Who Killed Rare?

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="NAPK1NS"] Get those numbers outta my face. Just think of what Banjo-Kazooie and Conker are. Now think of Nuts & Bolts. There you go, all you need to sum it up. NaveedLife

I think I got far enough into the game to judge it (used to own it when I had a 360), and the gameplay just seemed so boring, easy, and loose. I loved the concept, graphics, and so on. I mean I still wish I could play it so I could give it another shot, because I love its feel, but from what I remember, the actual level objectives were so messy.

NEED NEW KILLER INSTINCT!

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] How is Nuts and Bolts a bad game? jg4xchamp

I think I got far enough into the game to judge it (used to own it when I had a 360), and the gameplay just seemed so boring, easy, and loose. I loved the concept, graphics, and so on. I mean I still wish I could play it so I could give it another shot, because I love its feel, but from what I remember, the actual level objectives were so messy.

Like I said, I didn't beat it, but I played a good bit (don't remember how much), and while I agree with you, what I mean by loose is that it didn't seem very challenging in the designs needed. I was expecting there to be hard to reach jiggies that had obstacles and stuff, meaning I would have to make a cart and plan my route of attack and such. I just wish they were a bit more creative in this regard. I think the game had a great foundation and if this was done, it could have been a cl@ssic.

I wouldn't mind trying it again sometime if I get the chance, and I applaud them for their idea and wish more devs would make interesting games like this.

casuals and microsoft.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="NAPK1NS"] Get those numbers outta my face. Just think of what Banjo-Kazooie and Conker are. Now think of Nuts & Bolts. There you go, all you need to sum it up. NaveedLife

I think I got far enough into the game to judge it (used to own it when I had a 360), and the gameplay just seemed so boring, easy, and loose. I loved the concept, graphics, and so on. I mean I still wish I could play it so I could give it another shot, because I love its feel, but from what I remember, the actual level objectives were so messy.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

I think I got far enough into the game to judge it (used to own it when I had a 360), and the gameplay just seemed so boring, easy, and loose. I loved the concept, graphics, and so on. I mean I still wish I could play it so I could give it another shot, because I love its feel, but from what I remember, the actual level objectives were so messy.

NaveedLife

Like I said, I didn't beat it, but I played a good bit (don't remember how much), and while I agree with you, what I mean by loose is that it didn't seem very challenging in the designs needed. I was expecting there to be hard to reach jiggies that had obstacles and stuff, meaning I would have to make a cart and plan my route of attack and such. I just wish they were a bit more creative in this regard. I think the game had a great foundation and if this was done, it could have been a cl@ssic.

I wouldn't mind trying it again sometime if I get the chance, and I applaud them for their idea and wish more devs would make interesting games like this.

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] I agree on it being easy, but I enjoyed the fact that the game was so loose. What made that game fun was how it rewarded you for thinking outside the box. Breaking the rules of the game was actually rewarded, and it was frankly for more interesting than another mario 64 clone collect-a-thon(that's not to say nuts and bolts isn't a collect-a-thon either). The fact that the game wasn't so straight forward, and entirely up to you to me was more satisfying than "jump here, than get over there, and then do this, and bam level over".

Plus I was a legos child, so the game brought me back to the lego days. That and Viva Pinata is awesome. Rare may not be the juggernaut they were on the 64(and to be quite honest since that gen, has a developer pumped out that much quality in one gen?), but before this Kinect sports run they were by no means awful. PDZ and Grabbed by the Ghoulies sucked. But Nuts and Bolts and the Viva Pinata games were very well done games, and when it came to Nuts and Bolts it was a far more clever/original outing than anything they did with well any of their games on the 64 save Conker. A new Conker would have kicked ass though.

jg4xchamp

Like I said, I didn't beat it, but I played a good bit (don't remember how much), and while I agree with you, what I mean by loose is that it didn't seem very challenging in the designs needed. I was expecting there to be hard to reach jiggies that had obstacles and stuff, meaning I would have to make a cart and plan my route of attack and such. I just wish they were a bit more creative in this regard. I think the game had a great foundation and if this was done, it could have been a cl@ssic.

I wouldn't mind trying it again sometime if I get the chance, and I applaud them for their idea and wish more devs would make interesting games like this.

lol I made it to the very electrical place. THat was the last one I remembered. I wish I could give it a shot again, but I don't have a 360 anymore and have no intention of buying one :P. I wish it was on PC too.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Rare was a British studio belonging to the Nintendo (Japanese) school of game design, which was basically the polar opposite to the Microsoft (American) school of game design...

But now that Microsoft are following Nintendo's lead with the Kinect, it only makes sense they'd finally start making use of Rare to make Wii-like games.

NaveedLife

Last I checked, Nintendo makes more than Wii/Mii games. Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.

Actually the real people who killed Rare were the so called fans who cried about everything and didn't support their games.percech

Though I have purchases all this gen Rare games soo, just sayin. :P

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]Nope I'm not reading that. But I can correct you in saying that Rare, in comparison to two generations ago SUCKSALOT. They went from making some the best platformers of all time to making dinky rush plays and shovel ware. Blah. Jag85

1º N64 RARE: 82.7%

2º Current RARE: 80.4%

3º Last gen RARE: 75.2%

4º 16-Bit RARE: 69%

Go back a page for Stika's list of Rare does not suck. :P

If it's from GameRankings like you claim, then where's the link?

Simple right ? :P

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]Nope I'm not reading that. But I can correct you in saying that Rare, in comparison to two generations ago SUCKSALOT. They went from making some the best platformers of all time to making dinky rush plays and shovel ware. Blah. SecretPolice

1º N64 RARE: 82.7%

2º Current RARE: 80.4%

3º Last gen RARE: 75.2%

4º 16-Bit RARE: 69%

Go back a page for Stika's list of Rare does not suck. :P

Kinect Sports is never on people's 'best games of all time' lists. And making 5 games in one generation compared to 30 (exaggerated numbers) in a prior generation can skew those averages.

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]Nope I'm not reading that. But I can correct you in saying that Rare, in comparison to two generations ago SUCKSALOT. They went from making some the best platformers of all time to making dinky rush plays and shovel ware. Blah. GameShtopper

1º N64 RARE: 82.7%

2º Current RARE: 80.4%

3º Last gen RARE: 75.2%

4º 16-Bit RARE: 69%

Go back a page for Stika's list of Rare does not suck. :P

Kinect Sports is never on people's 'best games of all time' lists. And making 5 games in one generation compared to 30 (exaggerated numbers) in a prior generation can skew those averages.

About 1 AAA and 5 AA's all this gen. besides Nintendo, name another ? :P

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]Based on gamerankings..

1º N64 RARE: 82.7%

2º Current RARE: 80.4%

3º Last gen RARE: 75.2%

4º 16-Bit RARE: 69%

Go back a page for Stika's list of Rare does not suck. :P

SecretPolice

Kinect Sports is never on people's 'best games of all time' lists. And making 5 games in one generation compared to 30 (exaggerated numbers) in a prior generation can skew those averages.

About 1 AAA and 5 AA's all this gen. besides Nintendo, name another ? :P

You're not seeing the point here. I would definitely play all of Rare's games pre-Kinect Sports. I don't care if Kinect Sports got a 100% score. It's not worth playing.

It's Rare's current attitude that has gamer's miffed. Do you ever bother to read what the RWP and Chris Seavor/Grant Kirkhope/etc. have to say about the company now? Why did MundoRare shut down?

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Kinect Sports is never on people's 'best games of all time' lists. And making 5 games in one generation compared to 30 (exaggerated numbers) in a prior generation can skew those averages.

GameShtopper

About 1 AAA and 5 AA's all this gen. besides Nintendo, name another ? :P

You're not seeing the point here. I would definitely play all of Rare's games pre-Kinect Sports. I don't care if Kinect Sports got a 100% score. It's not worth playing.

It's Rare's current attitude that has gamer's miffed. Do you ever bother to read what the RWP and Chris Seavor/Grant Kirkhope/etc. have to say about the company now? Why did MundoRare shut down?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

Based on gamerankings..

1º N64 RARE: 82.7%

2º Current RARE: 80.4%

3º Last gen RARE: 75.2%

4º 16-Bit RARE: 69%

Go back a page for Stika's list of Rare does not suck. :P

SecretPolice

If it's from GameRankings like you claim, then where's the link?

Simple right ? :P

In that case, I may as well point out the obvious: GameRankings is not reliable for older games. It's useful for games produced in the past decade, and somewhat reliable up to the 32-bit era, but very unreliable when it comes to the 16-bit era and especially the 8-bit era. The reason? Because GameRankings does not include older print magazines, but mostly relies on more recent (and mostly online) sources to collect its data from. The number of reviews it includes for most 16-bit games barely meets the site's own minimum threshold of 5 reviews. Most of those scores are based on just two or three reviews out of a dozen reviews that were not included. That alone skews the figures for older games, misrepresenting the overall critical reception they received in their time.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is that gaming critics were a lot more critical and harder to please back then. Handing out perfect scores was extremely rare back in the 90s and especially the 80s. Back then, an average game would have received a 50% score, but nowadays an average game receives a 75% score. Even critics that were known for being critical (including Famitsu, EGM, IGN, GameSpot, etc.) are handing out perfect scores far too often these days. Even getting a 69% score from that era (though Rare actually got higher than that) is worth more than an 80% today.

they did it to themselves....

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]Nope I'm not reading that. But I can correct you in saying that Rare, in comparison to two generations ago SUCKSALOT. They went from making some the best platformers of all time to making dinky rush plays and shovel ware. Blah. NaveedLife

1º N64 RARE: 82.7%

2º Current RARE: 80.4%

3º Last gen RARE: 75.2%

4º 16-Bit RARE: 69%

Go back a page for Stika's list of Rare does not suck. :P

....how the heck can SNES rare get bad reviews? DKC1-3 are amazing games. 64 is their best platform though. And Star Fox adventures was pretty awesome on the cube.

Rare's demise ultimately came during their Perfect Dark Zero project for MS. It was a sales flop and a technical flop and now they are making kinect games as a result :lol:

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]Based on gamerankings..

1º N64 RARE: 82.7%

2º Current RARE: 80.4%

3º Last gen RARE: 75.2%

4º 16-Bit RARE: 69%

Go back a page for Stika's list of Rare does not suck. :P

Another48hours

....how the heck can SNES rare get bad reviews? DKC1-3 are amazing games. 64 is their best platform though. And Star Fox adventures was pretty awesome on the cube.

First of all I never mentioned killer Instinct, cause I played 64 and I thought it was pretty average. Felt like a Mortal Kombat ripoff.

As for DKC, the first 1 is the worst one. 2 and 3 are amazing.

Rare's demise ultimately came during their Perfect Dark Zero project for MS. It was a sales flop and a technical flop and now they are making kinect games as a result :lol:

Aku101

[QUOTE="Another48hours"][QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

....how the heck can SNES rare get bad reviews? DKC1-3 are amazing games. 64 is their best platform though. And Star Fox adventures was pretty awesome on the cube.

NaveedLife

First of all I never mentioned killer Instinct, cause I played 64 and I thought it was pretty average. Felt like a Mortal Kombat ripoff.

As for DKC, the first 1 is the worst one. 2 and 3 are amazing.

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

[QUOTE="Another48hours"] No DK-1-3 were generuic games that the only purpose of their existence was literally to boost the SNES graphical life. That's it. I can give you the first one but after? no. Also, first Killer Instinct, no....Another48hours

First of all I never mentioned killer Instinct, cause I played 64 and I thought it was pretty average. Felt like a Mortal Kombat ripoff.

As for DKC, the first 1 is the worst one. 2 and 3 are amazing.

find me a legitate quote from Nintendo saying that DKC titles were there to push graphics and not for fun. Once you do, I will believe you. It is probably why they made DKCR on the Wii. cause the Wii is a powerhouse and they wanted to show off its amazing graphics :P.

[QUOTE="Another48hours"][QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

First of all I never mentioned killer Instinct, cause I played 64 and I thought it was pretty average. Felt like a Mortal Kombat ripoff.

As for DKC, the first 1 is the worst one. 2 and 3 are amazing.

NaveedLife

find me a legitate quote from Nintendo saying that DKC titles were there to push graphics and not for fun. Once you do, I will believe you. It is probably why they made DKCR on the Wii. cause the Wii is a powerhouse and they wanted to show off its amazing graphics :P.

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Rare's demise ultimately came during their Perfect Dark Zero project for MS. It was a sales flop and a technical flop and now they are making kinect games as a result :lol:

Another48hours

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] Where did you pull those numbers out from?

If it's from GameRankings like you claim, then where's the link?

Jag85

Simple right ? :P

In that case, I may as well point out the obvious: GameRankings is not reliable for older games. It's useful for games produced in the past decade, and somewhat reliable up to the 32-bit era, but very unreliable when it comes to the 16-bit era and especially the 8-bit era. The reason? Because GameRankings does not include older print magazines, but mostly relies on more recent (and mostly online) sources to collect its data from. The number of reviews it includes for most 16-bit games barely meets the site's own minimum threshold of 5 reviews. Most of those scores are based on just two or three reviews out of a dozen reviews that were not included. That alone skews the figures for older games, misrepresenting the overall critical reception they received in their time.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is that gaming critics were a lot more critical and harder to please back then. Handing out perfect scores was extremely rare back in the 90s and especially the 80s. Back then, an average game would have received a 50% score, but nowadays an average game receives a 75% score. Even critics that were known for being critical (including Famitsu, EGM, IGN, GameSpot, etc.) are handing out perfect scores far too often these days. Even getting a 69% score from that era (though Rare actually got higher than that) is worth more than an 80% today.

A member named Stika made that list some years ago based on GR which was where the info was available for older games and sometimes some use MC as well but the bottom line is we only officially recognize GS in these forums so really, nether GR or MC hold water here when debating scores but for the purpose Stika had in mind, GR was good enough to show the promulgated fallacy that somehow Rare were gaming gods back then but this gen, no, no, no, they suck beyond belief. :?

Anyhoo, Rare done great this gen up to a couple years ago I but maintain that Rare, based on Kameo Banjo, VP retains the talent, creativity and know-how to bring awesome games to the table and expect them to do so..... sooooooon !! :P

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

Rare's demise ultimately came during their Perfect Dark Zero project for MS. It was a sales flop and a technical flop and now they are making kinect games as a result :lol:

Another48hours

That was a great article and it reinforces my stance that Rare has suffered simply due to being unable to fully evolve and change properly with the market. Of course, System Wars is still filled with touched in the head morons that won't read the full articles or people that think MS somehow was fully responsible for "killing Rare."

Whatever the studio does, I doubt it will be anything like the Rare of old. It's simply not a viable option to survive in this market, but I do hope they find some continued success in the event that they do for whatever reason choose to release a game that's catered to my tastes.

NeonNinja

:lol:

The current state of Rare is a tragedy. Microsoft killed them.

The current state of Rare is a tragedy. Microsoft killed them.

NirdBerd

[QUOTE="NirdBerd"]

The current state of Rare is a tragedy. Microsoft killed them.

After_Math

Also expect Banjo 3 as a launch title for next box. :shock:

Heck, they already got the box art..

:twisted:

After Rare was bought by xbox, they did try to make good games, but the fans were just too stubborn to even try them, so the games never sold well. After that, Microsoft just said "screw it" and had Rare make kinect games. So it was really the fans that truly doomed Rare.

After Rare was bought by xbox, they did try to make good games, but the fans were just too stubborn to even try them, so the games never sold well. After that, Microsoft just said "screw it" and had Rare make kinect games. So it was really the fans that truly doomed Rare.

conkertheking1