Well “allot” of people don’t like Mario, Zelda and think the FF game are dumb too.
Wait, what was wrong with Brute Force? I bought it used a few months after it came out, and had a lot of fun with it. Sure, it was no Halo, but it was a pretty solid squad-based shooter, and playing co-op (come and go on the fly!) made it even better. The last level sucked, but hey, it didn’t ruin the rest of the game.
It was an utterly generic 3rd person shooter, undistinctive in just about every way possible and overall uninspired. Offensively generic, if you will.
RickH- Yeah, and have you ever played an actual bad game? Uninspired is nothing compared to “buggy” “poorly implemented” and “stupid.”
That said, I only played like 3 or 4 levels of Brute Force before I got bored with it. Co-Op was fun.
Dave- Yeah, but the arcade factor means nothing in 2005. Just like it meant nothing in 1999.
It meant everything to why Dreamcast was cool. That’s all I was referring to. That’s one reason that 360 “is not Dreamcast”. Those arcade games were one of the main reasons I bought the Dreamcast and why that system will always be very special in the history of gaming. Those arcade ports were for the most part nearly perfect. It was one of the only times that happened in the history of videogames at home.
Anyway, I still stand by the comments that Microsoft’s internal studios are not on the level that Sega’s were when Dreamcast was a going concern and probably still aren’t today. Times have changed though and Sega doesn’t make the same kind of games anymore that they did back then for the most part. They’re chasing the ever elusive “casual” gamers now.
–Dave
Samba de Amigo 360, anyone? Come on, you KNOW you’d buy it. Customizable maracas!
More like Samba de Amigo Revolution where all you need are two standard controllers. :wink:
–Dave
I don’t think I’d argue this. Sega’s internal studios were the only reason they made it to the Dreamcast after the Saturn. What killed both was the lack of third party support, among other things (particularly in the case of the Saturn).
If we are going to talk about the potential for good games, I don’t know how you could guess that 360 wouldn’t put on a good showing in this regard. In comparison with the Dreamcast (potential vs. a past reality), I’d have to give it a huge nod, if only on the success of the Xbox alone.
If Sony has proven anything, it’s that 3rd party support is where its at if you want a healthy dose of good and great games. Internal studios are a great asset but, if you aren’t called Nintendo, good luck at making a go of it alone.
Oh, yeah. But not for long.
So they should get extra points just because the product worked? thats like, hey this movie isnt too bad, the disc plays no problem, and the lighting is decent enough to see the actors, not sure why you are complaining.
Competent, technically well made games can suck pretty badly. They are just bad games, not total messes.
Not to mention that games that don’t excel on the technical level can still be excellent games. Any game can be technically proficient if enough work is put in to it… not every game can be good.
Not to mention that games that don’t excel on the technical level can still be excellent games. Any game can be technically proficient if enough work is put in to it… not every game can be good.[/quote]
good point!
though I have to say, games that are good but have technical problems make me really sad, especialyl when they dont get fixed.