Vita = Console Experiences / 3DS = Handheld Experiences.

This thread is pointless. What ever PS Vita is trying to be, it's not being very successful at it. That is the bottom line.

This thread is pointless. What ever PS Vita is trying to be, it's not being very successful at it. That is the bottom line.

Crossel777

needs the dang software.

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Super Mario 3D Land didn't have the same budget as Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2. I mean, do you think they made the game drastically shorter with less content and worse graphics as a favor to the fans? As a design choice? I think that's a delusional line of thinking.

arkephonic

I never said it's a worse game. I said that the design choices like short, 1-3 minute long levels, overall lack of content (especially compared to the Galaxy games), and downgrade in graphics are a direct result of hardware and budget. It's not like they set out to do these things solely based on the fact that it was a handheld game, they did it because they were limited.

When did I ever say Nintendo can't make another 3D Mario? When did I say SM3DL was a worse game because of budget? When did I ever say Nintendo doesn't offer big budgets for their console games? When did I ever even imply that they'd go bankrupt in doing so?

If your arguments consist of putting words in my mouth that I never even insinuated, this isn't going to last long.

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

And for me SM3DL > SMG, and PH > WW so no you are generalizing when you say people like the console versions more, and would prefer those games on 3DS over the handheld versions.

arkephonic

Some people prefer Super Mario Bros. (NES) to Super Mario Galaxy. Does that mean an NES can play Super Mario Galaxy?

huh?

Well you see, handhelds have always been cheaper than home consoles to develop for. As I've said a few times, multiple JRPG developers have gone on record saying that they've migrated towards the PSP and DS because of the shorter development cycles, lower costs and smaller amout of resources needed to dedicate towards game development. This is the way it's always been for handhelds. Games end up being handheld experiences due to the smaller budgets, just like as someone mentioned earlier how the GBA porting all sorts of SNES games worked out because SNES games translate well over to handhelds. Why do they translate over well to handhelds? Because they're simple games. Handheld games are generally simple games with low development budgets.

Vita is uncharted territory for handhelds, because the budgets to make games for it that take full advantage of the hardware will be much higher. That was a big change that happened in this generation of consoles, development costs. Lots of developers need to sell 1-2 million copies just to turn a profit, sometimes even more. That never used to be the case in past generations of home consoles. The Vita is essentially a home console in terms of power, and the negative thing that comes along with that are the development costs.

arkephonic

Bolded is not true. The games end up being cheaper because they are handheld games. Nintendo develops the games people demand, i.e. pick-up and play games, they happen to be cheaper.

You are right about Vita and its budgets, but lots of power doesn't equal big budgets, just look at Wii U and the Mii games.

Console experiences can be found on both system, not exactly what Id relate only to the Vita.
Sure Super Mario 3D Land is very handheld/pickup and playish but Tales of the Abyss is the polar opposite.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"] So because it has low budget it's a worse game? What makes you think Nintendo can't make another 3D Mario? What are you going to say when they inevitably make the Wii U one? They've gone bankrupt making it?Eponique

I never said it's a worse game. I said that the design choices like short, 1-3 minute long levels, overall lack of content (especially compared to the Galaxy games), and downgrade in graphics are a direct result of hardware and budget. It's not like they set out to do these things solely based on the fact that it was a handheld game, they did it because they were limited.

When did I ever say Nintendo can't make another 3D Mario? When did I say SM3DL was a worse game because of budget? When did I ever say Nintendo doesn't offer big budgets for their console games? When did I ever even imply that they'd go bankrupt in doing so?

If your arguments consist of putting words in my mouth that I never even insinuated, this isn't going to last long.

Well SM3DL is a lesser game compared to the Galaxy games, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Why would the budget be low? Maybe because Nintendo doesn't want to back a handheld game with a console game's budget.

I am not convinced that a Mario Galaxy quality game is possible on the 3DS. You seem confident that it is possible, but I disagree. The Wii actually does certain things better than the 3DS graphically.

I've 100% completed both Galaxy games and Super Mario 3D Land.

SM3DL:

SMG:

So I mean, if Super Mario Galaxy is possible on the 3DS, why does Super Mario 3D Land look like that? Why does it have a fraction of the content?

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

And for me SM3DL > SMG, and PH > WW so no you are generalizing when you say people like the console versions more, and would prefer those games on 3DS over the handheld versions.

Wild_man_22

Some people prefer Super Mario Bros. (NES) to Super Mario Galaxy. Does that mean an NES can play Super Mario Galaxy?

huh?

......You won't understand if you don't read the conversation.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Well you see, handhelds have always been cheaper than home consoles to develop for. As I've said a few times, multiple JRPG developers have gone on record saying that they've migrated towards the PSP and DS because of the shorter development cycles, lower costs and smaller amout of resources needed to dedicate towards game development. This is the way it's always been for handhelds. Games end up being handheld experiences due to the smaller budgets, just like as someone mentioned earlier how the GBA porting all sorts of SNES games worked out because SNES games translate well over to handhelds. Why do they translate over well to handhelds? Because they're simple games. Handheld games are generally simple games with low development budgets.

Vita is uncharted territory for handhelds, because the budgets to make games for it that take full advantage of the hardware will be much higher. That was a big change that happened in this generation of consoles, development costs. Lots of developers need to sell 1-2 million copies just to turn a profit, sometimes even more. That never used to be the case in past generations of home consoles. The Vita is essentially a home console in terms of power, and the negative thing that comes along with that are the development costs.

SuperFlakeman

Bolded is not true. The games end up being cheaper because they are handheld games. Nintendo develops the games people demand, i.e. pick-up and play games, they happen to be cheaper.

You are right about Vita and its budgets, but lots of power doesn't equal big budgets, just look at Wii U and the Mii games.

Actually, power is directly correlated with budget. Where have you been the last 7 years?

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I never said it's a worse game. I said that the design choices like short, 1-3 minute long levels, overall lack of content (especially compared to the Galaxy games), and downgrade in graphics are a direct result of hardware and budget. It's not like they set out to do these things solely based on the fact that it was a handheld game, they did it because they were limited.

When did I ever say Nintendo can't make another 3D Mario? When did I say SM3DL was a worse game because of budget? When did I ever say Nintendo doesn't offer big budgets for their console games? When did I ever even imply that they'd go bankrupt in doing so?

If your arguments consist of putting words in my mouth that I never even insinuated, this isn't going to last long.

arkephonic

Well SM3DL is a lesser game compared to the Galaxy games, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Why would the budget be low? Maybe because Nintendo doesn't want to back a handheld game with a console game's budget.

I am not convinced that a Mario Galaxy quality game is possible on the 3DS. You seem confident that it is possible, but I disagree. The Wii actually does certain things better than the 3DS graphically.

I've 100% completed both Galaxy games and Super Mario 3D Land.

SM3DL:

SMG:

So I mean, if Super Mario Galaxy is possible on the 3DS, why does Super Mario 3D Land look like that? Why does it have a fraction of the content?

Because consumer demand. These games cater to different audience, with some overlap. People want simpler games on handhelds. Galaxy is the type of game that attracts hardcore gamers that follow media and care about big AAA games. 3DL is more after the NSMB audience.

I'm pretty sure EAD Tokyo's 3D Mario for Wii U will release in 2013. There is a place for both types.

I don't want Castlevania LoS on Vita. I want 2D Igavanias on Vita/3DS. Simple consumer demand. Why else did Mercury Steam do a 2D Castlevania, exlusively for 3DS at that? Because that's what the handheld CV audience wants. Why didn't Nintendo make a cheap 3DL kind of game on Wii, or Mercury Steam a cheap 2D CV on PS3/360? Cuz consumer demand.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"] You are saying SM3DL is worse than its console versions because it's limited. The pretty much implies lower budget = worse game. And why WOULD the budget be low? Tell me why Nintendo can't make a consolized 3D Mario game put it on 3DS? What's stopping them?SuperFlakeman

Well SM3DL is a lesser game compared to the Galaxy games, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Why would the budget be low? Maybe because Nintendo doesn't want to back a handheld game with a console game's budget.

I am not convinced that a Mario Galaxy quality game is possible on the 3DS. You seem confident that it is possible, but I disagree. The Wii actually does certain things better than the 3DS graphically.

I've 100% completed both Galaxy games and Super Mario 3D Land.

SM3DL:

SMG:

So I mean, if Super Mario Galaxy is possible on the 3DS, why does Super Mario 3D Land look like that? Why does it have a fraction of the content?

Because consumer demand. These games cater to different audience, with some overlap. People want simpler games on handhelds. Galaxy is the type of game that attracts hardcore gamers that follow media and care about big AAA games. 3DL is more after the NSMB audience.

I'm pretty sure EAD Tokyo's 3D Mario for Wii U will release in 2013. There is a place for both types.

I don't want Castlevania LoS on Vita. I want 2D Igavanias on Vita/3DS. Simple consumer demand. Why else did Mercury Steam do a 2D Castlevania, exlusively for 3DS at that? Because that's what the handheld CV audience wants. Why didn't Nintendo make a cheap 3DL kind of game on Wii, or Mercury Steam a cheap 2D CV on PS3/360? Cuz consumer demand.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think anyone would be complaining about better graphics, bigger levels and more content. I don't wanna say that they're settling for what they think they can get away with, but I think they might be settling for what they think they can get away with. I mean, I'm sure SM3DL could look a bit better than that if Resident Evil Revelations looks the way it does. I'm sure they could have made the levels a bit bigger. If not bigger, they could have made more of them.

I think people were drawn to the fact that it was the best 3D Mario game ever released on a handheld system, and that was its selling point, and that is a good selling point. However, I can't help but feel like they could have done a bit more, especially considering this is the Galaxy team we're talking about.

People say bite sized games are selling points, but are you so sure about that? When have you ever seen a game being criticized for too much content?

Well SM3DL is a lesser game compared to the Galaxy games, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Why would the budget be low? Maybe because Nintendo doesn't want to back a handheld game with a console game's budget.

I am not convinced that a Mario Galaxy quality game is possible on the 3DS. You seem confident that it is possible, but I disagree. The Wii actually does certain things better than the 3DS graphically.

I've 100% completed both Galaxy games and Super Mario 3D Land.

SM3DL:

SMG:

So I mean, if Super Mario Galaxy is possible on the 3DS, why does Super Mario 3D Land look like that? Why does it have a fraction of the content?

arkephonic

It doesn't matter what Nintendo decided, what matters is if they're capable of doing it. If they are developing console 3D Marios alongside the handheld games, then saying "Nintendo doesn't have the budget to make a consolized 3D Mario game for handhelds" is incorrect. Nintendo has the money to make up to Super Mario Galaxy 10 on the 3DS. It's not a question of money.

Again, look at the scale and scope of a game like Ocarina of Time. The game is much more deep, has many more secrets, and is much longer than Super Mario Galaxy. To say that 3DS is not capable of producing games of the same claibre is incorrect.

So now that Nintendo has the budget, and the hardware power to make a Super Mario Galaxy game (although with some downgrade in graphics), why do you think they decided not to make it?

The difference is Nintendo is not as short-sighted as you take them to be. Nintendo has been in the industry for decades. They know better than both you and I what kind of experiences people are looking for on handhelds, and it's not SMG. Super Mario 3D Land is selling much better than the Galaxy games and it has a 91 on Metacritic. Nintendo knows what's up.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Well SM3DL is a lesser game compared to the Galaxy games, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Why would the budget be low? Maybe because Nintendo doesn't want to back a handheld game with a console game's budget.

I am not convinced that a Mario Galaxy quality game is possible on the 3DS. You seem confident that it is possible, but I disagree. The Wii actually does certain things better than the 3DS graphically.

I've 100% completed both Galaxy games and Super Mario 3D Land.

SM3DL:

SMG:

So I mean, if Super Mario Galaxy is possible on the 3DS, why does Super Mario 3D Land look like that? Why does it have a fraction of the content?

Eponique

It doesn't matter what Nintendo decided, what matters is if they're capable of doing it. If they are developing console 3D Marios alongside the handheld games, then saying "Nintendo doesn't have the budget to make a consolized 3D Mario game for handhelds" is incorrect. Nintendo has the money to make up to Super Mario Galaxy 10 on the 3DS. It's not a question of money.

Again, look at the scale and scope of a game like Ocarina of Time. The game is much more deep, has many more secrets, and is much longer than Super Mario Galaxy. To say that 3DS is not capable of producing games of the same claibre is incorrect.

So now that Nintendo has the budget, and the hardware power to make a Super Mario Galaxy game (although with some downgrade in graphics), why do you think they decided not to make it?

The difference is Nintendo is not as short-sighted as you take them to be. Nintendo has been in the industry for decades. They know better than both you and I what kind of experiences people are looking for on handhelds, and it's not SMG. Super Mario 3D Land is selling much better than the Galaxy games and it has a 91 on Metacritic. Nintendo knows what's up.

I think they decided not to make it mainly because of time, but also because they didn't want to back a handheld game with the same budget as a console game. Handheld games generally have lower standards than home console games. I'm gonna throw your sales figures out the window because we all know sales don't equal quality, and the Galaxy games are substantially higher on Metacritic than SM3DL.

Time is the main thing. You keep on harping back to Ocarina of Time, but why do you think it was Ocarina of Time and not a brand new 3D Zelda game. Time is the answer. Why did they release Super Mario 64 DS instead of a new 3D Mario game? Time. It takes time to create all these expansive 3D worlds, time they don't want to spend on a handheld game.

I think they decided not to make it mainly because of time, but also because they didn't want to back a handheld game with the same budget as a console game. Handheld games generally have lower standards than home console games. I'm gonna throw your sales figures out the window because we all know sales don't equal quality, and the Galaxy games are substantially higher on Metacritic than SM3DL.

arkephonic

There you go with "handhelds have lower standards than consoles" again. How hard is to understand that they aredifferent notinferior?This is the same mindset that is causing the Vita to fail.

And sales don't matter if you put your head in the sand. Why make a Galaxy game when people want a 3D Land game more?

I see what you're saying, but I don't think anyone would be complaining about better graphics, bigger levels and more content. I don't wanna say that they're settling for what they think they can get away with, but I think they might be settling for what they think they can get away with. I mean, I'm sure SM3DL could look a bit better than that if Resident Evil Revelations looks the way it does. I'm sure they could have made the levels a bit bigger. If not bigger, they could have made more of them.

I think people were drawn to the fact that it was the best 3D Mario game ever released on a handheld system, and that was its selling point, and that is a good selling point. However, I can't help but feel like they could have done a bit more, especially considering this is the Galaxy team we're talking about.

People say bite sized games are selling points, but are you so sure about that? When have you ever seen a game being criticized for too much content?

arkephonic

That's the impression history gives us:

Gameboy vs GameGear

NDS vs PSP

3DS vs PSV

And so naturally the bandwagon "handhelds are dead due to smartphones" spawned; it's cheaper (provided you own one for reasons not related to gaming), simpler and even more accessible as you always carry a phone but not a portable.

The problem is those games get boring after a few playthroughs. I really enjoyed angry birds at first but once you progress from world 1 it becomes a game of probabilities, not strategy and skill.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I think they decided not to make it mainly because of time, but also because they didn't want to back a handheld game with the same budget as a console game. Handheld games generally have lower standards than home console games. I'm gonna throw your sales figures out the window because we all know sales don't equal quality, and the Galaxy games are substantially higher on Metacritic than SM3DL.

Eponique

There you go with "handhelds have lower standards than consoles" again. How hard is to understand that they aredifferent notinferior?This is the same mindset that is causing the Vita to fail.

And sales don't matter if you put your head in the sand. Why make a Galaxy game when people want a 3D Land game more?

Handhelds DO have lower standards than consoles, just as consoles have lower standards than the PC. If you don't agree, that's you putting your head in teh sand.

Why make Ocarina of Time instead of a new 3D Zelda game? Time, money and resources. It's faster, cheaper and easier. Same reason they made SM3DL instead of a game as content filled and graphically impressive as the Galaxy games. In fact, I remember reading an interview with the developers of SM3DL where they were saying they had to change the entire creative direction of the game due to time contraints. They originally wanted it to be like a Galaxy game.

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I think they decided not to make it mainly because of time, but also because they didn't want to back a handheld game with the same budget as a console game. Handheld games generally have lower standards than home console games. I'm gonna throw your sales figures out the window because we all know sales don't equal quality, and the Galaxy games are substantially higher on Metacritic than SM3DL.

arkephonic

There you go with "handhelds have lower standards than consoles" again. How hard is to understand that they aredifferent notinferior?This is the same mindset that is causing the Vita to fail.

And sales don't matter if you put your head in the sand. Why make a Galaxy game when people want a 3D Land game more?

Handhelds DO have lower standards than consoles, just as consoles have lower standards than the PC. If you don't agree, that's you putting your head in teh sand.

Why make Ocarina of Time instead of a new 3D Zelda game? Time, money and resources. It's faster, cheaper and easier. Same reason they made SM3DL instead of a game as content filled and graphically impressive as the Galaxy games. In fact, I remember reading an interview with the developers of SM3DL where they were saying they had to change the entire creative direction of the game due to time contraints. They originally wanted it to be like a Galaxy game.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

There you go with "handhelds have lower standards than consoles" again. How hard is to understand that they aredifferent notinferior?This is the same mindset that is causing the Vita to fail.

And sales don't matter if you put your head in the sand. Why make a Galaxy game when people want a 3D Land game more?

DarthJohnova

Handhelds DO have lower standards than consoles, just as consoles have lower standards than the PC. If you don't agree, that's you putting your head in teh sand.

Why make Ocarina of Time instead of a new 3D Zelda game? Time, money and resources. It's faster, cheaper and easier. Same reason they made SM3DL instead of a game as content filled and graphically impressive as the Galaxy games. In fact, I remember reading an interview with the developers of SM3DL where they were saying they had to change the entire creative direction of the game due to time contraints. They originally wanted it to be like a Galaxy game.

Lower standards for things like production values, graphics and controls. Things like story and gameplay are things that even NES games can excel in. PC is held to a higher standard than consoles because of its graphical, control and production value capabilities, same reasons that consoles are held to a higher standard than handhelds. Handhelds can get away with a lot more simply for the fact that they're handhelds.

It's a general understanding that PC is more powerful than consoles and consoles are more powerful than handhelds. It's the same reason a Wii game can get a 10 in graphics on IGN, but if that were a PS3 game it would warrant a 6.

Handhelds DO have lower standards than consoles, just as consoles have lower standards than the PC. If you don't agree, that's you putting your head in teh sand.

Why make Ocarina of Time instead of a new 3D Zelda game? Time, money and resources. It's faster, cheaper and easier. Same reason they made SM3DL instead of a game as content filled and graphically impressive as the Galaxy games. In fact, I remember reading an interview with the developers of SM3DL where they were saying they had to change the entire creative direction of the game due to time contraints. They originally wanted it to be like a Galaxy game.

arkephonic

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Handhelds DO have lower standards than consoles, just as consoles have lower standards than the PC. If you don't agree, that's you putting your head in teh sand.

Why make Ocarina of Time instead of a new 3D Zelda game? Time, money and resources. It's faster, cheaper and easier. Same reason they made SM3DL instead of a game as content filled and graphically impressive as the Galaxy games. In fact, I remember reading an interview with the developers of SM3DL where they were saying they had to change the entire creative direction of the game due to time contraints. They originally wanted it to be like a Galaxy game.

Eponique

MGS3 got well received on 3DS and it has long cutscenes. You seem to think that a game needs to be 10-15 minute play sessions or bust for a handheld, and that's just laughable.

I read that interview in a game magazine which I still have, I might dig through them but I have hundreds of them. It was an interview concerning the creative direction of the game and the changes they made to it throughout the development process towards the beginning.

I'd love to sit here all day and go in circles, but I have some errands I need to run but I'll be back later.

MGS3 got well received on 3DS and it has long cutscenes. You seem to think that a game needs to be 10-15 minute play sessions or bust for a handheld, and that's just laughable.

I read that interview in a game magazine which I still have, I might dig through them but I have hundreds of them. It was an interview concerning the creative direction of the game and the changes they made to it throughout the development process towards the beginning.

I'd love to sit here all day and go in circles, but I have some errands I need to run but I'll be back later.

arkephonic

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

MGS3 got well received on 3DS and it has long cutscenes. You seem to think that a game needs to be 10-15 minute play sessions or bust for a handheld, and that's just laughable.

I read that interview in a game magazine which I still have, I might dig through them but I have hundreds of them. It was an interview concerning the creative direction of the game and the changes they made to it throughout the development process towards the beginning.

I'd love to sit here all day and go in circles, but I have some errands I need to run but I'll be back later.

Eponique

IIRC, most reviewers didn't have the (lol) Circle Pad Pro when reviewing the game, which more than soiled the experience.

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

MGS3 got well received on 3DS and it has long cutscenes. You seem to think that a game needs to be 10-15 minute play sessions or bust for a handheld, and that's just laughable.

I read that interview in a game magazine which I still have, I might dig through them but I have hundreds of them. It was an interview concerning the creative direction of the game and the changes they made to it throughout the development process towards the beginning.

I'd love to sit here all day and go in circles, but I have some errands I need to run but I'll be back later.

arkephonic

IIRC, most reviewers didn't have the (lol) Circle Pad Pro when reviewing the game, which more than soiled the experience.

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Name me a handheld that hasn't had home console experiences.

arkephonic

Every Nintendo handheld ever made has games that recreate, or at least try to recreate as closely as possible, home console experiences.

If your theory is true than surely most handhelds libraries would be half ports from older consoles.HalcyonScarlet

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"] MGS3 has less than 80 on MC even though it's considered the best version of MGS3.Eponique

IIRC, most reviewers didn't have the (lol) Circle Pad Pro when reviewing the game, which more than soiled the experience.

What? It's 60 fps in the HD version. No way!

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

IIRC, most reviewers didn't have the (lol) Circle Pad Pro when reviewing the game, which more than soiled the experience.

SuperFlakeman

What? It's 60 fps in the HD version. No way!

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

IIRC, most reviewers didn't have the (lol) Circle Pad Pro when reviewing the game, which more than soiled the experience.

SuperFlakeman

What? It's 60 fps in the HD version. No way!

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]If your theory is true than surely most handhelds libraries would be half ports from older consoles.p4s2p0

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"] Gamespot gave it an 8.0 and said in the same review that's it's the definitive version.Eponique

What? It's 60 fps in the HD version. No way!

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

[QUOTE="SuperFlakeman"]

What? It's 60 fps in the HD version. No way!

p4s2p0

[QUOTE="p4s2p0"][QUOTE="Eponique"] "Snake Eater 3D faithfully recreates the original and introduces many exclusive improvements, making this the best version of the game available." lol

Eponique

Maybe. I was just saying that thinking handhelds have lower standards is wrong, because MGS3D got an 8.0 even though it's the superior version while the PS2 console version got a 9.0.Eponique

Standards change overtime. A game that got a 10/10 5 years ago won't get a 10 today.

Standards change overtime. A game that got a 10/10 5 years ago won't get a 10 today.

arkephonic

MGS3 got well received on 3DS and it has long cutscenes. You seem to think that a game needs to be 10-15 minute play sessions or bust for a handheld, and that's just laughable.arkephonic

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"] Uh, all good handhels, i.e., all Nintendo handhelds. Sony might be the dominant force in the home console market, but when it comes to handhelds, there's no beating Nintendo. khoofia_pika

Every Nintendo handheld ever made has games that recreate, or at least try to recreate as closely as possible, home console experiences.

Here, let me put minimal effort into this and prove you wrong.

Game Boy:

Donkey Kong Land - Exactly like Donkey Kong Country

Game Boy Color:

Donkey Kong Country - Exactly like Donkey Kong Country (lol)

Game Boy Advance:

Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2 - Exactly like Super Mario World (lol)

Nintendo DS:

Super Mario 64 DS - Exactly like Super Mario 64 (lol)

Nintendo 3DS:

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D - Exactly like Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (lol)

So my statement holds true. I said, "Every Nintendo handheld ever made has games that recreate, or at least try to recreate as closely as possible, home console experiences." There's your proof.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Standards change overtime. A game that got a 10/10 5 years ago won't get a 10 today.

Eponique

MGS3 got well received on 3DS and it has long cutscenes. You seem to think that a game needs to be 10-15 minute play sessions or bust for a handheld, and that's just laughable.arkephonic

What do those 2 statements have to do with each other?

You are attributing MGS3 on 3DS not getting a 9/10 to the fact that it has long cutscenes. That's just laughable. Gamespot reviewers have gone on record saying that re-releases won't get reviewed as highly based solely on the fact that they're a re-release of an old game. Plus, every review I've read has downgraded it because of the 3DS controls. Not one review complained about cutscenes on a handheld.

Lower in what respect? Consoles are lower in standard in portability, it's swings and roundabouts really.DarthJohnova

Lower standards for things like production values, graphics and controls. Things like story and gameplay are things that even NES games can excel in. PC is held to a higher standard than consoles because of its graphical, control and production value capabilities, same reasons that consoles are held to a higher standard than handhelds. Handhelds can get away with a lot more simply for the fact that they're handhelds.

It's a general understanding that PC is more powerful than consoles and consoles are more powerful than handhelds. It's the same reason a Wii game can get a 10 in graphics on IGN, but if that were a PS3 game it would warrant a 6.

arkephonic

I'd love to sit here all day and go in circles, but I have some errands I need to run but I'll be back later.arkephonic

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

Lower standards for things like production values, graphics and controls. Things like story and gameplay are things that even NES games can excel in. PC is held to a higher standard than consoles because of its graphical, control and production value capabilities, same reasons that consoles are held to a higher standard than handhelds. Handhelds can get away with a lot more simply for the fact that they're handhelds.

It's a general understanding that PC is more powerful than consoles and consoles are more powerful than handhelds. It's the same reason a Wii game can get a 10 in graphics on IGN, but if that were a PS3 game it would warrant a 6.

DarthJohnova

I'd love to sit here all day and go in circles, but I have some errands I need to run but I'll be back later.arkephonic

I just went out to get some exercise, ran 3 miles in that amount of time.

Fair enough, not really the main point of my post though. Also, sorry about the html mess up, bit confusing as I never said what you said...you get the point though :P

What do those 2 statements have to do with each other?

arkephonic

Fair enough, not really the main point of my post though. Also, sorry about the html mess up, bit confusing as I never said what you said...you get the point though :P

DarthJohnova

Why would a handheld title try to recreate a home console title? I dunno, your guess is as good as mine, but it happens on every handheld system ever made. I think it's the true test of power, the ultimate measuring stick of how competent a handheld device is. If it's able to play a home console game and play it well, offering a faithful experience, that's a sign that it's a beast of a handheld. I remember how impressed people were with Super Mario World on GBA, Super Mario 64 on DS and the Ocarina of Time Remake on 3DS. I gotta say, I'm pretty damn impressed with Mortal Kombat on the Vita. Plus, some people just like playing home console games on handhelds.

The number 1 thing people are forgetting here, handhelds are portable, you can play them anywhere. You can't play a PS3 anywhere.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

What do those 2 statements have to do with each other?

Eponique

Gamespot has gone on record, as well as IGN, and many other reviewers for that matter, saying standards change and old games being re-released won't get the same scores. You can't re-release SoulCalibur 1 on Dreamcast today and expect it to get a 10.

Besides, I thought you were attributing the drop in MGS3's score on 3DS to the fact that it's a game with cutscenes on a handheld. The reasons it got a drop in score are because it's a re-release of an old game, the controls aren't as good on 3DS (without the CPP) and that's about it. I've heard reviewers praise the game's cutscenes, saying they're impressive for the 3DS to handle.

Gamespot has gone on record, as well as IGN, and many other reviewers for that matter, saying standards change and old games being re-released won't get the same scores. You can't re-release SoulCalibur 1 on Dreamcast today and expect it to get a 10.

Besides, I thought you were attributing the drop in MGS3's score on 3DS to the fact that it's a game with cutscenes on a handheld. The reasons it got a drop in score is because it's a re-release of an old game, the controls aren't as good on 3DS (without the CPP) and that's about it. I've heard reviewers praise the game's cutscenes, saying they're impressive for the 3DS to handle.

arkephonic

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Gamespot has gone on record, as well as IGN, and many other reviewers for that matter, saying standards change and old games being re-released won't get the same scores. You can't re-release SoulCalibur 1 on Dreamcast today and expect it to get a 10.

Besides, I thought you were attributing the drop in MGS3's score on 3DS to the fact that it's a game with cutscenes on a handheld. The reasons it got a drop in score is because it's a re-release of an old game, the controls aren't as good on 3DS (without the CPP) and that's about it. I've heard reviewers praise the game's cutscenes, saying they're impressive for the 3DS to handle.

Eponique

Here's the negatives IGN has with the game.

"However the game isn't without its flaws. The design does have its limitations, particularly in the face of other more modern offerings. The camera, despite being fully controllable, still gets in the way, and the fact that you really need the 3DS's Circle Pad Pro accessory is a bit ridiculous. Likewise the game's cumbersome frame rate issues are a significant distraction."

They downscore it for being an old re-release that shows its age, bad camera, the need for the Circle Pad Pro and frame rate issues. Those are all legitimate complaints. Cutscenes aren't. If you buy a Metal Gear Solid game and complain about cutscenes, you aren't the brightest tool in the shed.

Here's the Game Informer review with more legitimate complaints.

"The fact that Snake Eater?s story stands well on its own was probably the major reason Kojima Productions decided to bring it to the 3DS, but gamers who want to play Snake Eater are better off leaving this 3D incarnation on the shelf in favor of another version.

Unfortunately, the unique features of this 3DS port do more to hinder the experience than enhance it. The tilt sensor gimmicks (like balancing as you cross a bridge) feel out of place, and using the buttons to control the camera and aim is awful ? especially during boss fights. The touchscreen interface is functional but clumsy; I quickly stopped using it in favor of d-pad menu navigation, which still isn?t as elegant as previous versions. Some people may say it?s unfair to compare handheld titles to those on console, but given that Snake Eater 3D is essentially the same game as its console-based brothers, the comparison is inevitable.

The visuals look good, and the 3D effect works fine ? though the chuggy framerate doesn?t stack up to the 60 fps of the HD Collection version.

I?m not saying that Snake Eater is an inferior game; it?s my favorite in the series. However, this version is only worthwhile for people who have no other choice. Even then, with the $40 you?d spend on Snake Eater 3D, you could probably buy an old PS2 and the original game, or the HD Collection on 360 and PS3. If you want the real Snake Eater experience, those are far better options."

Again, no mention of cutscenes. To complain about cutscenes in a Metal Gear Solid game is like complaining about laser beams in a Star Wars movie.

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Gamespot has gone on record, as well as IGN, and many other reviewers for that matter, saying standards change and old games being re-released won't get the same scores. You can't re-release SoulCalibur 1 on Dreamcast today and expect it to get a 10.

Besides, I thought you were attributing the drop in MGS3's score on 3DS to the fact that it's a game with cutscenes on a handheld. The reasons it got a drop in score is because it's a re-release of an old game, the controls aren't as good on 3DS (without the CPP) and that's about it. I've heard reviewers praise the game's cutscenes, saying they're impressive for the 3DS to handle.

arkephonic

Here's the negatives IGN has with the game.

"However the game isn't without its flaws. The design does have its limitations, particularly in the face of other more modern offerings. The camera, despite being fully controllable, still gets in the way, and the fact that you really need the 3DS's Circle Pad Pro accessory is a bit ridiculous. Likewise the game's cumbersome frame rate issues are a significant distraction."

They downscore it for being an old re-release that shows its age, bad camera, the need for the Circle Pad Pro and frame rate issues. Those are all legitimate complaints. Cutscenes aren't. If you buy a Metal Gear Solid game and complain about cutscenes, you aren't the brightest tool in the shed.

Here's the Game Informer review with more legitimate complaints.

"The fact that Snake Eater?s story stands well on its own was probably the major reason Kojima Productions decided to bring it to the 3DS, but gamers who want to play Snake Eater are better off leaving this 3D incarnation on the shelf in favor of another version.

Unfortunately, the unique features of this 3DS port do more to hinder the experience than enhance it. The tilt sensor gimmicks (like balancing as you cross a bridge) feel out of place, and using the buttons to control the camera and aim is awful ? especially during boss fights. The touchscreen interface is functional but clumsy; I quickly stopped using it in favor of d-pad menu navigation, which still isn?t as elegant as previous versions. Some people may say it?s unfair to compare handheld titles to those on console, but given that Snake Eater 3D is essentially the same game as its console-based brothers, the comparison is inevitable.

The visuals look good, and the 3D effect works fine ? though the chuggy framerate doesn?t stack up to the 60 fps of the HD Collection version.

I?m not saying that Snake Eater is an inferior game; it?s my favorite in the series. However, this version is only worthwhile for people who have no other choice. Even then, with the $40 you?d spend on Snake Eater 3D, you could probably buy an old PS2 and the original game, or the HD Collection on 360 and PS3. If you want the real Snake Eater experience, those are far better options."

Again, no mention of cutscenes. To complain about cutscenes in a Metal Gear Solid game is like complaining about laser beams in a Star Wars movie.

arkephonic

And here's another review from GameTrailers:

"PSP owners might be all too familiar with the problems Peace Walker faced due to the lack of a second analog stick, but now it?s time for 3DS owners to share in the pain. Yes, Snake Eater 3D supports the Circle Pad Pro, but that?s going to run you an additional $20 if you don?t already own one. Those who decide against the peripheral are left with a control scheme that?s a drag on the overall experience. Trying to control the camera or aim with any type of precision using the face buttons is a lesson in frustration. Even with the available customization types, the controls are far from optimized.

The shortcomings of the control layout virtually negate the addition of the ability to walk while crouching. This new mechanic negates a lot of the difficulty since the developers didn?t really alter the layouts or enemy positions to compensate, thus making Snake Eater 3D the easiest version of the game by far. The bottom line here is that unless you?re willing to pony up the extra cash for the proper control support this game needs, you?re left with a second-rate experience that?s a mockery of what we?ve seen the series.

It is no small accomplishment getting Snake Eater to run on the 3DS, and next to Resident Evil: Revelations, the in-game models are the best showcase of the graphical power of this handheld. However, it doesn?t matter how much detail you can achieve if the game doesn?t run smoothly. Frame rate issues are abundant and frequent, especially during cutscenes and boss battles. The one bit of silver lining is the game puts the 3D effect to good use--giving it at least one advantage over the other versions. The soundtrack at least survives the conversion unscathed, but as good as it is, it?s not enough to salvage this package.

Aside from the original PS2 release, this is easily the worst iteration of Snake Eater. The lack of extras, the frustrating controls, and the overall performance issues hold it back from being one of the premier third-party games for the 3DS. Don?t be hypnotized by this snake?s gaze--this is far from the optimal way to experience this classic.

Reviewed on the Nintendo 3DS"

MGS3 was not well received in this review so it contradicts with what you are saying.Eponique

All the reviews come to the same conclusion. It has major performance issues, control issues and they say it's the worst version of Snake Eater. Those are legitimate complaints. It's not downgraded because of cutscenes.

So that's not at all contradicting what I originally said. What I originally said was that it was downgraded for being a re-release of an old game which is true, along with having bad controls. I wasn't aware of the fact that it also had performance issues, that's a real issue right there.