RaggedClown's forum posts

  • 12 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts
360. The PS3 version sounds to be slightly better from a graphical standpoint which, for me, compensates for the 360's DLC. But the 360's controllers seem much, much better suited for shooters, to me. The PS3's joystick layout is terrible for this kind of game, whereas the 360's runs like a dream. I've always had trouble with the Playstation's controllers when it comes to shooters.
Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts
The original, easily. It had far and away the best story-mode. And while it lacked online play, local multiplayer was a blast. On top of this, it had the initial wow factor that the other two didn't, given that they were both, in large part, rehashes of the original.
Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts

Quick question: the reviews I've read have mentioned that local battle mode has gotten rid of free-for-all and now force a team mode. So if there are three players, you either have to play 2 vs 1 or add in a bot, correct?

What a silly decision.

Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts

The problem with the notion of Nintendo integrating more layered and interesting stories into their games is that their franchises are so thoroughly defined by their simplistic pasts that to alter them now would feel inconcruous. It's the same reason they've dragged their feet on using voice actors -- after over a decade of getting to know the characters, to give them voices and make them more definitely a specific image would shatter a lot of people's interpretations of them, as well as bringing them a little too close to reality as opposed to the quite intentional level of fantasy they're normally pitched at.

The familiar, recycled stories of Mario and Zelda are as much a part of their genetic makeup as the characters themselves. And besides, Nintendo's games have always been kinds of fairy-tales anyway. They're not about storytelling, they're about transporting you into a magical and increasingly nostalgic universe we've all been visiting for 20 years. I don't personally see how they could possibly alter this formula without draining the games of a certain comfortable appeal. Just my opinion.

Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts

I don't think the wolf-form, twilight world aspect dramatically improves the game, but I also don't think it's a detriment. Perhaps it could've been a little less arbitrary, but alter-worlds have been a staple of the Zelda universe and, while it probably could've been implemented a little better, I didn't feel it was overly "tacked on" (though, for full disclosure, I didn't follow the game prior to its release and didn't know about the initial concept of interacting with animals).

WW, despite all its critical acclaim, seemed to meet with a lot of criticism for how stylistically different it was from OoT, and MM certainly did, so its pretty understandable that TP returned to the OoT mold. There wasn't a real evolution of gameplay, but I thought it did a good job of re-capturing some (not all) of the magic that OoT had. My grievances with it actually have more to do with how slipshod the port to the Wii was. This isn't really a Wii game, it's a GC game. The controls would've worked better on a traditional gamepad and the graphics, while gorgeous from an art design standpoint, are awful incomparison to most next-gen games (even other major Wii titles). I don't have a big problem with it being derivative of OoT, but I would've preferred a bit more polish on its exterior. Nevertheless, those are relatively minor complaints -- it remains my second favorite Wii game (next to SMG, naturally).

Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts
SMB3 is the best value on the VC. Possibly the best platformer ever made (certainly among the best), infinitely replayable, and it costs $5. Just absurd.
Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts

Yea, it's the two monsters that jump around. I beat if a few minutes after posting -- didn't know you could actually destroy that one that doesn't register damage.

This game is effing hard.

Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts
I'm getting my arse absolutely kicked by boss 4:4. Anybody got any suggestions on how to beat him?
Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts

I'm about 40 stars in on Galaxy. I love it to pieces, but I'd take 64 in a heartbeat. Galaxy feels more constraining, in a way. It's concept kind of necessitates this, but it's still unfortunate. You're more or less led to where you're supposed to go, whereas in Mario 64, you're dropped into the middle of this universe and are able to progress according to your own whims. Galaxy is more objective oriented -- the obstacles absolutely take center-stage -- whereas Mario 64 was more universal oriented, where a great deal of the appeal was the sense of freedom. Even the camera in Galaxy, though much less problematic than it was in 64, seems more impersonal.

Galaxy's a phenomenal game -- best on the Wii. But it ain't Mario 64.

Avatar image for RaggedClown
RaggedClown

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 RaggedClown
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="RaggedClown"]

Not sure if this belongs here or its own thread, but has anyone else had some weird graphical glitches with SMB3? For me, there's a strip going down the left side of the screen that is colored whatever the background (sky) color of the level is, be it blue, black, grey -- whatever. On the right side, everytime the screen moves, there's a strip the same width as on the left side that displays a ghost trail of strange glitches. There are also minor glitches of a similar ilk the pop up sometimes when there is movement on screen.

I've noticed similar minor graphical problems on other VC titles, but nothing like this. I imagine that the strips on the sides would be cropped out for people with TVs that have overscan, but has anyone experienced anything like this with the game?

T_Largo

It's funny you say it, because I've noticed it for years and have always wondered about it. I thought it was a problem with my cartridge for a long time.

Ah, good to hear confirmation that it's not just a problem with the VC emulation. So long as it's a flaw inherent in the original game, I've got no complaints.

  • 12 results
  • 1
  • 2