quests/sidequests' town design, same 'the castles are the big hard part' thing... where's the huge difference in gameplay design that makes MN64 a more complex design? Just because it's got an increasing healthbar and that 'large world' design doesn't mean that it's vastly more complex... and remember, in many ways GGA is complex for a platformer.

THE FACT THAT IT IS A 3D GAME IN MORE THAN JUST GRAPHICS AUTOMATICALLY MAKES IT FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN GGA.

If you cannot comprehend that then there is no hope for you. You've shown that you love to argue things that you are completely ignorant about time and time again, and it really just makes you look very sad and pathetic.

Repeating something, without giving any details of why you think it is so, is completely pointless. Either explain why you believe that or just quit it.

Yelling "X is true! X is true! X is true!" without ever saying WHY X is true gets you absolutely nowhere.

Joy, 3d means a third dimension... so in that quite limited regard MN64 is more complex (in controls). But going by level design, GGA is more complex. Going by gameplay, they're equal. Different, but equal. Well... I'd say GGA is definitely better, because of a bunch of reasons, but you disagree, so I'll just call it even and say 'each does things differently from the other game'. :)

Why are GGA's level designs so much better and more complex? Well, we could start with the improved graphics. Then there's the greatly increased challenge. The fact that the enemies are actually a threat. That you aren't having run around collecting keys in the temples... :D (instead, they made the temples longer and harder...) Etc. Complexity? Looking just at the temples/castles, it depends on how you define the term... are you talking about varied gameplay (the minigames and stuff in MN64, how you have to go over the same terrain multiple times as you get the keys, the fact that it's 3d so you have to think a bit about that third dimension, etc), or about challenge? Because one could say 'more difficulty makes it more complex', and they'd have a point... and on that there's no comparison.

As I said, MN64 is a good game. I like it, and it was definitely worth buying. But there's no way that it's as fun, or as worth replaying, as GGA.

They're both cool games.

A Black Falcon Wrote:Repeating something, without giving any details of why you think it is so, is completely pointless. Either explain why you believe that or just quit it.

Yelling "X is true! X is true! X is true!" without ever saying WHY X is true gets you absolutely nowhere.

Joy, 3d means a third dimension... so in that quite limited regard MN64 is more complex (in controls). But going by level design, GGA is more complex. Going by gameplay, they're equal. Different, but equal. Well... I'd say GGA is definitely better, because of a bunch of reasons, but you disagree, so I'll just call it even and say 'each does things differently from the other game'. :)

Why are GGA's level designs so much better and more complex? Well, we could start with the improved graphics. Then there's the greatly increased challenge. The fact that the enemies are actually a threat. That you aren't having run around collecting keys in the temples... :D (instead, they made the temples longer and harder...) Etc. Complexity? Looking just at the temples/castles, it depends on how you define the term... are you talking about varied gameplay (the minigames and stuff in MN64, how you have to go over the same terrain multiple times as you get the keys, the fact that it's 3d so you have to think a bit about that third dimension, etc), or about challenge? Because one could say 'more difficulty makes it more complex', and they'd have a point... and on that there's no comparison.

As I said, MN64 is a good game. I like it, and it was definitely worth buying. But there's no way that it's as fun, or as worth replaying, as GGA.

Again, you are completely ignorant about this entire subject. You know absolutely nothing about what goes into making a game and have no idea about what's difficult to accomplish and what's not. I am not going to give you a lesson in game design.

You know zero about this subject, and the more you argue the further you prove yourself as a dumbass.

Why do you keep saying things that you know aren't true?

So you do know a lot about what goes into making these types of games?

Yes, I know some, but that's irrelevant for the issue of level design. That's something that is based on what the levels are... and this is something you see when you play the game. So what in the world does programming experience have to do with understanding and comparing the complexity of the levels?

Virtually nothing.

I don't program, so I'm obviously not talking about that. I'm talking about creating games and what goes into every aspect of platformers and what's more difficult to do. You know absolutely nothing about this!

I don't know everything, but I do know more than you evidently think.

You have shown that you know nothing.

*removes old post in order to try to save the thread*

Try to learn to understand others, OB1. It'll help you. And when you're in a debate, you don't yell and insult people. You respond to what they said and try to refute their points. You need to learn how to do that. That's all I can say...

Quote:THE FACT THAT IT IS A 3D GAME IN MORE THAN JUST GRAPHICS AUTOMATICALLY MAKES IT FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN GGA.

So if you actually want to discuss the subject, and not just yell at me, how about starting by describing what kind of complexity you are talking about here... I covered a bunch of kinds of complexity, what exactly do you mean?

Remember, just yelling at me again won't help. And if you do that, I'll try my best to just not reply... it's just hard when you make it so personal...