New Pitfall Game Looks Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!! Screens Included!
- Thread starter MotzCTG
- Start date
CouRageouS
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 27 (100%)
:lol: They should add some light bloom. All the better looking Wii games LOVE it.
CouRageouS
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 27 (100%)
Not butter, vasoline. Those are two things you never want to get confused.
rodeojones903
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
Do you guys not see the small black bars at the top of the screen!?!?!? Its now in faux widescreen!
mephitical
Banned
I like it. In the Gamecube version the little man looks like he leans forward too much. It looks like they really improved things for the Wii version and he leans back just the right amount.
Well, the counter argument would be that for a new 360 or PS3 game we take last generation FPS, slap on better textures, drop the frame rate to 30, and add a "3" to the end of the title, or an uber-Japaneese subtitle. Oh, yeah, and ADD $10 to the price to $60.
That about sums it up. I think Wii owners have come to accept that this generation is about unique gameplay and new types of games and not drooling over how many particles are in the blood splatter animation of HD shooter rehashes.
That about sums it up. I think Wii owners have come to accept that this generation is about unique gameplay and new types of games and not drooling over how many particles are in the blood splatter animation of HD shooter rehashes.
mephitical
Banned
Don't forget the leaning back thing. I'm glad they took those steps.
Why the hell is this even posted here the way it is with the two screens? It's a crap series that stopped being interesting once Bruce Cambell stopped doing the voice, and even then it wasn't all that great. Who cares what it looks like on either system. Wait...what?...This thread wasn't about the game?...You say it was to dredge up the same old crap complaints about the Wii?...Oh, never mind then.
Why the hell is this even posted here the way it is with the two screens? It's a crap series that stopped being interesting once Bruce Cambell stopped doing the voice, and even then it wasn't all that great. Who cares what it looks like on either system. Wait...what?...This thread wasn't about the game?...You say it was to dredge up the same old crap complaints about the Wii?...Oh, never mind then.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']That about sums it up. I think Wii owners have come to accept that this generation is about unique gameplay and new types of games and not drooling over how many particles are in the blood splatter animation of HD shooter rehashes.[/quote]
Normally I would agree with you, but I think the PS2 ushered in a lot more unique gameplay ideas than the Wii has. The Wii has years ahead of it to change this, but so far it's not nearly as good as the DS in terms of unique, quality gaming.
Normally I would agree with you, but I think the PS2 ushered in a lot more unique gameplay ideas than the Wii has. The Wii has years ahead of it to change this, but so far it's not nearly as good as the DS in terms of unique, quality gaming.
tiredfornow
Banned
Is this really real? :|[quote name='bmulligan']
That about sums it up. I think Wii owners have come to accept that this generation is about unique gameplay and new types of games and not drooling over how many particles are in the blood splatter animation of HD shooter rehashes.[/quote]
If only half of the ''unique gameplay'' and the ''new types of games'' were any good, then it would be excusable.
That about sums it up. I think Wii owners have come to accept that this generation is about unique gameplay and new types of games and not drooling over how many particles are in the blood splatter animation of HD shooter rehashes.[/quote]
If only half of the ''unique gameplay'' and the ''new types of games'' were any good, then it would be excusable.
StinkyCheese
CAGiversary!
Hey, at least the vine isnt PIERCING THROUGH HIS BODY
mephitical
Banned
[quote name='tiredfornow']
If only half of the ''unique gameplay'' and the ''new types of games'' were any good, then it would be excusable.[/quote]
I doubt you'll find any system ever where anywhere close to half the games were any good. Where there is money, there is crap. You just have to dig through the crap to look for the diamonds. Then you have to wash your hands really well with hot water and soap and be careful not to touch your eyes or mucus membranes, because diseases can live in feces. Why are you putting your hands in poop again?
If only half of the ''unique gameplay'' and the ''new types of games'' were any good, then it would be excusable.[/quote]
I doubt you'll find any system ever where anywhere close to half the games were any good. Where there is money, there is crap. You just have to dig through the crap to look for the diamonds. Then you have to wash your hands really well with hot water and soap and be careful not to touch your eyes or mucus membranes, because diseases can live in feces. Why are you putting your hands in poop again?
?
.......
Guest
Actually, Nintendo consoles have more crap than the competition (especially the DS and Wii) because Nintendo's approval process is easier than Microsoft's and Sony's.
theflicker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Rozz']Actually, Nintendo consoles have more crap than the competition (especially the DS and Wii) because Nintendo's approval process is easier than Microsoft's and Sony's.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure that's true? Isn't that just completely made up? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.
Are you sure that's true? Isn't that just completely made up? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.
[quote name='theflicker']Are you sure that's true? Isn't that just completely made up? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.[/QUOTE]
Is their approval process easier? Not sure - I'd need hard data on that.
Is it easier for these shitty shanks from the school of Tighten UP the Grafix to get a game out on the Wii and most likely make money from it? Definitely.
Is their approval process easier? Not sure - I'd need hard data on that.
Is it easier for these shitty shanks from the school of Tighten UP the Grafix to get a game out on the Wii and most likely make money from it? Definitely.
?
.......
Guest
[quote name='theflicker']Are you sure that's true? Isn't that just completely made up? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.[/quote]
Actually, good buddy, it was an actual article in EGM.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=26169
Guess you have nothing to say now.
Actually, good buddy, it was an actual article in EGM.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=26169
Guess you have nothing to say now.
mephitical
Banned
I have an idea to put this argument to rest: Don't buy the shitty games.
Yay for me! I stopped the bitching! I'm going to go play Boom Blox now.
Yay for me! I stopped the bitching! I'm going to go play Boom Blox now.
theflicker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Rozz']Actually, good buddy, it was an actual article in EGM.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=26169
Guess you have nothing to say now.[/QUOTE]
An actual article in EGM, huh? Actually, thanks for actually posting a link to Gonintendo.com which itself posts an actual link to neogaf actually, which links to 1up.com which actually doesn't have the whole article whatsoever.
The discussion in the neogaf thread contends, and I agree with them, that the Nintendo seal means that the game will work in your console and not break it. It doesn't speak to the quality of the content in the game.
Guess I did have something to say. I won't presume that you don't.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=26169
Guess you have nothing to say now.[/QUOTE]
An actual article in EGM, huh? Actually, thanks for actually posting a link to Gonintendo.com which itself posts an actual link to neogaf actually, which links to 1up.com which actually doesn't have the whole article whatsoever.
The discussion in the neogaf thread contends, and I agree with them, that the Nintendo seal means that the game will work in your console and not break it. It doesn't speak to the quality of the content in the game.
Guess I did have something to say. I won't presume that you don't.
?
.......
Guest
[quote name='theflicker']An actual article in EGM, huh? Actually, thanks for actually posting a link to Gonintendo.com which itself posts an actual link to neogaf actually, which links to 1up.com which actually doesn't have the whole article whatsoever.
The discussion in the neogaf thread contends, and I agree with them, that the Nintendo seal means that the game will work in your console and not break it. It doesn't speak to the quality of the content in the game.
Guess I did have something to say. I won't presume that you don't.[/quote]
I can't show you the actual magazine through the computer, but the issue discusses how the Nintendo approval process is very lenient compared to Microsoft's and Sony's. That is why there's more junk on Nintendo's console.
I know you don't want to hear this (and so you're arguing against something that is a fact), but I can't do anything about that.
The discussion in the neogaf thread contends, and I agree with them, that the Nintendo seal means that the game will work in your console and not break it. It doesn't speak to the quality of the content in the game.
Guess I did have something to say. I won't presume that you don't.[/quote]
I can't show you the actual magazine through the computer, but the issue discusses how the Nintendo approval process is very lenient compared to Microsoft's and Sony's. That is why there's more junk on Nintendo's console.
I know you don't want to hear this (and so you're arguing against something that is a fact), but I can't do anything about that.
[quote name='Rozz']Actually, good buddy, it was an actual article in EGM.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=26169
Guess you have nothing to say now.[/quote]
every console had crappy games, including the NES, SNES N64 as well as the xbox and playstation. that seal meant nothing pertaining to the games enjoyability nor does microsoft's or sony's process any easier than the wii's.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=26169
Guess you have nothing to say now.[/quote]
every console had crappy games, including the NES, SNES N64 as well as the xbox and playstation. that seal meant nothing pertaining to the games enjoyability nor does microsoft's or sony's process any easier than the wii's.
?
.......
Guest
[quote name='decrot']every console had crappy games, including the NES, SNES N64 as well as the xbox and playstation. that seal meant nothing pertaining to the games enjoyability nor does microsoft's or sony's process any easier than the wii's.[/quote]
The entire article in EGM was not about this mere seal. That was a very, very small part of it (about a paragraph). The actual was two or three pages long and talked about how Nintendo's approval process is far easier than Sony's or Microsoft's.
You can see this if you go to any store, though. Look at the crap flooded on the shelves for these consoles. I own both consoles, but I'm not going to dispute something that's factual due to fanboyism.
The entire article in EGM was not about this mere seal. That was a very, very small part of it (about a paragraph). The actual was two or three pages long and talked about how Nintendo's approval process is far easier than Sony's or Microsoft's.
You can see this if you go to any store, though. Look at the crap flooded on the shelves for these consoles. I own both consoles, but I'm not going to dispute something that's factual due to fanboyism.
?
.......
Guest
To clear up the confusion set up by the people who don't want to believe the truth, here's the actual article:
Nintendo isn't just swimming in cash - they're practically drowning in it. Ever since the Wii and DS caught on with the "casual crowd," one thing's become quite apparent: Mommies and daddies now dig games as much as you. In fact, Nintendo's done playing with you, losers. Now they're focusing on the next stage: turning uneducated newbies into sudoku superstars. But Nintendo isn't the only one with this plan - third-party publishers are also looking to milk the mas and pops. Nintendo is super lenient about what makes it onto their systems, meaning publishers and developers are now releasing more junk than gems. Looks like this trend isn't going to end until Nintendo decides to stop releasing the schlock. But how exactly did the company get to this point? Nintendo won't say (they had no comment for us). So instead, we decided to find out for ourselves why the Wii and DS have become shovel ware dumping grounds.
Seal of disapproval
Bad games aren't uncommon on any system. Hell, for every Halo on Xbox 360, you're going to get sucky software like Vampire Rain. But back in the NES days, Nintendo used to trick gamers into thinking every title was good. Sounds silly, but consumers really bought into Nintendo's Official Seal of Quality - an insignia placed on the front of each retail box letting buyers know that Nintendo had "approved the quality of this product." In a way, they weren't kidding around - during the early days of the NES, publishers were limited in the amount of games they could release each year. Some companies, like Konami, actually had to create a subsidiary group under a different name (in their case, Ultra games) to get around this strict rule. But shortly after the NES met its "game over" screen, Nintendo realized they could rake in a lot more money by allowing publishers to release more games per year.
Although Nintendo loosened their grip on publishers they still kept the Official Seal of Quality intact... until the summer of 2003, that is. From this point on, Nintendo decided to ax the one word that made the seal worth-while in the first place. Not sure what that word is? Well, here's what now appears on the box of every Nintendo DS and Wii title: "Official Nintendo Seal." As you can see, Nintendo opted to take out "quality," rendering the seal almost pointless. Just looking at all the recent poorly made DS and Wii titles proves this. Still, this doesn't fully explain why these games are in stores to begin with, but Nintendo's approval process does.
Easily approved
Wait, did we just say "approval process"? Our bad. "Nintendo does not have a format concept-approval process," says Majesco Senior Product Manager Liz Buckley. "It's very structured for Sony and Microsoft." This means it takes a wee bit more effort to get a game approved with Nintendo's competitors. "If you want to get a game green-lit for Sony or Microsoft, you have to do a concept submission," explains Buckley. "You have to submit your game-design document, technical-design document, and pass a review committee." You see, unlike Nintendo, both Sony and Microsoft have dedicated review committees set up for one sole purpose: keeping crap games off the shelf. Does it always work? Of course not - it just means Sony and Microsoft are more conscious about the kind of content that makes it onto their consoles.
Seal of disapproval
Bad games aren't uncommon on any system. Hell, for every Halo on Xbox 360, you're going to get sucky software like Vampire Rain. But back in the NES days, Nintendo used to trick gamers into thinking every title was good. Sounds silly, but consumers really bought into Nintendo's Official Seal of Quality - an insignia placed on the front of each retail box letting buyers know that Nintendo had "approved the quality of this product." In a way, they weren't kidding around - during the early days of the NES, publishers were limited in the amount of games they could release each year. Some companies, like Konami, actually had to create a subsidiary group under a different name (in their case, Ultra games) to get around this strict rule. But shortly after the NES met its "game over" screen, Nintendo realized they could rake in a lot more money by allowing publishers to release more games per year.
Although Nintendo loosened their grip on publishers they still kept the Official Seal of Quality intact... until the summer of 2003, that is. From this point on, Nintendo decided to ax the one word that made the seal worth-while in the first place. Not sure what that word is? Well, here's what now appears on the box of every Nintendo DS and Wii title: "Official Nintendo Seal." As you can see, Nintendo opted to take out "quality," rendering the seal almost pointless. Just looking at all the recent poorly made DS and Wii titles proves this. Still, this doesn't fully explain why these games are in stores to begin with, but Nintendo's approval process does.
Easily approved
Wait, did we just say "approval process"? Our bad. "Nintendo does not have a format concept-approval process," says Majesco Senior Product Manager Liz Buckley. "It's very structured for Sony and Microsoft." This means it takes a wee bit more effort to get a game approved with Nintendo's competitors. "If you want to get a game green-lit for Sony or Microsoft, you have to do a concept submission," explains Buckley. "You have to submit your game-design document, technical-design document, and pass a review committee." You see, unlike Nintendo, both Sony and Microsoft have dedicated review committees set up for one sole purpose: keeping crap games off the shelf. Does it always work? Of course not - it just means Sony and Microsoft are more conscious about the kind of content that makes it onto their consoles.
[quote name='mephitical']Don't forget the leaning back thing. I'm glad they took those steps.
Why the hell is this even posted here the way it is with the two screens? It's a crap series that stopped being interesting once Bruce Cambell stopped doing the voice, and even then it wasn't all that great. Who cares what it looks like on either system. Wait...what?...This thread wasn't about the game?...You say it was to dredge up the same old crap complaints about the Wii?...Oh, never mind then.[/QUOTE]
I was actually listening to the latest Nintendo Voice Chat Podcast(IGN) and they were talking about the game, and then Bozon found this back to back comparison and told people to post it, so I posted it on CAG since I'm not an insider on IGN, I put the 2 images side by side. Wii games don't have to be like this, there a bunch of good games already, but companies like shovelware, and that is their business. I just found the side by side very entertaining.
Why the hell is this even posted here the way it is with the two screens? It's a crap series that stopped being interesting once Bruce Cambell stopped doing the voice, and even then it wasn't all that great. Who cares what it looks like on either system. Wait...what?...This thread wasn't about the game?...You say it was to dredge up the same old crap complaints about the Wii?...Oh, never mind then.[/QUOTE]
I was actually listening to the latest Nintendo Voice Chat Podcast(IGN) and they were talking about the game, and then Bozon found this back to back comparison and told people to post it, so I posted it on CAG since I'm not an insider on IGN, I put the 2 images side by side. Wii games don't have to be like this, there a bunch of good games already, but companies like shovelware, and that is their business. I just found the side by side very entertaining.
?
.......
Guest
I knew theflicker wouldn't respond :lol:
[quote name='Rozz']I knew theflicker wouldn't respond :lol:[/QUOTE]Indeed. I thought your claim was well justified, simply by the changing of "Nintendo Official Seal of Quality" to "Nintendo Official Seal" a few years back. That's a blatant red flag, if I've ever seen one. The bottom line, though, is that there are crap games on every console. Microsoft and Sony's committees aren't going to deny crappy shovelware if the brand name is there and they know it'll make money. With that said, though, I do agree that Nintendo is the number one culprit of this right now. It's hard for them not to be! The Wii is a completely different gaming experience, compared to the conventional 360 and PS3. Hopefully, over time, the ratio will start shifting more towards quality.
JolietJake
Banned
You know, a lot of Nintendo's early success was attributed to them having a strict quality control process. That they didn't allow just any old crap games to be released like Atari.
So....what the hell happened Nintendo?
So....what the hell happened Nintendo?
mephitical
Banned
[quote name='JolietJake']You know, a lot of Nintendo's early success was attributed to them having a strict quality control process. That they didn't allow just any old crap games to be released like Atari.
So....what the hell happened Nintendo?[/quote]
They had a really good idea for a system that stood out from the same rehashes being done over and over for the past 20 years and it made everyone a lot of money. This applies to both good and bad developers. Like Atari, they do not refuse money and place the responsibility of identifying crap on the consumer. Given we live in a time when endless amounts of information about any game are available, I think this is a fair burden for us to bear.
So....what the hell happened Nintendo?[/quote]
They had a really good idea for a system that stood out from the same rehashes being done over and over for the past 20 years and it made everyone a lot of money. This applies to both good and bad developers. Like Atari, they do not refuse money and place the responsibility of identifying crap on the consumer. Given we live in a time when endless amounts of information about any game are available, I think this is a fair burden for us to bear.
Gothic Walrus
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='mephitical']Like Atari, they do not refuse money and place the responsibility of identifying crap on the consumer. Given we live in a time when endless amounts of information about any game are available, I think this is a fair burden for us to bear.[/QUOTE]
It takes maybe ten minutes to use Metacritic or Game Rankings to look up the overall review score and maybe read a few of them, and that's usually enough to give a decent impression of what you'll be buying.
I also think it's worth mentioning that, even with the Seal of Quality, there were plenty of crappy games for the NES and SNES.
It's been said, but the easiest way to deal with crappy games? Do a bit of research before you buy, and just ignore the bad games that are out there.
It takes maybe ten minutes to use Metacritic or Game Rankings to look up the overall review score and maybe read a few of them, and that's usually enough to give a decent impression of what you'll be buying.
I also think it's worth mentioning that, even with the Seal of Quality, there were plenty of crappy games for the NES and SNES.
It's been said, but the easiest way to deal with crappy games? Do a bit of research before you buy, and just ignore the bad games that are out there.
addicted2games
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='bmachine']I thought this was the new Pitfall game:
[/QUOTE]
I love my Wii, but it can only dream of those kinds of graphics.
I love my Wii, but it can only dream of those kinds of graphics.
theflicker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Rozz']I knew theflicker wouldn't respond :lol:[/QUOTE]
Fact is that your initial claim was full of statements that sounded like facts ("Actually . . .") and your subsequent post cited an article that could not be read. It's not that I "don't want to believe the truth" it's that I'm skeptical of things that are claimed on the internet without proper citation.
Thanks for posting the article though. I mean, I'll take it at face value, but it doesn't really sound like an in-depth journalistic piece. They only have one developer quoted and that developer is Majesco?
I would think that if the whole "Nintendo's approval process is more lenient/non-existent" issue were true, then there would be more investigative reporting on the matter going on. At least more than a three paragraph article by one publication.
Fact is that your initial claim was full of statements that sounded like facts ("Actually . . .") and your subsequent post cited an article that could not be read. It's not that I "don't want to believe the truth" it's that I'm skeptical of things that are claimed on the internet without proper citation.
Thanks for posting the article though. I mean, I'll take it at face value, but it doesn't really sound like an in-depth journalistic piece. They only have one developer quoted and that developer is Majesco?
I would think that if the whole "Nintendo's approval process is more lenient/non-existent" issue were true, then there would be more investigative reporting on the matter going on. At least more than a three paragraph article by one publication.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='theflicker']They only have one developer quoted and that developer is Majesco?[/QUOTE]
Well, if you were going to pick one publisher that you think would experience more proposal rejections from Nintendo/Sony/MS than any other, I challenge you to find one more appropriate than Majesco.
At least EA has some moneyhats to give to companies to circumvent the process.
EDIT: Also, let's be honest about this nonissue: Pitfall is nostalgic, but was never good. The PSX version stunk, and y'all Bruce Campbell fans can live with that. This game might as well be titled "More Shit You Won't Buy 3D."
Well, if you were going to pick one publisher that you think would experience more proposal rejections from Nintendo/Sony/MS than any other, I challenge you to find one more appropriate than Majesco.
At least EA has some moneyhats to give to companies to circumvent the process.
EDIT: Also, let's be honest about this nonissue: Pitfall is nostalgic, but was never good. The PSX version stunk, and y'all Bruce Campbell fans can live with that. This game might as well be titled "More Shit You Won't Buy 3D."
Gothic Walrus
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='theflicker']Thanks for posting the article though. I mean, I'll take it at face value, but it doesn't really sound like an in-depth journalistic piece. They only have one developer quoted and that developer is Majesco?
I would think that if the whole "Nintendo's approval process is more lenient/non-existent" issue were true, then there would be more investigative reporting on the matter going on. At least more than a three paragraph article by one publication.[/QUOTE]
That would require the existence of in-depth investigative video game reporting. Sure, there are a few rare examples that pop up (like The Escapist), but the video game journalism I've seen doesn't and never has worked that way.
I would think that if the whole "Nintendo's approval process is more lenient/non-existent" issue were true, then there would be more investigative reporting on the matter going on. At least more than a three paragraph article by one publication.[/QUOTE]
That would require the existence of in-depth investigative video game reporting. Sure, there are a few rare examples that pop up (like The Escapist), but the video game journalism I've seen doesn't and never has worked that way.
bread's done