Aruarian Reflection
Chauffeur de la gdlk
mrklaw said:
I agree, I never played Conker on N64 either. That's why I don't particularly care if the multiplayer's bad, I just want a graphically enhanced single player campaign
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Conker IGN review (oh #*&$)
- Thread starter Redbeard
- Start date
I agree, I never played Conker on N64 either. That's why I don't particularly care if the multiplayer's bad, I just want a graphically enhanced single player campaign
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Jesus Christ, it's a remake too, everything's already there, they just had to improve. Seriously, there's no way a game like this shouldn't be above a 9 (Atleast from IGN!) with all of this time spent....Smiles and Cries said:
the year 20XX
Member
Dead or Alive 2: ported, ported, and remade, all in the same gen
If the multi player is as bad as IGN says then i am starting to really question if MS's purchase of Rare wasn't such a great decision after all. The mp aspect of the game is the first yard stick we've really had (imo) to judge if Rare still had the chops to create AAA quality games. And when you consider how long it took them to make the game, there is no excuse for the mp being anything but exceptional.
This score also makes me nervous about how well PD0 will turn out. MS has alot riding on that game, and since it is being pushed as the number 1 reason to buy a 360, If it turns out to be just a decent game, then the 360 is gonna have a tough time convincing people that they shouldn't just wait for the PS3.
And as i said above when you consider the amount of time Conker has been in developement for the Xbox along with the amount of money MS paid for Rare i think us fans, as well as MS expected alot better game. That is, of course, provided that IGN's review is the rule and not the exception.
This score also makes me nervous about how well PD0 will turn out. MS has alot riding on that game, and since it is being pushed as the number 1 reason to buy a 360, If it turns out to be just a decent game, then the 360 is gonna have a tough time convincing people that they shouldn't just wait for the PS3.
And as i said above when you consider the amount of time Conker has been in developement for the Xbox along with the amount of money MS paid for Rare i think us fans, as well as MS expected alot better game. That is, of course, provided that IGN's review is the rule and not the exception.
Go Go Ackman!
Banned
Numerical reviews are useless.
They could've given this shitpile a 10 and it would still be a peice of crap
They could've given this shitpile a 10 and it would still be a peice of crap
ZombieSupaStar
Member
well I dont even consider conker as a "omg multiplayer" game
having owned and briefly played the n64 version I liked what I saw (I only got to the great mighty poo in that version) so the single player which from the review sounds to be a 9 game is what im looking forward to.
I mean between WoW and BF2 this summer...console multiplayer games? LAFF!
having owned and briefly played the n64 version I liked what I saw (I only got to the great mighty poo in that version) so the single player which from the review sounds to be a 9 game is what im looking forward to.
I mean between WoW and BF2 this summer...console multiplayer games? LAFF!
Bartman3010
Banned
I'm on board for the $19.99 price drop myself.
ToyMachine228
Member
mrklaw said:
Let's see, it was when Star Fox Adventures was released, so if I remember correctly, it was...September 2002?
Red Scarlet
Member
It was only called (Super) Castlevania IV in the US (and Europe if it came out there). In Japan it had the same title as the first game on the Famicom/NES (Akumajou Dracula), with no subtitle. It was a remake of the first game. I only found out a couple of months ago.
I don't see how Castlevania 4 is a remake other than having the same basic storyline....in which case Doom 3 and probably half the Zelda games are all remakes.
So does that mean that Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) and Shinobi (PS2) are also remakes? Hell, does that mean that Ninja Gaiden (NES) is a remake of Ninja Gaiden (Arcade)? To say that a radically different game with the same title is a "remake" is getting into silly territory.
Red Scarlet
Member
I'm just saying what I've been told about it, after being reminded by other posters that know the same thing.
Bringing up other titles to use as a counter example is sillier, border.
Bringing up other titles to use as a counter example is sillier, border.
Red Scarlet said:
Not really, seeing that Border's got a point, and you actually don't. No offense.
Hell, was Castlevania for the N64 a remake of the original? As that featured the same name, and I even think it had an 80s copyright on the title screen! Hey, it must be MORE of a remake, since it was just called Castlevania, with no "Super" or "64" added to it...
Border only had a point about DOOM 3 and I have allready explained the differences when explaining to efralope. No need to repeat the shit and derail the conker thread with off topic info.
And as far as I am concerned, remake does not necessary mean rehash. Big difference. Maybe there is where the confusion originates from.
And as far as I am concerned, remake does not necessary mean rehash. Big difference. Maybe there is where the confusion originates from.
You said "a lot is redone or different"....but nothing is really redone, it's all completely different with similar premises.Shompola said:
What constitutes CV4 as a "remake"? It has ta similar story and the same title, but there's dozens of examples of games in a similar position (same story, same title, totally different game) that aren't commonly regarded remakes. A remake doesn't have to be an exact duplicate with better graphics, but for an action game I'd say it should be at least replicate it to some extent beyond the artwork and story. When all the stages are completely different you are now either talking about a sequel or sidestory or something.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Super CV4 is a remake in the same sense that movies (War of the worlds, king kong) are remakes. Stuff like Conker or Metal Gear Twin Snakes where the gameplay is pretty much the same, are more like updated ports. I wouldn't put them in the same category though.
Red Scarlet
Member
I do have a point, as well as the other posters that first stated it was. Read up on it and see. I didn't believe it was either.
From the Castlevania Dungeon:
There's also some confusion about the games featuring Simon Belmont. For all intents of purpose, the MSX Vampire Killer, NES Castlevania, SNES Super Castlevania IV, arcade Haunted Castle and X68000/PSX Castlevania Chronicles are just different versions of the same story. They also all have the same name in Japan (simply Akumajou Dracula.) Therefore, they are counted as one. The only real difference between any of them is that Haunted Castle has the unnamed main character fighting to save his newly-wed wife (called Selena on a Japanese fansite, though who knows how canon that is) from Dracula. Similarly, both the PC Engine and SNES Dracula X are considered the same game.
I'm trying to ask the guy that told me to begin with where he got his info.
From the Castlevania Dungeon:
There's also some confusion about the games featuring Simon Belmont. For all intents of purpose, the MSX Vampire Killer, NES Castlevania, SNES Super Castlevania IV, arcade Haunted Castle and X68000/PSX Castlevania Chronicles are just different versions of the same story. They also all have the same name in Japan (simply Akumajou Dracula.) Therefore, they are counted as one. The only real difference between any of them is that Haunted Castle has the unnamed main character fighting to save his newly-wed wife (called Selena on a Japanese fansite, though who knows how canon that is) from Dracula. Similarly, both the PC Engine and SNES Dracula X are considered the same game.
I'm trying to ask the guy that told me to begin with where he got his info.
Except that games like those were and are constantly referred to as remakes. Hell, people even did a like play on words with Resident Evil GC (REmake) when by your definition it should be an "updated port".Ninja Scooter said:
Similarly, most games with radically different gameplay than the originals are considered sequels, spinoffs, or alternative versions because they are very clearly not the same game. Think about all those GB and GBA versions of popular 32-bit games (Tomb Raider, Perfect Dark, Splinter Cell, Tony Hawk). Are those remakes? Think about the NES/Genesis arcade ports that had radically different features and stages from the originals (Strider, Moonwalker). Are those remakes? Nobody refers to them as "remakes".
It's all semantics, but the definition of a "remake" in gaming culture/press seems to be radically different than what's offered here.
Oh my god! Maybe Super Mario 3 is a remake of Super Mario? It's the same story (jump and deliver the princess) and there's also some backgrounds that looks like it's at the same place (mushroom kingdom).
Whatever any morons says, i would never call Castlevania 4 a remake of the first one. It's alleluia not similar enough.
Whatever any morons says, i would never call Castlevania 4 a remake of the first one. It's alleluia not similar enough.
port: most art assets are reused, code base is the same, oftentimes glitches and quirks of the game engine are left intact
remake: scenario-for-scenario the same game but with an entirely different engine and/or art (models, textures, sprites, etc)
re-imagining (god I hate that term): game using an existing franchise but wiping the canon clean, plotline and possibly gameplay have a striking similarity but gameplay scenarios are different
Does that about cover it?
remake: scenario-for-scenario the same game but with an entirely different engine and/or art (models, textures, sprites, etc)
re-imagining (god I hate that term): game using an existing franchise but wiping the canon clean, plotline and possibly gameplay have a striking similarity but gameplay scenarios are different
Does that about cover it?
Shin Johnpv
Member
SnowWolf said:Read through the review for once, guys. He says singleplayer warrants a 9+ score, but the multiplayer is lackluster and drags the score down.
That's fine with me, since I wasn't impressed with the Live play either
a few weeks ago when everyone was complaining about the few cut scenes and the censoring of the game, thus making it less than the N64, people were chanting OMG the multiplayer will be amazing and the meat and potatoes of the game and now here we are and were being told the multiplayer is lackluster and not what it was hyped to be
After putting in 7 hours into the game, I wonder how did I beat the game the first time without a guide because I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what to do next and what puzzles I have to solve. They should have giving better clues so you know where to go and what to do next.
As for graphics, I am impressed, but there are slowdowns in some parts of the game. The worst slowdown that I have experience is the level with the catfish swimming, the framerate was really bad in that level.
As for graphics, I am impressed, but there are slowdowns in some parts of the game. The worst slowdown that I have experience is the level with the catfish swimming, the framerate was really bad in that level.
OptimusPrime
Banned
tenchir said:
Yeah the game is gorgeous...if Rare can produce this on Xbox I don't wanna know what they can do with X360. There is some slowdown in the catfish level yes, but hardly any in the rest of the game that I played. I don't really care about these little things, you must see the bigger picture and that's a game that's is massive with gorgeous GRFX and hardly any load times.
It's a pretty hard game but I am enjoying it, the SP is awesome 9,5 from me.
I don't care much about reviews these days seems the $%%$## don't play the games anymore but it's more like a race who has their review the fastest on the net.
Pretty much. Level design and artwork are at the heart of any action game, and if those are not only altered but thrown out completely then you are no longer remaking an old game, but producing an entirely new work. Since it's really the gameplay that makes the game, I don't see why a mere repetition of the story and title should be considered a remake. If Castlevania 4 were a puzzle game or a point 'n click adventure, would you still call it a remake just because it shares the same title and story?blackadde said: