I got one of those Japanese import GameBoy Advances for a newspaper roundup I was lucky enough to land. So I brought it to E3 for the plane trip and I showed it to my roommate: noted "Canadian with a personality" Brett Todd.

He snorted and complained about the non-backlit screen and proceeded to wax poetic about the Sega Nomad system, a blocky handheld that plays Genesis carts.

I took back my GBA, turned the lights to 11 and played Mario sulkily. Mario on the GBA (as flawed as Mario 2 actually is) reignited a love I had for 16bit gaming and 2D platforming. I'm having a blast with the GBA launch titles (recommendations below, if you're interested).

Then, when I returned home, my orphaned and dusty Genesis games started calling to me.

"NHL 96... Buuub!"
"Sonic! SONIC! SOOONIC!"
"Golden Axe! Earthworm Jim! STREET FIGHTER 2!"
"Sid Meier's Pirates!"

I went to eBay and bought a Nomad. Pricey but it came with 10 games and the product is amazing. It sucks batteries like crazy (which is why it failed) but the screen is gorgeously backlit and I'm having a blast with Alien 3, Streetfighter 2, Sonic 2, Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine, Madden 98 and nothing beats Genesis era NHL for addictive gaming ... need I say more? I've got the system plugged in next to an overstuffed chair with an AC cord. Nice to not have to mess with a TV.

The GBA is great, batteries last a good 15-20 hours at least but the lack of a backlit screen REALLY hurts the system, especially when compared to the old Nomad and it's backlit screen. Plus, Genesis titles are cheap. I just went on an eBay streak and picked up:

Aladin, Populous, 688 Attack Sub, Desert Strike, Jungle Book, Amazing Tennis, Spider-Man, Flashback, Ms. Pac-Man, Bubsy (never played it, couldn't resist the name)...

** Does anyone have any other recommendations? **
Or Genesis games they want to sell?
[email protected]


Oh, if you're interested in the GBA titles:

Bad:
Iridion 3D - An awful space shooter
Ready 2 Rumble 2 - Terrible 2D movement, cheap
Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure - Same as the SNES
Pinobee - just uninspired

Good:
F-Zero- Fast
Mario- The original Mario Bros helps.
GT Advance- Brilliant racing, better than F-Zero
Earthworm Jim- It's Earthworm Jim!
Chu Chu Rocket- Same as Dreamcast, only portable
Tony Hawk 2- Amazingly deep for a handhelp
Castlevania- Well rendered
Best launch game thus far...

Rayman Advance- Perfect port, just enchanting


-Retro Andrew

GBA is actually 32-bit ;)
according to Nintendo's website, that is.

And Bub... if we ever get together somehow, we're going to have to have a little NHL tournament (any version... though 95 is probably best on Genesis)

If you're a fan of turn-based fantasy RPGs (oh yeah, there's loads of em heh), then there's no possible way you can overlook Shining Force 1&2. Both are classics. The Phantasy Star series is great, too.
Mutant League Hockey is good for a quick arcade-like hockey game... if I think of more good ones, I'll let you know.

Yes, Tom's right. GBA is 32bit. Most GBA games are ports of 16bit games though, which is what I meant. Also, Nintendo wants it called the AGB. Because they are inexperienced in the use of acronyms.

-Andrew

Yah those are some classics I think Phantasy star series was the first to incorporate multiple endings/paths through the games they were at least as good as final fantasy games for my money. And Shining force god I loved those though they were more of a tactical/rpg hybrid. Like vandal hearts for playstation. Man I miss some of those great games I think I'll go over to ebay and check some stuff out right now.

"Man I miss some of those great games I think I'll go over to ebay and check some stuff out right now"

Be careful!
Nostalgia and money don't mix well.

I probably should have mentioned... I'm not really interested in Genesis RPGs. I'm looking for good, replayable, action and strategy games I can play for, roughly, 15 minutes at a time or so.
Brilliant puzzle game suggestions are welcome as well.

-Andrew

AGB comes from the developer circle...something in the documentation or file system or something like that refers to the system that way. The Game Boy Color is CGB there. There's a similar acronym for the regular Game Boy.

I've got a Nomad, too. It rocks. The biggest problem, besides getting like two hours per set of 4 AAs (or is it 6? it's 6, right? I forget) is the price. I think it cost something like $250 at first.

It was too big to fit in a pocket or anything, too, but I personally never cared. The Lynx was big too, and it was cool.

Genesis games:

Pick up Shining in the Darkness. Also Shining Force 1 and 2. Darkness is a cool first-person stepwise dungeon crawl game. A neat RPG for that style. The Force series are awesome fantasy strategy RPGs. Just brilliant.

"AGB comes from the developer circle...something in the documentation or file system or something like that refers to the system that way."

Heh, probably. But it's Nintendo who is asking me to write AGB in my coverage now. I'm not doing it because I think readers will think of it as the GBA - because, well, that's how you acronym GAME. BOY. ADVANCE!

Yes, 6 batteries dead in less than 4 hours. It's heavy, cumbersome and not really portable at all. I use an AC cord and a comfy chair, this works for me because there's a dearth of free TVs hereabouts. They made a great rechargable bat pack for it too, I hear that gets 6-8 hours.

It did retail for $299 I think, which is just nuts.... ToysRUs fire saled it about two years back for $25! Wish I'd grabbed it then. You can pick it up at eBay for $75-150, a few games typically included.

For me it's a great system because you can nab games for less than $10 on the average and those games are at least GBA quality, plus... backlit screen and 6 comfy buttons (for fighting games) I'm not much for shoulder buttons myself. Man, if only it had a SNES adaptor....

-Andrew

Ugh, all this talk about Genesis games makes me want to go down to my sister's place and get mine back... maybe I'll pick up a Nomad.

Or, just download the PC Genesis emulator and the ROMs for free.

As for portability, laptops are pretty cheap nowadays-- $999 will get you a surprisingly competent one.

"Or, just download the PC Genesis emulator and the ROMs for free."

Sigh. Again, no soul.
The games are secondary! It's owning the thing, collecting the boxes and smelling the manuals (as Romero puts it) that matter. You just can't emulate that. I only have MAME because my house is too small to collect actual coin-ops.

;-)

-Andrew

Exactly. I have a bunch of Genesis, NES, and SNES roms on my computer... but alas, it's nothing compared to actually playing the games on the console.

Something about most of the emulators just don't "feel" quite right, too. Slight speed inconsistancies, slight off sound, stuff like that. Some games are better than others. Plus, then you gotta get a gamepad for your laptop or whatever and re-map the buttons and all that crap. I like emulators, I've messed around with the Genesis one a LOT, but it's not quite the same somehow.

As for the Nomad--well, it's a handheld but as Bub says, not really "portable." Nothing with battery life that crappy is honestly a "use on the go" thing. Plugging it into a wall might work for some (that's what I did with it, mostly), but it's just not something you can put on the market.

My Nomad is off in Ft. Lauderdale back at my parent's house right now, in a box.

More Genesis games you must own:

Herzog Zwei (if you can find it, a TRUE collector's item! And one of the 5-10 greatest games ever made for any system)
Revenge of Shinobi 3 (beautiful control)
Phantasy Star 4 (they even went out of their way to tie up all the loose ends generated by bad, inconsistent translations in the first 3!)
Toejam & Earl

The Nomad has the same controller layout as the original Genesis 6-button pad. It's the greatest D-pad I've ever used on any system to this date.

Another thing is that I have full-size sticks for my Genesis and 8-bit Nintendo. Those beat the pants off any emulator running through PC controls.

For his birthday a couple years ago, I bought my brother a first-generation Atari 2600 (with the big aluminum shield) and pile of games. At the risk of sounding like a Coke commercial, nothing beats the real thing.

I'm pretty sure Sega isn't going to stop their GBA line with Sonic and Chu-chu rocket (neko wa kawai!). Sega can snap their fingers and basically become the biggest GBA software publisher. They could put out 20 classic 16-bit titles a year if they wanted to, easy.

My guess is that's exactly what they'll do. Through end of the fiscal year (march) they'll concentrate on getting their tools on the other systems and getting some hits ported for experience. There will be a few original titles on new platforms (Panzer and JSRF for Xbox mainly) but mostly ports, arcade conversions, and new titles for Dreamcast. They predict sales of 12.7 million pieces of software.

Next fiscal year, you'll see original titles on all the new systems, and I bet the GBA installed base will get to a point where they'll port over half a dozen games or more. They're predicting sales of, get this, 23 million units of software between March 2002 and March '03.

It's just too bad that some of the great Genesis games aren't Sega titles. Does Sega have the rights to those Technosoft games?

I'm sure Sega could get the rights to just about anything that appeared on the Genesis at one time or another. We're more likely to see the Sega published titles on the GBA though. Stuff like what's in the first Dreamcast Smash Pack are probably your best bets.

But I don't know...isn't the Sonic game an all new game for GBA? They might just think it's better to create all new content rather than rehash the old. I think in light of how many games for GBA ARE simply rehashes of old titles, it would be better if publishers focused on creating all new content. Otherwise the system ends up not having its own identity.

--Dave

"Another thing is that I have full-size sticks for my Genesis and 8-bit Nintendo. Those beat the pants off any emulator running through PC controls."

Well, you can get USB arcade sticks or PS1/2-to-USB adapters (what I use).

I dunno, I'm just not all that sentimental about the old systems I owned back in the day. They were fun, but I'd rather spend money on new hardware and enjoy the old stuff through emulation on a laptop.

If I did buy an arcade cabinet, I'd turn it into a mame station-- lots of people do that. It's like 1,000 arcade games in one!

http://www.arcadeathome.com/pics.phtml

Personally, I'd rather own the old systems and buy the games when they're new/in the bargain bins. I used to trade in a lot of games and now I wish I never had started. I'm missing a lot of games in my collection that I once owned and even a system or two I was proud to have (I had TWO Neo Geo cartridge systems at different times).

It's not sentimentality, it's history. Gamers like to make it sound like you only need the new games, that the past is a waste of their time... That's garbage. Games are more timeless than most entertainment mediums because great gameplay never grows old. Playing emulated versions can never compare and is often a hollow shell of what the original game was. Genesis, Nintendo...part of the appeal was the controllers for them, the instant cartridge power up, etc.

Beyond that, it's still illegal to own ROMs no matter how you spin it. Keep telling yourself you're preserving history. The real truth is that the only preservation comes in owning the original game cartridge or arcade hardware.

--Dave

Well, you're either a pack rat, or you're not. It's a personality thing.

My rule of thumb is this-- if I haven't actively used something in the last year, I'm probably never going to use it, and it needs to be sold or given away.

As you can see, I'm not a pack rat. I know plenty of people who are, though. My wife is sort of a reformed pack rat.

"Games are more timeless than most entertainment mediums because great gameplay never grows old."

Wait a second. This isn't even remotely true. Everyone here who here would like to play some vanilla deathmatch in DOOM, please raise your hand!

And to use a specific example-- we celebrated Total Annihilation and Starcraft in the RTS genre because they changed the gameplay formula. Not because they played the same as Warcraft or C&C before them. If tank rushing is timeless, then count me right the hell out of that.

So yes, I do think it's nostalgia and sentimentality. We absolutely do not want to play the same games we played in 1992 or 1985. What's the point? There has to be some kind of evolution; things have to keep moving forward.

Now, not that we can't LEARN from past games and combine and/or modify those approaches in new games. But clearly old games have been leapfrogged by new ones. Would you rather play Quake 1 than Half-Life?

wumpus

*bashes Nomad and GBA into little bits with his original 1991 Atari Lynx*

Lynx wasn't any better, but I'm thinking of dragging it around with me and simply using it as a big bad club on any GBA I see. What fun! :)

"Wait a second. This isn't even remotely true. Everyone here who here would like to play some vanilla deathmatch in DOOM, please raise your hand!"

But Doom is still a great game, don't fault it simply because technology marches on. Shooters aren't good examples for this though, because by their nature they simulate something. The goal is realism. So a future product is always going to be "better".

"Remotely True" examples are games like (and some of these are sequels):

Ms. Pac Man
Galaga
Robotron 2084

Most 2D Platform Games (I'd argue the 3D versions are not "improvements") - Rayman, Mario, Sonic, etc.,

Space shooters like Defender, Asteroids and Tempest... we've seen updates and we weren't impressed.

Wizardry 1 is still very addictive (really).

Wargames. Particularly those based on tried and true hardcore board wargames.

2D fighters like Street Fighter 2 on up are still timeless in terms of sheer gameplay.

But the best example of an unimprovable design is, of course, Tetris. That like Ms. Pac Man (I'd argue) is simply a perfect game.

But of course shooters, simulations, RPGs and racing games have built in disadvantages when compared to their modern counterparts.

-Andrew
PS: Don't fault the GBA too harshly. It's fantastic (perfect if not for the lighting issue) and there are some amazing games available for it at a great price. This economy needs successful gaming platforms, in whatever guise they come in.

Andrew: What GBA games do you think are the best (launch titles)? I'm trying to justify a new toy, and I need more than Super Mario Advance I think.

"Space shooters like Defender, Asteroids and Tempest... we've seen updates and we weren't impressed."

Just to be contrary, Tempest 2000 on the Jaguar kicked Tempest's ass.

Hey John,
Skim the first message in this thread. Actually, I just cut n' paste it for you:

Bad:
Iridion 3D - An awful space shooter
Ready 2 Rumble 2 - Terrible 2D movement, cheap
Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure - Same as the SNES
Pinobee - just uninspired

Good:
F-Zero- Fast
Mario- The original Mario Bros helps.
GT Advance- Brilliant racing, better than F-Zero (but it lacks a battery save, which kinda sucks)
Earthworm Jim- It's Earthworm Jim!
Chu Chu Rocket- Same as Dreamcast, only portable
Tony Hawk 2- Amazingly deep for a handheld
Castlevania- Well rendered
Rayman Advance- Perfect

Let me add:
NAMCO Museum - Ms. Pac Man, Galaga, Pole Position, Dig Dug and Galaxian... sort of a no-brainer for me (in more ways than one).

I'm hearing good things about Dodge Ball and Fire Pro Wrestling, but haven't received them quite yet.

You'll need a light. I don't recommend the "Lightboy"... try the worm or shark light instead.

Cheers John,
-Andrew

---

Quote:

Wait a second. This isn't even remotely true. Everyone here who here would like to play some vanilla deathmatch in DOOM, please raise your hand!

---

Thanks Andrew ... of course, I didn't pre-order one, and I don't think I can get one immediately. Dammit. Someone's gonna pay.

The real Slim Wumpus writes:

---

Quote:

Wait a second. This isn't even remotely true. Everyone here who here would like to play some vanilla deathmatch in DOOM, please raise your hand!

---

>"Beyond that, it's still illegal to own ROMs no matter how you spin it."<

Well, Nintendo says it is illegal to own ROMs, period (there I go, pronouncing the punctuation again), but that's just their way of spinning it. As far as I know, no court has ever made a legal finding to that effect.

Brad Grenz

I got on a retrogaming kick about, oh, 18 months ago. I had every emulator to play the old carts I didn't have anymore, I plugged in my SNES again, I downloaded emulators for the C64 and Apple II...

I noticed that with easily 99% of the games, once the 15-20 minutes of 'oOO this was the BEST game!' wore off, they just weren't as good as my memory of them. In fact, many of them just weren't much fun at all (regardless of technology). They required a rediculous number of keys, or had really REALLY hokey writing, or the control was clunky, or whatever.

Technology aside, I agree with Denny (Atkin) who said that we always say the old days used to be better because new games are competing with our MEMORIES of them. His exact words were "I don't want to play those games, I want to play the games I REMEMBER them being." Too true, too true.

There are a handful of exceptions, sure. Final Fantasy 6 is still fantastic and amazing. Oddly enough, Autoduel is still rather fun to play. But SO MANY of the "great old classics" I just knew would be a blast were a major letdown.

Gameplay HAS improved along with technology. It took me a month of retrogaming to convince myself of that.

And perhaps that's what said it best--sure some of the old games are still great. But if I can compress ten or fifteen years of my favorite hobby down to about a month...

"I noticed that with easily 99% of the games, once the 15-20 minutes of 'oOO this was the BEST game!' wore off, they just weren't as good as my memory of them."

Yes!

"Gameplay HAS improved along with technology. It took me a month of retrogaming to convince myself of that."

Absolutely.

I fiddled with a Gameboy Advance at Best Buy today. Some sorta Super Mario type game. While it was all well and good, why not just break out your old NES and play pretty much the same thing on a portable TV? :)
They weren't demoing anything else alas. The color was nice but I had a hard time seeing it under the fluorescents there.

"Or, just download the PC Genesis emulator and the ROMs for free. "

I have coworkers that actually use laptops as portable console players. Ive seen them even play PSX games like FF Tactics and FF7 while at work... though id rather be playing games like HoMM4 and Might and Magic 8.

etc

---

Quote:

I got on a retrogaming kick about, oh, 18 months ago. I had every emulator to play the old carts I didn't have anymore, I plugged in my SNES again, I downloaded emulators for the C64 and Apple II...

---

J. Cross: "I noticed that with easily 99% of the games, once the 15-20 minutes of 'oOO this was the BEST game!' wore off, they just weren't as good as my memory of them."

B. Geryk: Yes!

J. Cross: "Gameplay HAS improved along with technology. It took me a month of retrogaming to convince myself of that."

B. Geryk: Absolutely.

A. Bub: Notice that I keep talking about arcade games when I site examples of unimproved gameplay styles. Street Fighter really never advanced much past 2. They add new characters, a silly RPG mode, new moves, but the core of SF2 and that balance remains playable today.

Same with Ms. Pac Man, Galaga and Tetris. And, same with 2D platform games like Mario, Sonic and Rayman. 3D versions of same aren't really advancements of 2D platformers. The gameplay is too different. That'd be like calling Wolfenstein 3D a true gameplay sequel to Beyond Castle Wolfenstein, which it clearly is not.

You can't really improve Chess, or Solitaire... because new tech doesn't make any real meaningful difference (save perhaps to AI).

But I agree when you're talking about shooters, some strategy games, sims and RPGs. Those are genres that improve in just about every conceivable way when new technology comes about.

I logged more hours with MAME Ms. Pac Man and Tetris over the last three years than I have with anything but... maybe... Civ2.

-Andrew

I got my GBA today. Unfortunately 90% of the titles are retros -- some of which are okay, or have been rehashed or have improvements of some sort or another. Others (like Pitfall 2) are just crap.

The other problem is lack of real backlighting on the screen -- jeez what was Nintendo thinking? It's hard as hell to see the nice colors when you have to move the GBA around just to catch the light just right.

--- Alan

Yep Alan, absolutely right.

btw, Almost all the launch titles are ports
except for:

Castlevania - great
Pinobee - mediocre
Iridion 3D - bad
Super Dodge Ball - good
Firepro Wrestling - good, if you're into that
Krazy Racers - good
GT Advance - great

Oh, Videogamespot really dropped the ball on Ready to Rumble 2. It might as well be a new game (it's so unlike the DC game) but plays as shallowly as you'd expect from a GBC game. On a system with the amazingly deep Tony Hawk 2 port, it's frankly amazing.

Lighting is a huge problem, but battery life is a huge boon. The real problem with the lighting is that neither major light peripheral really solves the problem.

Pity, otherwise it's an amazing little handheld and if the launch titles look this good, imagine five years down the road.
-Andrew

Man, I really don't want to buy a GBA. But I have a big weakness for Tony Hawk, which is IMO simply one of the best games ever made, for any platform. I've watched the gameplay movies of the GBA TH which looked amazing (polygonal skaters on an isometric background), and hearing people talk about it makes me want it even more. The other titles, with the possible exception of the realistic racing game, don't do anything for me.

And can we please bury 2D platform games? I've never liked a platformer in my life. Couldn't stand Mario back in the day, still can't stand that little knuckleheaded sprite today.

Also.. is it just my ignorance, or is there not a single fighting game for the GBA yet? That is so odd for a console of any kind.

"The other problem is lack of real backlighting on the screen -- jeez what was Nintendo thinking? It's hard as hell to see the nice colors when you have to move the GBA around just to catch the light just right."

Backlighting kills batteries in no time flat, though. Unfortunately it's just not an option for a consumer handheld, unless you want maybe 2 hours of battery life.

"I'm not asking for the latest and greatest graphics and technology however. Just a playable game on today's systems without any user intervention would be nice."

It would be nice, but it ends up being a total rewrite from a programming perspective. Quite a bit of effort to take a DOS title to Windows for example.. and they'd probably have to re-do the game assets completely: art, sounds, and everything.

But I think it still makes sense in certain cases.. Mark Asher makes a compelling case for X-Com. Even if it cost the developer $200k-$300k to do a basic windows port, wouldn't the game earn that much on its name alone? Especially if it was a decent update with modern 16-bit 2D graphics?

"I logged more hours with MAME Ms. Pac Man and Tetris over the last three years than I have with anything but... maybe... Civ2."

Puzzle games are a different category altogether. I think Ms. Pac Man is _almost_ a puzzle game, which is why you're lumping these together.

As for fighting games, they have evolved plenty. Not enough, IMO, but notably since 1992. Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Samurai Shodown..

wumpus

"Have you played DOOM lately? The game is fucking genius. I can still sit down with it for hours at a time. If I had a local friend with a modem, I'd be calling him up for some deathmatch."

Just fire up a copy of Serious Sam. Same game, better multiplayer technology.

"I was playing Diablo this weekend too. That's Diablo 1."

Isn't using Diablo I as an example sort of.. well, insane? Is there something inherently wonderful about Diablo I that the sequel can't capture? Because near as I can tell, they're practically the same game. D2 adds a lot of creature comforts (read: gameplay enhancements) that I would sorely miss in D1. Why go backwards? What's the point?

"Just because new games have added or subtracted or created new variations on old themes doesn't make them better than the originals or diminish the fun to be had with an old game. People still play the Command and Conquer games like mad because they enjoy the gameplay style."

Which brings us to the latest Dune game. Shame on you for encouraging the celebration of sameness that permeates every westwood game. It's like they're not even trying any more. "Hey, if we pump out the same game every year in a shiny new wrapper-- nobody will notice, and people keep buying!" Yep, it's like owning a money printing press, folks.

"Only the hardcore are constantly crying out "Innovation!", "Totally new experiences!" and they're the same ones that trash the past. I like to extend my middle finger to this mentality daily. :)"

I'm not so much trashing the past; I'm just realizing I don't want to spend any more time there than I need to. We can and should do better. I don't expect every new game to be a brilliant reinvention of the genre.. I just want to know that developers are at least TRYING something different (eg, Kohan) rather than going back to the well over and over (eg, Westwood, and to a lesser extent, Blizzard).

wumpus

"I've watched the gameplay movies of the GBA TH which looked amazing (polygonal skaters on an isometric background)"

It is as good as it looks, but really... the PC, DC, whatever versions are a lot better. So, unless you must have every version imaginable don't buy a GBA just for Tony Hawk. Still, kudos to Activision & Neversoft for not screwing people on this one. They could have. It would have sold anyway. Instead they made a game that puts most GBA titles to shame in terms of depth.

"And can we please bury 2D platform games? I've never liked a platformer in my life. Couldn't stand Mario back in the day, still can't stand that little knuckleheaded sprite today."

No, we can't. I like them too much. Especially the Mario stuff. Sounds like a personal preference there, my point still stands though, don't you think? Are the new-fangled 3D versions that much better? As good as Rayman 2: The Great Escape is, and it is good, Rayman the 2D game was it's equal I'd argue.

"Also.. is it just my ignorance, or is there not a single fighting game for the GBA yet? That is so odd for a console of any kind."

Ready to Rumble 2 is a lauch title. A really bad launch title... but still. Street Fighter arrives in a month or so.

"Puzzle games are a different category altogether. I think Ms. Pac Man is _almost_ a puzzle game, which is why you're lumping these together."

Yeah, sort of. Mainly I'm lumping them together because I don't think they can be improved, gameplay-wise. Sure, you can add 3D, explosions, whatever, but the gameplay is still well balanced and re-playable.

"As for fighting games, they have evolved plenty. Not enough, IMO, but notably since 1992. Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Samurai Shodown..."

Yes, but the Street Fighter 2D style hasn't evolved at all. They nailed it right the first... er... second time and the game remains extremely playable as a result. Mock Capcom for the endless releases all you like but they sell because they're good.

3D fighter I'd argue are really a seperate fighting genre unto themselves.

-Andrew

"Isn't using Diablo I as an example sort of.. well, insane? Is there something inherently wonderful about Diablo I that the sequel can't capture? Because near as I can tell, they're practically the same game. D2 adds a lot of creature comforts (read: gameplay enhancements) that I would sorely miss in D1. Why go backwards? What's the point? "

I play Diablo 1 more than Diablo 2, just because it's a mindless game. Diablo 2 went beyond just regular hack 'n' slash with all the class-specific skills. If you build your character improperly in Diablo 2, you're screwed--you'll have to spend a buttload of time leveling you that you can get the skills you need to finish the game. Diablo 1 didn't have that problem. Diablo 1 also had character. There's no one really memorable in Diablo 2... but Diablo had the Butcher, King Leoric, etc.
Diablo 1 is ten times the game the sequel is.

They're coming out with Street Fighter II X or somesuch later this year, supposed to be pretty good. And I guess there's Ready to Rumble II.

I stopped by Best Buy to pick up Castlevania and of course they only thing they had was accessories. Sheesh.

--- Alan

"Are the new-fangled 3D versions that much better? As good as Rayman 2: The Great Escape is, and it is good, Rayman the 2D game was it's equal I'd argue."

Mario 64 was an order of magnitude better than any 2D Mario prior to it. It was (and is) a seminal, revolutionary game.

>>Mario 64 was an order of magnitude better than any 2D Mario prior to it. It was (and is) a seminal, revolutionary game.

I've never understood this sentiment. Yeah, it's revolutionary... if you'd never played a 3D game before, of which there were many. Or if you've never seen 2D represented in 3D. Big whoop.

Oh right, they weren't from Nintendo.

Mario 64. Most. Overrated. Game. Ever. Fun, yes. Revolutionary? Please. DOOM was revolutionary. Quake was revolutionary. Mario was ungodly fun but as revolutionary as Myst, that is to say it wasn't revolutionary but merely took the ideas of others and did it better, or struck a chord with people.

Mario 64 was revolutionary and it was seminal. It was the first of it's kind, really, wasn't it? 3D platformer?

Anonymous? Doom and Quake were merely warmed over Wolfenstein 3D (which was similar to Ultima Underworld, which really just expanded on the 3D movement concept pioneered by Wizardry...). Myst was revolutionary, in bad ways mostly.

I disagree with "No Soul" Atwood though, I've never met a 3D version of a 2D game I truly liked. I much prefer the Mario 2D games and I'm sad to see Oddworld become 3D.

-Andrew

Okay, so DOOM and Quake were warmed over Wolfenstein, with roots in other genres... that made a big leap to 3D. So what's so special about a platform game going to 3D versus an RPG going to 3D versus an action game going to 3D? It's just taking an established genre and putting it in a new perspective, which I think is hardly radical or revolutionary. The technical aspects of 3D may be, but those were in place well before Mario. The paradigms of Mario were the same as its 2D cousins, and were established in the true "seminal" works of the genre.

When we have holographic gaming, where it's like a Star Trek holodeck, the first of those games will be revolutionary. The first Mario in that form will be a great game no doubt, but hardly revolutionary.

Sigh. He doesn't like Mario. Andrew, you're right: no soul.

---

Quote:

Doom and Quake were merely warmed over Wolfenstein 3D (which was similar to Ultima Underworld, which really just expanded on the 3D movement concept pioneered by Wizardry...).

---

Ok, so all we've proven here is that each of us can come up with a different definition of "revolutionary".

Just like Tom Chick doesn't think "gardening" is mainstream, some of these definitions appear flexible.

Wasn't there a point going on before this revolution kick?

-Andrew

>why not just break out your old NES and play pretty much the same thing on a portable TV?

Well, I'd need some sort of battery hookup dealie for the NES and a portable TV that runs on batteries, and it would all have to fit in my pocket. Somehow I don't think that setup would get 20 hours of life from a pair of AA batteries. =)

Mario 64 was revolutionary in that it set the precedent for how platform games should work in a 3D environment. And virtually all the 3D platfrom games have copied that overall feel. They have different mechanics, but the foundation is the same.

I don't think it was an order of magnitude over Super Mario World, though. SMW rocked. I wish they'd make that for the GBA. =( Mario 64 is great, but yes, it IS overrated (it's not obviously and clearly the greatest game ever for all who behold it, which is what it's so often billed as).

Quake's gameplay wasn't revolutionary--it made the technical leap of moving the skewed 2D up/down view from Hexen and moved it to real 3D, but the actual gameplay was an evolution from Wolf 3D. Quake WAS revolutionary, though. It was the network stuff. Internet play. BOOM.

Saying that Ultima Underworld was just an evolution of the stepwise 3D crap from Wizardry and Might and Magic and stuff is BLASPHEMOUS. Underworld was totally revolutionary--actual mouse movement combat, actual physics on arrow flight and thrown stones and stuff (and puzzles which used 'em), a runic spell building system, and the ability to solve a lot of problems System Shock style (lots of solutions to the same problem). It moved RPGs in a completely new direction, and has not yet quite been equaled.

Two pair, Jason. Two pair isn't it? (At least, all the past GBs have taken 2 pair.)

"Saying that Ultima Underworld was just an evolution of the stepwise 3D crap from Wizardry and Might and Magic and stuff is BLASPHEMOUS."

Blasphemous? Really? Well, good thing I said "expanded on the concept" then! The first time I played Wolfenstein I thought of UUnderworld. The first time I played UUnderworld I though of Eye of the Beholder. The first time I played Eye of the Beholder I thought of Ultima's Dunegons (4 and 5 to be exact), the first time I played Ultima 4& 5 I thought of The Bard's Tale. The first time I played The Bard's Tale I thought of Wizardry. The first time I played Wizardy I thought of D&D.

Therefore Quake III is merely an evolution of D&D.

;-)
-Andrew

Murph said: Two pair, Jason. Two pair isn't it? (At least, all the past GBs have taken 2 pair.)

No Gameboy since the orginal white brick version has taken 4 batteries.

Gameboy Pocket used 2 AAA.
Gameboy Color used 2 AA.
Gameboy Advance uses 2 AA.

"I disagree with "No Soul" Atwood though, I've never met a 3D version of a 2D game I truly liked. I much prefer the Mario 2D games and I'm sad to see Oddworld become 3D."

You are a sick, sick man.

"Top that off with the first true-3D FPS gameplay where you were a 3D object in 3D space fighting 3D monsters with 3D guns. You could mouselook anywhere, rocket jump, etc., etc."

Naw, that was Terminator: Future Shock (this game introduced me to WASD and mouselook), and Ultima Underworld respectively.

"I don't think it was an order of magnitude over Super Mario World, though. SMW rocked. I wish they'd make that for the GBA. =( Mario 64 is great, but yes, it IS overrated (it's not obviously and clearly the greatest game ever for all who behold it, which is what it's so often billed as)."

It really was, and ever-so-ironically, for all the same reasons you list Ultima Underworld as a significant jump over its 2D contemporaries. Physics, for one thing. The interaction with the world was sooo much more interesting and satisfying than a bunch of stale, scrolling 2D sprites. Blah.

Okay, I'm off to go buy Blue Shift, which is out today though Mark neglected to include that in his list. For shame!

"Isn't using Diablo I as an example sort of.. well, insane? Is there something inherently wonderful about Diablo I that the sequel can't capture? Because near as I can tell, they're practically the same game."

Actually, there IS something inherently wonderful about Diablo I. Because I loved that game to death, but I totally can't get into the sequel. I think that all the "improvements" that Blizzard made actually detracted from the experience. Mostly they added a lot more stuff, but the thing I liked most about Diablo was its simplicity. Diablo II lacks that, and for me it's a lot less fun to play.

---

Quote:

No Gameboy since the orginal white brick version has taken 4 batteries.

---

Sones is right, but for me Diablo 1 was "better" because it was focussed and creepier. Those dungeons and that depressed town fit the classic "Keep on the Borderlands" D&D concept of a town and dungeon adventure.

Having a single dungeon, without endless miles of wilderness to hack through, made for a more riveting tale (imo).

Also, I miss those Rhino Demons. Those were very cool.

-Andrew

"Also, I miss those Rhino Demons. Those were very cool."

First time one of those charged me I was like, "Holy Shit!"

I loved Diablo because it came out of the blue, sort of. Yeah, it was heavily promoted, but we didn't really know what to expect. Even if you want to compare it to Angband and those types of games, it was still light years ahead of them on graphics, sound, and mood.

Diablo II was a lot like Diablo, so there wasn't really anything surprising in it. It just didn't have the same emotional impact.

---

Quote:

Isn't using Diablo I as an example sort of.. well, insane? Is there something inherently wonderful about Diablo I that the sequel can't capture? Because near as I can tell, they're practically the same game. D2 adds a lot of creature comforts (read: gameplay enhancements) that I would sorely miss in D1. Why go backwards? What's the point?

---

You just love technical innovation and aren't really enjoying the rest of
the design. Am I right?

Why don't you go ahead and psychoanalyze the rest of us while you're at it. Talk about elitist bull-shit. No offense, but that is a load of crap. (And you weren't even talking to me)

So people have different opinions. Does that make one of them wrong? Gaming likes/dislikes are almost completely subjective, and I don't see that changing.

One question though. Is Pong the best electronic game ever? Sure, we've added millions of features and pretty pictures. But it's all the same right?

Flame away. :)

Well, Virtua Tennis is basically just a souped-up version of Pong...

---

Quote:

Why don't you go ahead and psychoanalyze the rest of us while you're at it. Talk about elitist bull-shit. No offense, but that is a load of crap. (And you weren't even talking to me)

---

>It really was, and ever-so-ironically, for all the same reasons you list Ultima Underworld as a significant jump over its 2D contemporaries. Physics, for one thing. The interaction with the world was sooo much more interesting and satisfying than a bunch of stale, scrolling 2D sprites. Blah.

Yeah, but if Mario64 had physical interactions with the world years after games like Underworld did, it's hardly revolutionary.

I think it was revolutionary because the way the puzzles and challenges were set up were unique to 3D platformers, and were mimicked in every 3D platformer since. And I think it was a great game. But it was billed as the greatest game anyone had ever made, bar none, and I don't think that's true. Maybe it's *A PERSON'S* favorite, but some of the press and fans of that game act like you don't know squat about games if Mario64 isn't far and away your favorite game of all time. Well I'm sorry, I *DO* know my games, and it's not.

I think nobody in their right mind could honestly put a few hours into it and not tell that it's a great game. Even if it's not your style (Bob Mayer, for instance, would hate it).

re: Dave's comments - I don't think he meants to psychoanalyze anyone. Or if he does, hey Dave, fuck you. =) But seriously, he brings up a good point. Technological progress is sometimes actual innovation (Quake's multiplayer) but oftentimes it's just a new way of showing an old thing. Whatever the first fully 3D game was (future shock or descent, I'm not sure) doesn't make it innovative. It just makes it the first game to replace the sprite enemies in Underworld, Wolfenstein, etc. with 3D objects. But the game's the same.

Mario was innovative not because it moved from 2D to 3D. It was because it found the way to take a gameplay formula from the 2D world and CHANGE it for 3D, making it something wholly different but still recognizable and familiar as a platform game.

So ... who's got a Gameboy Advance? Walmart.com is selling a system, a wormlight, and Mario for $129.

Just thought you guys might enjoy this if you haven't seen it yet:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-06-13

That PA is RIGHT ON.

You need to buy a light. I got a worm light, the annoying bit is that you see a perfect reflection of the thing in the face of your GBA. Once you get into your game you zone it out, but still--I want a light that snaps over the screen to provide a less-glaring cover and has little lights on the left and right sides. Every light I've seen so far seems to perch up above the screen on some sort of post and shine down on it.

I've played about 2 hours of Castlevania, and it TOTALLY RULES. Rayman is excellent as well. But man, that Castlevania game...it's not just great "for a launch title."