living in the past...

I know why everyone compares the games of old to games today. i do it myself. But why do some people complain that a game like SMG is not as good as SM64?

Guys, Goldeneye was a great game. It set the bar for FPS on consoles when it came out. I love that game. I remember all the good times i had with 3 buds playing on our 13" tv. But you know what, the bond games that have come out since then are good, if not much better in most cases. Everything or nothing was really good. 3rd person bond, with some amazing graphics, cool story, and some really good gameplay,Co-op mode. Already people are complaining that the new bond isnt going to be as good as Goldeneye. You know what, Goldenye has terrible AI, Graphics.

OOT is a classic, it took Zelda into a 3d world, and is one of the best games ever made. But why is it better then TP? It isnt. TP just doesnt do anything we haven't seen b4, like OOT did. But TP is far better. Bigger hyrule, horseback fighting, epic ganon fight, motion controls, and to put it simply, the game is beautiful.

The same goes for SMG. It is one of the best games ive ever played. Yea, it isnt hard, but when has a mario game been hard? They are all the same, you fly through it until u hit one part that u die 5 lives on, then you keep going. Except, SMG took the 64 idea and mixed it with tradition 2-d stuff, and now you have one of the best games ever. Does that mean Mario 64 isnt still a great game???

Just becasue Halo 3 didnt set the bar as high as Halo 2 did, doesnt mean it isnt a good game does it???

All I am saying is don't forget the past games, there are some really great games, but don't let that cloud you from missing some really good games of today. Thoughts???

That's like saying Tetris DS is better than the original Tetris.klidron02

How is it not?

He's right! You damn hippies get a job those games have their superiors now!:evil: Jk aside nothing wrong with enjoying the classics. I love downloading and playing VC games.FFCYAN

I think some older games are better than the new ones. For me...Super Mario "NES" is better than Mario64. But I like SMG better than Mario64.

I really dont get when some people say something like...Halo is better than Halo3 OR Halo2 is way better than Halo3. I have all 3 Halo games and they are pretty much the same game over and over again. Good games, but the same.

It depends on the game, for me. I didn't like any of the 3D Zeldas more than LttP until I played TP on the Wii. Things like having to aim the hookshot with an analog stick drive me crazy, so when I played TP on the Wii, it was awesome to be able to use the Wiimote to aim.

I still don't consider the Primes better than Metroid 3, 4, and ZM. They were excellent translations to 3D, but they just aren't the same game. Shinesparking was a big part of the 2D games from Super Metroid on, and it's completely ignored in the Primes.

It's unfair to compare older editons to series to new series because the series was fresher back then.doctores143

I wouldn't argue that the older games are technically better, however one thing to consider is the fact that many Nintendo games are good simply because of their level design; and the level design of newer games aren't necessarily any better.

Sure Twilight Princess had better graphics and sound, bigger hyrule, smoother control, etc. but when you come down to the important issues such as pacing, difficulty balance, and dungeon design I'd still say Ocarina of Time reigns surpreme. You can make the same argument for many of Nintendo's games.

..... nah i still like cod1 over cod4. even tho cod4 has better graphics and all, it just cant beat the first time i played the stalingrad mission. no game, really, has amazed me that much in cinematic point of view yet, and i still play that game, and i still get amazed.

Every game (or franchise) is a different case. Some 2D games managed to successfully step into the realm of 3D, like Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, but most of them failed, and will probably always fail whenever they try to go 3D, like Castlevania and Mega Man. The reason why Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time get so much praise is precisely because they managed to do what only a few old school franchises could.

I mean, back in the day, Castlevania was as awesome as Mega Man, which was as awesome as Mario, which was as awesome as Zelda. Two of them managed to reinvent themselves, two of them failed. If Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time hadn't done what they did, both franchises would be now either handheld exclusives or downloadable games. That wouldn't mean they would be bad, because handheld Castlevanias are cool, as well as Mega Man 9, but you have to ask yourself how exactly Nintendo, or any other console company, for that matter, could ever be able to introduce a new system, if their biggest franchises don't even come near to take advantage of the new hardware in ANY way. If Ocarina of Time had gone the same patch as Castlevania 64, Nintendo would have probably had to pull the plug on the whole franchise. That's why both games are so important, because the entire fate of both franchises depended on whether the transition to 3D worked or not.

As glorious as Super Mario Galaxy is, as huge as Twilight Princess is, neither of them had to carry so much weight on their backs as Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. Both, Galaxy and Twilight Princess, could have fallen into the Mario Sunshine pit of mediocrity, and there would still be a chance to revive the franchises with a new instalment. What adds even more merit to this whole thing is that both, Ocarina of Time and Mario 64, is that they HAD to go 3D, for the reasons I explained earlier.

Not every game has that kind of responsibility, so to speak. All Mega Man 9 had to do to get brilliant reviews was going back to its roots. Now, of course, the game would have gotten the same reviews if it happened to be a retail game with better graphics and whatnot... But it had to be 2D, and Mega Man had to be blue and cartoony. Capcom simply wasn't able to find that sweet spot to make the game work as a 3D franchise when the time was right, and now it's simply too late. If they try to go all 3D, NEXT GEN (brown and gray) GRAFX OMG and OH DAT IS SO HARDCORE, BRO with Mega Man, they will probably get an abomination, like Bomberman: Act Zero.

Keep in mind, though, that adding new little things to a game without altering its core gameplay isn't a bad thing per se. Sid Meier has been doing it for many years, and it always works. Same with companies like Blizzard, with Starcraft II and Diablo III around the corner, both playing, feeling and almost looking the same as their old school counterparts. Hell, you can even release a fundamentally unchanged Tetris, add online multiplayer, and get great reviews, like Tetris Party.

In conclusion, Mega Man and Castlevania* will always be 2D, and Civilization will always play more or less the same, while Mario and Zelda can be as 4D, 120 FPS, giant enemy crab as they want to, because of Ocarina of Time and Mario 64.

*I am aware that Konami is trying to make another 3D Castlevania for the PS3 and the Xbox 360. It will be mediocre at best, and you can quote me on that.