[QUOTE="starfox15"]
[QUOTE="millerlight89"] Since when did perfecting and making good games = innovative :? It doesn't mean it. Rare was awesome, not innovative though.
NeonNinja
Rare made one of the first FPS titles to compete and even go above what was capable on a PC for it's time. If you don't want to see that as innovative that's your decision, but don't pretend that it wasn't completely and totally revolutionary for it's time.
Rare got it's beginning years before in the game Jetpac (1983). Years later they developed quite a few more notable titles including Battletoads, one of the most graphically impressive and absolute most difficult games in video game history. A few years later Nintendo picked them up and silenced naysayers with their gem. Maybe you remember it? Donkey Kong Country.
3 years later they crafted one of the most advanced and powerful FPS's in history with Goldeneye.
If you don't want to acknowledge Rare's achievements, I suggest heading to the 360 boards.
Most of your post is irrelevant. The discussion is how Rare was innovative during the N64 era, which they were not. Jetpack, Battletoads, Donkey Kong Country, they have nothing to do with it. As far as Goldeneye. Good game. A bit over-rated, but it did nothing innovative for the shooter genre. It was in no way comparable to other shooters of the time such as Quake II. Goldeneye did NOT elevate console shooters to the same level as PC shooters. That was evident to me as a child during that time period.
Rare's best game in the Nintendo 64 era was Banjo-Kazooie. And I still view it as one of the greatest platformers of that era. However, Rare were not innovative. This is hardly a point of contention. They are heavily regarded as a studio that takes Nintendo's idea and tries to make games out of those ideas. Even their final game made for Nintendo, Star Fox Adventures, was a copy of Zelda. Diddy Kong Racing was a copy of Mario Kart, etc. Rare put their own ideas into the games as well, they aren't knock-offs by any means. But Rare have been the farthest thing from an innovative studio throughout most of their history. Take off those rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia. They were good. They still are good in certain cases. But they were notand are not innovative.
I'd really like to see your definition of innovative. As far as I'm concerned, the earlier years of Rare were about nothing BUT innovation.
Nintendo bought Rare btw, and told them to take a license of theirs and run with it. That's what they did. If reinvention of multiple franchises isn't innovative to you then I really don't know what else to tell you.
Did they make new genres? No. Do 99% of studios do that? No. Did they re-classify what certain games and genres were capable of? Absolutely.
Rare was one of the foremost developers for their time and their track record pre-360 was damn near flawless. Innovation is defined as so: a new idea, method, or device. (Merriam-Webster).
They used prerendered 3-D graphics on a console where there was no such thing (SNES). They crafted one of the most impressive and wholly unique FPS games ever made (007) and then improved upon it with Perfect Dark, They took traditional platforming titles and crafted a parody with Conker's Bad Fur Day for the 64, and they injected life into a genre that was bloated with garbage (3rd person shooter, Jet Force Gemini).
Do I really need to cite the Banjo game that appeared for the 360 that featured vehicle creation coupled with platforming and puzzles?
Years later, Rare was bought by Microsoft and now serves as the host of their new user functions and menus while pursuing more projects within the 360 space. As much as I'm aware that Rare has fallen from grace, one thing that I can fully acknowledge is their constant attempts to breathe life into their efforts and games.
Log in to comment