• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

The more things change: Usenet posts from rec.games.video and more

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,048
0
0
This is the first time I've noticed this thread and this is a random observation but...

The term "Nintendo" is gaining favor with
parents of kids born since 1980. Actually, the proper word seems to be
'intendo (I have no idea how this mispronunciation started).

After watching a recent video about how words were changed or invented from mispronouncing and mishearing the original version of a word, I guarantee this was because when people said "A Nintendo" others misheard it as "An Intendo". That said, I've never heard anyone call it an "Intendo" lol.
 

like.a.ser

Member
May 12, 2015
480
0
0
My first video game "forum" was the Nintendo Power Source on AOL back in.. I think 94/95ish. I wonder if chat and message board logs exist. I think my SN back then was "FF3 Setzer" or something similar
 

AmyS

Member
Aug 22, 2012
14,320
31
455
EmCeeGramr, reading those posts on Saturn was great. I remember so many people going near-ballistic over Sega's decisions during that time.
 

saturnine

Member
Sep 23, 2013
1,042
0
0
These posts are fascinating. Can't believe how little things changed.

Props to the lone dude that wondered if technology wasn't evolving too fast during the fifth generation.
 

Ben Morales

Member
Jan 16, 2011
3,888
0
705
California
Playstation:
Raiden 2 - Basically more crap, by 32-bit standards...nothing special.
Saturn:
Panzer Dragoon - AWESOME. Probably the best shooting game ever
made...and wow, it's a "first generation game" too...=)

lol Raiden Project was my first Playstation game. I played the hell out of it.
 

AmyS

Member
Aug 22, 2012
14,320
31
455
lol Raiden Project was my first Playstation game. I played the hell out of it.

Pretty much the same for me, I got PlayStation at launch Sept '95 with three games, including The Raiden Project. Was actually impressed because of its perfect (or 99.9%) near it to the arcade games. Something the Jaguar could've have pulled off, especially Raiden II.
 

Kasumin

Member
Feb 16, 2013
727
0
0
Ugh, I found some posts of mine from 1993. And they're under my dad's name. Man, I made him look like an idiot.

While I can understand why it's embarrassing, I think it's awesome that you have posts going that far back. But I'm just a sucker for nostalgia and history like that. I've looked at stuff from 1999 and 2000 and laughed at my way of speaking (well, typing). Yet I'm glad to have that record just to have it. I find looking at the past in such detail really interesting.

This is really cool, though! I love threads like this. Seeing all the ways people have hated on Nintendo over the years... it's pretty hilarious.

Stuff like this is why I like GAF.
 

Ben Morales

Member
Jan 16, 2011
3,888
0
705
California
Pretty much the same for me, I got PlayStation at launch Sept '95 with three games, including The Raiden Project. Was actually impressed because of its perfect (or 99.9%) near it to the arcade games. Something the Jaguar could've have pulled off, especially Raiden II.

It was incredible. Before that port, I had only played it at my local Pizza Hut and that purple toothpaste laser just blew my mind. When I got the Playstation version, I couldn't believe how good a translation it was. And all of the options/customization. Really solid game.
 

EmCeeGramr

Member
Jun 25, 2005
38,456
0
0
32X and EGM2 (7/15/94)
I just read a bit of disturbing news from EGM's new EGM2:

-Quartermann says:

"... their people (Sega's Officials) were going on and on about how it
(Sega's Saturn) will be out in April and that the 32X is only a holiday
sales item."

If this is true it doesn't look like Sega is out to do anything with the
32X but just make some fast Christmas bucks... That sucks!
More EGM bullsh*t. Actually Sega has firm plans to support the 32X for at
least 3 years. Saturn is still *very* up in the air, they have no set plans
for releasing it outside Japan anytime soon.
Hope nobody minds me borrowing these posts.
Mike, is right -according to the other mags 32X will be supported by Sega
supposedly for 3 years (I, on the other hand, say 2 1/2). Also it would be
pretty stupid for Sega to launch a product and give rumors or hint that the
32X is a holiday item.

As of this EGM2 -I have a subscription too and I'm going to let it run out.
But I wouldn't suggest Diehard or any of the other mags for subscription
material -they suck, just go to a mag rack and if you see something just
buy it if you like it.
Yeah, I heard this as well. I have a feeling that the 32X will be the new
Sega platform here in the US. I do not believe the Saturn
is gonna make it. Think about it.... Alot of people just don't WANT to own
two Video systems. Also, think about parents. When I was young (back in the
Atari 2600 days), I wanted an Atari 5200 very badly. However, the parents
would not buy me another system, claiming I already HAD a system. However,
add-ons and etc. were usually not a problem. (I was moderately spoiled I
guess). Therefore, why should people go out and buy a SECOND (or ever third)
system, when they can just add on to their existing console? Sounds good to
me!
Really, I wouldn't put too much faith in this announcement. I mean, if
you were going to produce a system, wouldn't you hype it a little?(Notice
that the letter from Sega in the Sega insert never mentions the Saturn?)
Also, why would Sega release it in April? September would have been a more
believable date.(Yes, I think that EGM fabricated the story.) From what
I know of Sega of America, they have no plans of releasing the Saturn
here anytime soon.(The earliest I'd expect it to come out would be Sept 95.)
You've got to remeber, EGM can be quite wrong at times.(Hell, take a look
it that same issue. They actually say that the SNES and Genesis are 16-bit
systems becuase they can access 16-megs out of a 24 meg cart like Super
Metroid.)
The 32X is most certainly not "only a holiday item." Prior to joining
Sega I worked as a freelance writer and I was reasonably blunt about
the different systems available or planned. It is my personal opinion that
the 32X is the right system at the right time at the right price and it will
do better than even our own internal forecasts (no I'm not saying what they
are <g>).

No you don't have to believe me. Save this post and repost it in 1 year. I
strongly believe that it will still be the right system at the right
time at the right price.
I think you are right! This has been rehashed many times in here,
but for the power, the price, and the ability to piggy back on
the genesis, you've already increased your possible support base
manifold.. I also saw some pix from one of the mags.. different
ones than GamePro, and they just used the genesis shots for
virtua racing.. even though they were hard to make out, they were
definately better...

obviously the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I'm
a firm believer that it's going to be a great addition.. If it
can increase the SegaCD's FMV and enhance the color as they say,
then I'm in.
I totally agree with you here. I can't see why so many other people believe
that it will fail. To me and I think to many other gamers out there the 32X
seems like the cheapest, and therefore, safest upgrade path to 32bit gaming.

Just think
about the whole gaming population, and how many of them are willing to spend
the $$ for a Jag or 3DO, and how many would be willing to buy a cheap upgrade
for their Genesis.... you do the math. (no pun intended :)


BABBAGES is CO-OPTED by Nintendo, SEGA and 3DO (6/30/94)
Was in a BABBAGEs (Computer Store like EGGHEAD) the other day in
Annapolis Mall (Maryland) and had to look all over the G-damn place
(very small store) to find the JAGUAR Stuff. What kind of conspiracy is
this !? If ATARI only knew that some stores are HIDING the JAG stuff
and the clerks know NOTHING about how great the JAGUAR really is. I WAS
OUTRAGED !!!!! They claim "When the carts come out then we will move
them out in the open where people can see them" Chicken or the Egg
???!!! While 3DO Sega and Nintendo have big PROMO Stands, Posters and
even demo systems to play and watch in the store window, there was
nothing at all about the JAGUAR anywhere. They keep the JAGUAR stuff in
the back or inconspicuously on a hard to find shelf as if they had no
clue JAGUAR TECHNOLOGY has won TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE awards, both
National and International, is made entirely in the USA and is AN ALL
AROUND KICK ASS SYSTEM only to get better.... But when you ask if they
ever tried one the CLERKs look at you glassy eyed with slack jaw and
reply, "NO but the 3DO is much better anyway" DUH !!

Please pass it on to all you know at ATARI because some of the
commercial/retail software/game outlets out here are not trying in
the least to even know what the JAGUAR is all about. Not sure how why
they are so ignorant. Could be they need a little more literature or a
demo machine to set up... This is where the rubber meets the road and
it does ATARI no good to have such DUMB clerks out there HIDING the BEST
GAME SYSTEM EVER



Does Sega have an internet address? (6/28/94)
Does Sega have an address on the internet?
Yes, they have. Here is what I found out with
nslookup (Unix-command :)



Saturn VS. 32-X (6/4/94)
Na.. its a sound marketing decision. Sega of Japan support the 32x.. they
just aren't going to sell it in Japan. In Japan Nintendo is King.. and the
Genny runs a distant fourth I believe. Releasing the 32X in Japan just
wouldn't make them any money.

Not that I think I'm going to purchase one (I'll get a Sony PS-X and then a
Saturn).. and it might still be a
wasted-unsupported-by-developers-peripheral.. but I can see why they don't
release it in Japan.
> Could you elaborate as to why you believe it is going to flop. I am
>looking at possibly waiting for the Saturn (although I will drool over
>getting the 32X for my Genesis).

That's an easy question. The Saturn is so damn much! I mean, I know other
netters have given figures as low as $300 for it but I can't see it coming
out at that price. SoA wants $400 for a CD-X(which is a combination Genesis
and SEGA-CD in a single unit.) so I doubt either SoA or SoJ will ask for any
less for a more advanced unit with a faster cd-rom drive. I admit that the
CD-X's small size would push the price up. Still, the CD-X uses much older
technology, so even its small size shouldn't pose as much of a price problem as
a more advanced unit. I still can't see those 8-13 million Genesis owners,
many of whom only bought the thing a year or 2 ago, just dumping it and
spending $400 for a new system when they could upgrade for $150. Hell, I
think most of them would go to a Jaguar before they'd go to a Saturn.(Well,
it's only $250.)

Anyway, take this with a grain of salt. It's only my opinion and I'm no
expert.(Something I will freely admit to.)
>While the 32X will be a nice upgrade, I have a feeling that it won't be
>supported very well since the Saturn is close to release.

I have still seen nothing to convince me that the 32X is anything more
than a quick hack so Sega of America doesn't lose market shares to the 3DO
and the Jaguar.

Let's ask a stupid question here: How many Genesis owners reading this are
planning to buy BOTH the 32X and the Saturn? If you're like me, you probably
won't. I'm not sure which "upgrade" I would want next from Sega, but I'm
very doubtful that I'd get both. And I'm sure most people will be in the
same boat -- either they buy one and abandon the other, or they'll be forced
into the situation ("Junior, I just bought you a 32X last Christmas! I'm
NOT going to buy another game machine now!").

>I just really think it won't be supported too well.

I'm also scared for the 32X because it's not supported by Sega of Japan.
Geez, Sega of America can hardly break wind without authorization from SOJ;
now Sega of America wants to develop, sell, and garner support for the 32X on
their own?

I'm very nervous -- the 32X could be the biggest "unsupported peripheral"
in Sega's history, even worse than the Menacer and the Activator. At best,
it'll suck sales away from the Saturn, which will still hurt Sega...




NEWS: Conglomerates invade Summer CES (6/21/94)

The following appeared in the morning edition of the Los Angeles Times,
6/21/1994. It's being cross-posted to most of the rec.games.video.*
hierarchy because of its general-interest nature. All factual errors (and
there are a few) are the fault of the TIMES; all typos are mine... B-)

[cut for space]

Rob's comments:

1. Am I the only one who felt that the word "interactive" was WAY overused?

2. It's sad to see the large companies take such a simplistic approach to the
video-gaming industry: "Ah, we'll throw money and film clips and hot property
into the stew and have ourselves a winning product." Bigger/costlier is
still not necessarily better, guys.

3. It may be a bit premature (since I haven't seen these "interactive" titles
that the conglomerates will be showing), but I'm already beginning to hope
these studios will flop in a big way. Enough to maybe emphasize the
importance of gameplay over properties. I mean, do we really want to play
video games if the bulk of the titles available are all-glitz, no-game
products like JURASSIC PARK INTERACTIVE or BEETHOVEN'S 2ND?
4).
It's just sickening to watch the big media conglomerates take the
American public as a bunch of mindless followers who will buy ANYTHING
with a lisence. Why do they think that Pagemaster is going to be a big
smash hit game? They will learn...
This is nothing new folks, Hollywood has been trying to get into videogames
since before the videogame crash of the 80's. They still fail, because
they don't understand that what sells the game is not who stars in it, but
how *fun* the game is!!
Three years ago, the buzzword was "multimedia". Now it's "interactive".



Saturn/32X Compatibility: Who Cares? (6/9/94)
What's the big deal about Saturn/32X compatibility? Why does anyone
care? If you buy a 32X and a few 32X games, and then later buy a
Saturn, that doesn't mean your 32X will suddenly disappear or stop
working. Is it just the hassle of having to buy and set up a video
switch box? Or is it that if you buy a Saturn, you can then sell your
32X but keep all your 32X games? Why is there such a fuss over
compatibility? It's not like video game systems are general-purpose
computers, where you have to worry about translating all your data
files if you buy a non-compatible system. Virtually all video game
consoles are incompatible already; what's one more?

Just wondering,
The problem is, the 32X format will die if its not compatable with the
Saturn. You fork out 150 that could have went toward the saturn only to
have it die within a year. If its not compatable, companies may be
skeptical about writing games for it when the next format is around the
corner. They could just lose money on it. Look what happened to the NES
after the SNES and Genesis came out, it died, just like the Genesis will
once the Saturn is out, and possibly even the 32X. The 32X has a better
chance at surviving if its compatable.



Sonic and Knuckles - NOT Sonic 4 (6/7/94)
Sega is pre-announcing the next Sonic at the HQ day we had last week. It's
called Sonic and Knuckles, not the expected Sonic 4. Until CES, Sega is
being purposely vague about it, but report "brand new software technology"
and the new game is "backwards compatible with previous Sonics." My
guess is that this new game will plug into the Genesis and then another
Sonic cartridge will plug into the top of it so you can play previous levels
with new characters. Not sure yet. Will post new info after the viewing
at CES.
Is there any info about Sega releasing a home verison of SegaSonic Arcade
on any of their formats?
 

djtiesto

is beloved, despite what anyone might say
Jul 26, 2004
28,050
7
0
Long Island, NY
This is the first time I've noticed this thread and this is a random observation but...



After watching a recent video about how words were changed or invented from mispronouncing and mishearing the original version of a word, I guarantee this was because when people said "A Nintendo" others misheard it as "An Intendo". That said, I've never heard anyone call it an "Intendo" lol.

When I was 5 years old, before I got an NES of my own (and having no real knowledge of video games or desire to play one - parents got me one on a whim for my birthday later that year, something they probably regretted for years... :p), I remember hearing my neighbors talk about it and thought the thing was called "Intendo" for at least a little while :p
 

EmCeeGramr

Member
Jun 25, 2005
38,456
0
0
Man, those Saturn and 32X posts... those guys had no idea what was going to happen huh...

To be fair, there is obviously some selection bias in the most "interesting" posts I quote... there are plenty of posts in the threads linked where people are skeptical that the 32X would be anything more than a short lived North American stopgap, even if there are some diehards believing that it's all going to be fine.
 

Bitanator

Member
Jun 21, 2014
3,633
3
445
Damn this one quote about The Wind Waker

"Why does Miyamoto continue to find new and
grander ways to suck? Anyone have a theory on this? Mine is that following
some of his earlier success with Super Mario Bros., sycophants at Nintendo
stopped telling him what was a bad idea."

People were claiming Miyamoto lost his juice all the way back then.
 

Pop-O-Matic

Banned
Jan 7, 2012
16,984
2
0
EmCee, with the new graphics cards coming out recently and all the heated Nvidia v. AMD arguments going on in the threads for those, I want to put in a request to see how civil the discussions were during the dawn of 3D accelerator cards.
 

Krejlooc

Banned
May 27, 2014
25,432
19
0
EmCee, with the new graphics cards coming out recently and all the heated Nvidia v. AMD arguments going on in the threads for those, I want to put in a request to see how civil the discussions were during the dawn of 3D accelerator cards.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...:date/alt.games.doom/nSF9w8Utq-s/0f_heFoOBXAJ

I'm FINALLY READY for 3D!!...WHICH CARD RULES!?
135 posts by 109 authors
Previous Page 2
Next

Michael R. Payne
10/24/96
The Righteous 3D by Orchid is presently the leading card, it works as
an add on card, connecting to your present card. You should be
getting a pentium version of MechWarrior 2 with it or a coupon for the
game. Check out comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video for the best info on
cards, and check out the Orchid site. I'd avoid any DMM products as
they're lacking in support.
Mike

Anakin Skywalker
10/24/96

Vincent Kohlbecker <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<54n44s$j...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...

> yeah whatever I get double the performance out of my ATI MACH64 with 2
> megs of DRAM than i did with a Stealth 3D 2000XL with 4megs EDO RAM. I
> have owned both cards, the ATI first then I installed the stealth, it
> took me exactly 1 day to figure out that Stealth sucks. And to top it
> off the ATI is built into mt motherboard(Intel Atlantis) so it was
> included in the price of my motherboard($285). ATI is a rock solid
> video card



If you are referring to Intel's Advanced/AS motherboard, yes it does have
an integrated Mach 64 video adapter with 1MB DRAM (upgradable to 2MB). The
Advanced/AS ships with 1MB, so you only have 2MB if you upgraded your
motherboard. To be precise, it has an ATI-264CT PCI graphics controller.
ATI is currently using the ATI-264VT graphics controller on their Video
Xpression. The VT is a faster controller that the older CT version.
Still, the Stealth 3D 2000 scored 39.6 million winmarks in Winbench 96,
while the newer, faster ATI adapter scored 24.7 million winmarks at
1280x1024x8bit. The Diamond is over 60% faster at this resolution and
color depth! Plus, the Diamond's VGA core is over 42% faster for DOS based
games (128 vs. 90 fps under 3DBench on a Pentium 133). Keep in mind, it's
quite possible that the ATI-264CT could not achieve the same level of
performance as it's newer counterpart. Although ATI could run circles
around Diamond in the driver department, it's not even in the same
DIMENSION when it comes to performance. So while you quote "double" the
performance (only YOU know what you were smoking), I'll rely on published
benchmarks by 3rd party sources for verification of my facts.

FYI: The Matrox Mystique scored 42.3 million winmarks in the above
mentioned test, and the Millenium scored 45.5 million winmarks. VGA DOS
performance is about the same between the Diamond and the Matrox.

In regards to the above test, the ATI Xpression was tested with driver
version 2.22, the Diamond version was 4.03.00.2120, and the Mystique and
Millenium were version 3.12.025.

Dave Ryder
10/25/96

In article <54m98s$s...@onramp.arc.nasa.gov>, Hugh LaMaster
<lama...@viking.arc.nasa.gov> writes
>I'm interested in these cards, too, but from a Unix & workstation
>perspective. Do any of these cards have open, published interfaces?
>XFree86 support? Solaris x86 support? (Other Unix system support?)
>1280x1024x24bit 2-D resolution mode? 220Mhz RAMDAC?
>
>How about OpenGL. Are there versions of OpenGL for these cards,
>and, if so, under which operating systems?
>
>In short - are any of these cards "SGI killers", or are they
>pretty exclusively for running Quake.
>
>

The Matrox Mystique supports OpenGL hardware-accelerated 3D via a 3D-DDI
driver under windows NT (3.51 only not NT4) The 3D DLL does not support
8bpp (256 colors) and 24bpp (16777216 colors) modes. The 15bpp (32K
colors), 16bpp (64K colors), and 32bpp (True Color) modes are the ones
that can be hardware-accelerated.

2D 1280x1024x24 is ok with the 4Mb version, but 3D accel. is Limited to
1024x768x8, 800x600x16, 640x480x32. etc. Although it's not really an
'SGI killer' it's good value. (PS 157.5Mhz RAMDAC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Ryder EMail Da...@ansuz.Demon.co.uk |
| ...I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that... |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brant Rusch
10/30/96

>Just wondering does anyone actually know the detectable period between
>images that the eye can detect, This would be good to see if trying
to
>boost up the frame rate is simply a waist of money. Personally I cant
see
>much difference past 20fps, 20 is rather smooth, as you get higher
things
>seem to get faster and not any smoother.


I think its a matter of personal opinion...I can easily tell the
difference between something running...say...at 20fps and something
running at 30fps......and on some console systems, 60fps...

Of course we're kinda mixing apples and oranges here...but...

Brant

Rob Dunlop
11/1/96
Other recipients: ru...@ix.netcom.com
- show quoted text -

Just curious - how are you running consol games at 60 fps which is twice
as fast as a TV can display?


Rob / Picasso

Othello
11/9/96

>Just curious - how are you running consol games at 60 fps which is twice
>as fast as a TV can display?
>
>
>Rob / Picasso


I don't know about this bone head, but my tv has a 60HZ refresh, it
has it molded on the back. So I guess that this means that my tv can
show me 60fps. Not that it realy matters, the ability of the consol
to render 60fps adds to it overall smoothness and does improve the
viewd out put on your TV wether it is at 15, 20, 30, or 60 fps. Try
educating yourself on the topic before making a public ass of your
self.

S. Montle
11/9/96

On 9 Nov 1996 02:12:02 -0700, oth...@primenet.com (Othello) wrote:
>>Just curious - how are you running consol games at 60 fps which is twice
>>as fast as a TV can display?
>>
>>
>>Rob / Picasso
>I don't know about this bone head, but my tv has a 60HZ refresh, it
>has it molded on the back. So I guess that this means that my tv can


That the AC current's cycles. All the power comming out of your wall
sockets is (about) 120 VAC, 60 HZ...

It has nothing to do woth the video refresh rate of your TV. Look on
the back of any appliance. Funny how my toaster has a 60 HZ refresrh
rate....

lol
 

EmCeeGramr

Member
Jun 25, 2005
38,456
0
0
Zelda 64 DOES have a bad framerate!!! Thanks for all the LIES!!! (11/29/98)

> Stupid Zelda 64 hypers and N64 drones lied about the framerate. It
> STINKS. Zelda 64 is running at around 20 fps. The movement is so choppy
> when you walk or turn. The damn game also slows down when there's more
> than 1 enemy.
Quite a few of the posts I read said it was at about 20fps, but pretty
constant. I don't like low-frame rates either, but it certainly
doesn't effect gameplay much if at all. Goldeneye certainly had worse
FPS problems than Zelda does, but both are great games.
Agreed. Also the fact that it has a *stable* frame rate, as opposed to one
that's smoother some of the time, but dips to be slow often.

It does have a technically low frame rate (20 frames per second exactly -
I measured it with video capture on my computer). For some games this
could be bad, but not for Zelda :)

TIME Magazine calls Zelda a "Masterpiece" (11/18/98)
a.. From: www.nintendojo.com
b.. "Mainstream press embrace Zelda
NEWS:Once again, Nintendo proves no other game company can achieve the
kind of near monopolistic hold it has when it comes to getting coverage in
the mainstream press. In addition to the several snippets on Game Boy Color,
Pokemon and Nintendo 64 which appeared throughout several major media
outlets, Nintendo scored a major victory in this very public arena this week
when The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was hailed as a masterpiece by
TIME magazine technology coloumnist Joshua Quitter. This honour is just
another addition to the growing list of honours given to the game. This
includes "Game of the Century" (Next Generation), "The greatest game of all
time" (gamers) and "Holy Cow! this game is going to make our fourth quarter
profits go through the roof!" (your local videogame retailer) "
> besides that, next month is
>Sonic Adventure...what's Next Gen going to say about this one?

that it's just a 3-D re-hash of the old Sonic games...

(the rest of the thread is arguing about whether 2000 or 2001 counts as the start of a new century)


Translation: Famitsu's Zelda Review (11/18/98)
Hi folks, I already posted this under a different thread, but judging by
the positive feedback I got for it, I felt it wouldn't hurt to re-post
it on its own for fellow Zelda fans. I've also added pertinent excerpts
from the post-review wrap-ups of the four reviewers. (These comments are
essentially their recommnedations on which games they liked out of all
the games they reviewed that week.)
BTW, these translations are done pretty quickly without much thought
about starightening out some of the bizzare grammatical structures or
the benefit of a grammar check or any of that, so they're not very
pretty. But they are accurate.

Enjoy!
Nob

Famitsu 11/27's perfect 40 Zelda review:

Sawadi Noda: The game controls handle beautifully. One wonders about the
high quality of this game's so-called man-machine interface. It is truly
as if one gives himself completely over to the game. In terms of the
scenario, play systems, game balance, and graphics and sounds that
appear not to be cart-based, this game is a '10' without any complain.

Ranbu Yoshida: Looking up, one sees glaring sunlight. Lifting a rock
causes bugs to scurry away. As if one became Link, one can experience
the world inside the game. The difficulty level of mysteries is
exquisitely balanced, and the game is loaded with extra fun factors that
are unrelated to the main story. It's unbearably great. I wonder how
many years it's been since I last got so seriously hooked by a game.

Miki Watanabe: The essential aspect of Zelda, the 'pleasure of
problem-solving', can again be fully enjoyed. What players need is a
flexible mind. The beauty of graphics and the motions of characters,
such as the depiction of water and awesome bosses, must be seen. The
'attention' system (for tracking specific enemies, etc.) is
revolutionary for eliminating the annoying camera problems of 3D view
games. The game is also loaded with mini games and sub events that make
it impossible for players not to get deeply immersed in the game.

Takanori Haneda (Shinjuku Jacky): This is truly an adventure. Although
there is a central objective, there are many side trips and innumerable
traps and tricks spread everywhere. The difficulty level is such that
players will feel that they alone solved the game. What you experience
in the game can be put to good use later on. The real time, full 3D
field's beauty is outstanding. If you want to experience an adventure,
this is a definite must play title.


Post-review wrap-up excepts:

Sawadi Noda: Without any reservation, Zelda is the one. To make a game
this thoroughly polished, Nintendo's soft development power is fearsome.

Ranbu Yoshida: Zelda is a game you asbolutely must play. Otherwise you
will end up missing on a fraction of all the enjoyment one can get out
of life. Seriously. The TV commercials aren't exagerations. So, if you
don't have an N64, you should buy the game together with the machine.
No, scratch that, I order you to buy it (laugh).


Miki Watanabe: There are many games with blurred distinctions from
movies, fiction and anime these days. I think Zelda is a presence that
makes people think, "This is what 'games' are all about." I think it's a
game that will make you surprised at yourself, and one that will make
you want to praise yourself too.

Shinjuku Jacky: Don't think too hard, Zelda is a game that can be
definitely recommended to everybody. You'll get stuck in the game often,
so I recommend you play it with many friends at the same time.

Note: this translation was by Nob Ogasawara, the translator for most of the Pokemon series up through Platinum.


RPGamer Zelda Review (11/28/98)
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html

bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
it.
He said that the game was a good game, but it didn't live up to the

hype. He gave it a 8.5. That's not bad. I think if anyone gives Zelda
less than perfect, you guys would act insane. I didn't like the game
and I'm a Zelda fan.
But it what he critisized was wrong. As others have said, he probably
went through with a guide. Part of the game is figuring out what to do,
and that includes technique like figuring out boss patterns. So what if
you can beat bosses while barely getting hit, but how many times does
one (without a guide) have to fight it before figuring out how to kill
it.
Also, he ranks it easy....if there's ont thing it's not, it's easy.
> <<Most of those RPGamer guys are PSX fans, and usually have negative thoughts
> against N64... Esp that stupid, biased.. son of a bitch, A.K. But oh well.>>
>
> Perhaps because they have been waiting and waiting for a good RPG on the N64
> and haven't found one yet. Now before you jump and say "What about Zelda??!?!"
> Many people do not consider the Zelda series an RPG. Many consider it a
> action/adventure. Still it's just a thought. A lot of what he said i agreed
> with. But i think it's a better game than he made it out to be.

If they didn't consider the Zelda series Rpgs, then they wouldn;t be on
RPGamer.
I think he used the hint book to beat the game, which really defeats the
purpose of the game, especially this one. Beating it in 35 hours is
practically impossible without a hintbook and he makes references of things
in the hint book (the town song) which would make you think that he used it
to complete the game. Darn shame, because from what I've read the people
that have used the hintbook to complete the game have liked it the least,
while people who play it without any assistance seem to be loving it.
11/29/98

I disagree with his review too. The plot is awesome! What game was he
playing?!
I'd like to know if he liked the original Zelda. Anyway, he has the right to
his own opinion but he's in the minority.
Why is it a bad review? Because he didn't give it a perfect 10? I think it
is an excellent review. It praises the game, but points out the emphasis on
action over plot, the possible irritation caused by dungeons, the
shortcomings in the graphics. Moreover, it recommends the game to anyone who
liked the previous titles, but does not advise purchasing the system just for
the game. I agree that this game does sound like it merits better than the
8.5 score he gave it. However, I think many magazines are being
irresponsible by calling it perfect, or calling it the best game ever, ir
recommending it to all video game fans everywhere. It may be the best
Action/Adventure game ever, it may be the best N64 game ever, but to rank it
above all games of all genres, past, present, and future, is absurd. For
those of you who disagree with me, think about this: If this game is
perfect, and will never be surpassed, what does that mean for the next Zelda
sequel?
So he used a guide. In my opinion, that makes one of his points all the more
valid. He said it's a 10 hr game, but swells to 35 because of fighting and
dungeon crawling. Without the guide, I can only assume there would be even
more fighting and dungeon crawling piled on top of that 10 hr game. Doesn't
sound appealing to me.
I'd be interested to know what you think is so bad about this
review. 8.5 isn't the 10s it's been getting elsewhere, but I trust an
8.5 more than a 10. (I practically ignored videogamespot's review of
Zelda when I saw the list of all 10s.) To my mind, Zelda: OOT is a
nice game, fun, with a few flaws.
I don't agree with his review because he cheated, and used a guide. It's
much more enjoyable without using a guide. And he said the game
surrounds action...which is stupid...since it's all about puzzle's. The
action is only a little taste of the game..as is the plot. Zelda is all
about puzzle's, and that's why people like them...but the way he reviews
it is totally different.

I'm atleast 50 hours into the game, and I still have 2 levels to
complete, plus Ganon's castle. Along the way I've been trying to figure
out every puzzle, and so on. 35 hours is just enough time to skip
everything, and only complete the game without Epona, most magic and
weapons, etc. Bottom line....I don't like reviews by people who use
guides.

And the puzzle's, fighting, and so on work out nicely and are quite
equal. There is more than 10 hours put into the game besides the regular
levels. He didn't play the entire game..so his review isn't valid.....
and you haven't even played the game either, as far as I know. So your
opinion, based on hype and what you've heard... isn't valid too.
11/30/98
What does psx blocky, pixelation graphics have to do with the Zelda review?
BTW, N64 games have blurry, low framerate graphics.
i hate RPGamer..... theyve always sucked
Making what up? Most people in this thread agree with me. It's
IMPOSSIBLE to go through Zelda in 35 hours, when first playing
it...unless you used a guide. People who tested the game..and knew
everything about it cannot beat it under 35. IGN64 couldn't beat it
under 40 hours. He also called it easy...and said the last boss, Ganon
didn't even hit him once and he killed him easily. I doubt he even
finished the game...since Ganon has different forms when you fight him
at the end...each harder than the other..and fustrating.(Or so I've
heard...but from a good source.)
> I assumed that Zelda wasn't just a puzzle game. If that's all there is to
> it, and having the solutions ruins the game, then I certainly don't think you
> can call it the best game ever. If the game was really that good, it would
> still be great even with a guide. I consulted a guide while playing
> Xenogears. It was just text, so everything I saw was still fresh and new,
> and it didn't really say anything about the plot, so the game was still full
> of surprises. Knowing how to get through the dungeons didn't spoil it one
> bit. I still wanted to explore the "wrong paths" anyway. It still took me
> 62 hours to finish the game. If you can't say the same about Zelda, it
> really isn't much of a game.

Zelda is not just a puzzle game. It's a game of exploration. There's a
very large environment for you to discover, experiment with, and wonder
at. I wouldn't call it a true RPG, but it has those elements in common
with them. And those are the things that make it fun. If you've played
the game knowing what was around each corner, and knowing what each
object does, and knowing how to get to each secret, you've robbed
yourself of a really great game.

If you travel to Paris how do you want to go? Do you want to take a
tour where someone will lead you around by the nose to all the sites?
Let's see, half hour stop so you can go to the top of the Eiffel Tower.
Quick zip into the Louvre so you can glance at the Mona Lisa. Photo-op
at Notre Dame. Now, have you done Paris? I would say you haven't. Not
until you've sat in a cafe for an afternoon, wandered the streets,
figured out how the Metro works, and found a really great pastry shop.
You can't do those things with a guide.

If you enter Kakariko village with a list of things to do, do them, then
leave - then you're not playing the game. And if you haven't played the
game - why are you writing a review about it?


videogames.com Zelda Review (11/23/98)
www.videogames.com

REVIEW

"In a word, perfect. To call it anything else would be a bold-faced lie."
Begin Sarcasm.

Well, I guess all game developers can now close shop. The perfect game has
been sent from god amongst men. And game players around the world can stop
playing other games, because perfection has finally arrived. And who would
have ever thought that it would come in the form of a video game.

End Sarcasm.

I'm sorry, nothing is perfect.
To be everything to all gamers is impossible.
Zelda is like a Disney film amongst the film industry, with it's mass appeal
coming from the lowest common denominator.
While I'm happy to find that Zelda got such positive reviews, declaring it
perfect is far from correct. A bigger step forward than any other game in
it's genre? Sure. Perfect while it sometimes has dipping framerates and no
multiplayer mode? No.
> I gotta agree. It will have NO replay value (though heaven to some while
> it lasts - M64), it is a rather slow affair and like most rpgs you have
> to put up with the most childish dialogue imaginable.

Have you played through Zelda? How do you know it has no replay value?
Maybe the game is so compelling, the storyline so intensive, the gameplay
so amazing, that you just HAVE to play it again and rescue Zelda and face
off against the dastardly Ganondorf?

A rather slow affair? Lemme guess, you thought Metal Gear Solid's teeny
length was the right amount: where you literally pay the game minimum wage,
on a dollar-to-time basis.
Typical idiot repsonse to someone's honest opinion. When in doubt, compare
it to the most popular title at the moment on another system attempting to
paint the original poster as a troll. Tired and oh so predictable.


EGM gives Zelda64 all 10's!!! (1/6/99)
Not only did Zelda: Ocarina of Time get the same rating as Metal Gear Solid,
but its also #1 game in America AND Japan
> No suprise there... and it deserves those scores.

Assuming the scale is 1 to 11, haha.

Or that the numbers are meaningless.

Or that the scores of games don't have any relation to each other, which
basically means they're meaningless.

Or the numbers represent how well the game lived up to their expectations
(meaning excected-crappy games would could also rate 10s if they were
crap).

But most likely, you're a member of the Majority (with a capital M, my
man), and are deluded by the hype that everyone has generated. But don't
let me tell you what is the case; please tell us yourself, by all means!

But, enough speculation. Perhaps you could first tell us what the scale
represents, what the highest number signifies, and why it deserves those
ratings. Otherwise we don't even know what a "10" means, and we'd be
arguing over a possible miscommunication.
arrggghhhh!!! You caught me! I'm a complete sell-out and have no mind of my
own because Zelda is a perfect game. Wait I mean, I have been PROGRAMMED to
THINK that Zelda is a perfect game by some face-less, multi-million dollar
company. Alas, I don't think anyone will ever see the searing truth that you
are so privledged to see. At least not as long as the man is in the white
house and this country is ruled by the all-mighty dollar.
(the rest of the thread is a long ass debate about Japan's relevance in the market circa early 1999)
 

EmCeeGramr

Member
Jun 25, 2005
38,456
0
0
ZELDA 64 SUCKS!!! GOING BACK TO TARGET!!! (11/28/98)
I think that this game isn't worth $60. I still wanted to play it so I
bought it at Target and I will play it and beat it till after Christmas.
Then I am gonna take it back and demand my money back!!!!! Think about
it!!! The day after Christmas everyone is bringing stuff back. I am going
to say the game is broke and demand a new copy. Thing is the game will be
sold out so I get my money back!!!!! I go to beat the game for free!!
BTW, this game isn't that great:

-Poor frame rate
-Sound isn't as good as in previous Zelda games
-Doesn't have the classic overhead feel of the older games
-Really, really stupid dialogue
- weak story
- Link walks too slow
- too easy
- few new weapons
- it is too much like Mario with a sword

It is a good rental game but I have better things do to with $60 than play
this sorry game. One of the most disappointing games of the year like
Banjo-Kazzoie and Yooshi Story. So far Goldeneye is the only good N64 game
I have really enjoyed. Too bad.
> -Poor frame rate--(hovering around 20-30, typical for 3rd person
adventure games)
> -Sound isn't as good as in previous Zelda games(No dedicated sound chip
like super nintendo, but still good variety of sounds/music especially
Gerundo Valley)

> -Doesn't have the classic overhead feel of the older
games--(Of course not, those games were 2D, this is 3D
> -Really, really stupid dialogue--(IMO the dialogue is some of the best
in any video game--it's funny and informative, some is stupid and some is
great
> - weak story--(It's a simple story...it's a video game, not a college
lit course
> - Link walks too slow--(you get a horse later)
> - too easy--(not really, some of the hidden stuff is really
hidden...good luck doing everything
> - few new weapons(I agree with this point--Zelda 3 had way more
weapons/magic)
> - it is too much like Mario with a sword(the environments are very
realistic, unlike mario, the battles with enemies/bosses take skill,
unlike mario...etc.

Just so I know, how far are you in the game? I would hope that any
sensible human being would invest some time in something they spent $60 on
before dismissing it and trashing it. Some people are just jerkasses.


Forget Zelda 64. The real game of the century comes out next week. (11/18/98)
<Editorial mode on>

And the real game of the century?......why Half Life, of course. Great
storyline, graphics, sounds, amazing enemy AI, weapons, and one thing Zelda
64 will not have. Great multiplayer, including Team Fortress 2 (and if you
don't know what Team Fortress is, shame on you!)

It's the multiplayer aspect of Half Life and the online community that will
keep the game interesting months after we've all stopped playing Zelda 64.
Much like Quake 2, the addition of new player created levels, mods, weapons,
skins, etc is what will make Half Life more than just a one time romp
through the single player game.

I'm sure Zelda 64 will be excellent the first time through and all, just as
MGS was. And I'll be picking up my reserved copy of Zelda 64 next week
along with thousands of other people across the country. I fully intend to
enjoy every minute I play the game, and I'll be amazed and astounded by the
gameplay. But ask me 6 months from now which game I'll still be
playing.......
Oh boy, another version of Doom. How terribly exciting and original...
Surely no game is more suited to the title "Game of the Century" than a
regurgitated version of Quake 2. Forget Space War, Asteroids, Ultima,
Pac-Man, Civilization, X-COM, Street Fighter 2, Super Mario Bros., Final
Fantasy--3dfx is the be all and end all of gaming!
Perhaps I should rephrase my intent. I simply feel that with today's
communications technology, no game that is 'closed' as Zelda 64 is should
receive the title 'Game of the century'. 'Console game of the century'....I
wouldn't have a problem with that. But certain magazines and individuals
are not placing that definition on it, and instead put the sweeping title
everyone seems to be repeating now.

My 'Game Of The Century' will not only have great graphics, gameplay, sounds
and music as Zelda 64 certainly does, but will also be open ended. Reaching
the end of the single player game would only be the beginning. After that,
I will be able to continue the game with new levels, weapons, etc. I will
be able to play online with thousands of others across the country, either
competitively or in cooperatively. In other words, the game will never
really end. Playing a game by yourself in a little room is one
thing...playing a game with other live human beings at the same time is
another experience entirely. Can't be done with an RPG like Zelda? What
about Ultima OnLine, or the upcoming Everquest?

And I am not just trying to advocate PCs. It is true that at this point,
only the PC can provide this kind of interaction and open-ended gameplay.
However, in the future we will see Nintendo's DD (providing it comes with
the modem) and Sega's Dreamcast open up this new world of gaming. And to be
perfectly honest, I'm not that crazy about having to constantly worry about
having enough RAM, virtual memory settings, hard drive crashes and
incompatibility problems to get my PC to run right....I long for the day
when I can simpy stick a CD in the drive and press the power button on an
internet based console system.

I'm sure some people (especially Nintendo advocates) will disagree with me,
and that's fine. But until I can play Zelda 64 co-op with several people or
download new levels to play, I'll be longing for something more. Once you
get drawn into the online gaming community, it's hard to go back.
11/18/98
One off topic note:

Doesn't anybody find it funny that it's been a year and a half since
Goldeneye has been released and there hasn't been a PC FPS whose single
player has been half as well designed and enjoyable? (There have been
dozens graphically more splendid, but I don't think any has had the
fun-quotient that Goldeneye has. . .)

Half-life may change that, but a year and a half is pretty long. . .
You have an excellent point.
I think the real problem is that we have yet to see a game that really uses
the internet to its full potential.

I mean, Quake and Doom clones are fine and good and all that, and I must
accede that internet gaming probably would not even exist if it wasn't for
the game Quake (maybe that should be the game of the century?) but first
person shooters just simply don't make that great of a game. You really
cannot do that much with them. I mean, how much kill or be killed can I
take before I decide it is fragging time at work?
What has made this problem really bad is that first person shooters are
really the only gaming types that have showed true progress in internet
gaming. That isn't a contradiction. I am just pointing out that user built
add ons, levels and mods is definetly something that the "game of the
century" is gonna have to posses if we are to say that the "game of the
century" must be an internet game.
Lets face it, you can play Railroad Tycoon II over the internet, and
Railroad Tycoon II is definetly a better game, but you just cannot mod it.

There really are not any internet games out there that posses the qualities
to be the game of the century, yet. I think that maybe massive multiplayer
RPG's might have it. I for one cannot wait for Everquest. UO was a good
idea, it was just an overwelming one.

You know, I haven't played the new Zelda yet. But I have played a lot of
Myamoto games and I think I know what I can expect from Zelda. And I
honestly think this is the one case in a thousand were just maybe it is
alright to believe the hype. I have yet to see an internet game that
really lives up to what is possible with the internet. So if Zelda is as I
expect it will be I think I can live with it being the game of the century.
But my mind can be changed.

But I know, you are saying "He just hates first person shooters!". Well I
don't, but let me give a few suggestions for internet games, and tell me,
don't you think these will beat the pants off of Quake any day of the week?


How about a massive multiplayer football game. You could play it single
player just fine like any other football game out there, or you could choose
a position (or even several) and log onto places like MPlayer or Heat.net
and play against other people. Here is where it could get intersting. If
you made everyone choose just one postion than MPlayer or Heat could hold
competitions and put together teams (like in Quake) and they could hold real
honest to god football games over the net.
Maybe even have a MPlayer vs. Heat Super Bowl. You must admit that could be
fun. Maybe even fun to watch if they did it right.

Or how about a racing sim. You would start out at home playing single
player and designing a car. The problem is that the single player game is
only designed to make a car that is so good. Maybe you couldn't earn the
100's of thousands of dollars needed to get a real car through the home
unit. So you go online and compete in real races. You start out against
newbies (there would be some way to restrict people to car classes to make
the races fairer) and if you were smart and won enough and saved enough (not
real but game) money you could design a team and a car that could really
kick ass, just don't crash it....

I think you get the idea. Both of these ideas really would use the
potential of the internet to do a lot more than "point, shoot and kill" that
internet frag fests boil down to today.
Perhaps I should rephrase my intent. I simply feel that with today's
communications technology, no game that is 'closed' as Zelda 64 is should
receive the title 'Game of the century'. 'Console game of the century'....I
wouldn't have a problem with that. But certain magazines and individuals
are not placing that definition on it, and instead put the sweeping title
everyone seems to be repeating now.

My 'Game Of The Century' will not only have great graphics, gameplay, sounds
and music as Zelda 64 certainly does, but will also be open ended. Reaching
the end of the single player game would only be the beginning. After that,
I will be able to continue the game with new levels, weapons, etc. I will
be able to play online with thousands of others across the country, either
competitively or in cooperatively. In other words, the game will never
really end. Playing a game by yourself in a little room is one
thing...playing a game with other live human beings at the same time is
another experience entirely. Can't be done with an RPG like Zelda? What
about Ultima OnLine, or the upcoming Everquest?

And I am not just trying to advocate PCs. It is true that at this point,
only the PC can provide this kind of interaction and open-ended gameplay.
However, in the future we will see Nintendo's DD (providing it comes with
the modem) and Sega's Dreamcast open up this new world of gaming. And to be
perfectly honest, I'm not that crazy about having to constantly worry about
having enough RAM, virtual memory settings, hard drive crashes and
incompatibility problems to get my PC to run right....I long for the day
when I can simpy stick a CD in the drive and press the power button on an
internet based console system.

I'm sure some people (especially Nintendo advocates) will disagree with me,
and that's fine. But until I can play Zelda 64 co-op with several people or
download new levels to play, I'll be longing for something more. Once you
get drawn into the online gaming community, it's hard to go back.
Fine for you, but I have no interest in online gaming. Not everyone does.
If I want to play a game with other people, I want it to be people I know in
the same room, not "strangers" on the other end of a phone line.
> And the real game of the century?......why Half Life, of course. Great
> storyline, graphics, sounds, amazing enemy AI, weapons, and one thing Zelda
> 64 will not have. Great multiplayer, including Team Fortress 2 (and if you
> don't know what Team Fortress is, shame on you!)

Man I've heard the AI line before - believe it when I see it.
And I thought TF2 isn't coming with it, guess what, it's not in the package.
Oh and here's another thing it will have thwan Zelda 64 will not have.
A sh|tload of patches.

>
> It's the multiplayer aspect of Half Life and the online community that will
> keep the game interesting months after we've all stopped playing Zelda 64.
> Much like Quake 2, the addition of new player created levels, mods, weapons,
> skins, etc is what will make Half Life more than just a one time romp
> through the single player game.

True, but something tells me its single player won't compare to Zelda 64.
And you forget the not so fun part keeping Half Life alive (patches for pcs,
graphics cards, bugs, ai, multiplayer). Oh and Zelda won't have much lag..

>
> I'm sure Zelda 64 will be excellent the first time through and all, just as
> MGS was. And I'll be picking up my reserved copy of Zelda 64 next week
> along with thousands of other people across the country. I fully intend to
> enjoy every minute I play the game, and I'll be amazed and astounded by the
> gameplay. But ask me 6 months from now which game I'll still be
> playing.......
>

Ok, I'll ask you 6 months from now. If you don't say 'Half Life? Oh yeah..'
I'll be surprised ;)
>Okay, since so many people have said that, I have to ask: in what way is
>Zelda going to redefine the adventure game genre? What will it have over,
>say, something like LucasArts' "Grim Fandango", a PC game which is getting
>rave reviews everywhere and has a very original and good story,
>unbelievably well done characters etc.?

Zelda doesn't have any elevators? (Inside joke for those who have the
game.)

I love Grim Fandango and I think Tim Schafer is one of the best game
designers in the world. But Grim Fandango is NOT the best adventure game
ever created. (I'd nominate a couple text adventures, along with Monkey
Island I and II.) While the voice acting, cut scenes, and all that are
really well done and extremely fitting, the puzzles (which are the heart of
the game) are far too easy and sometimes just dumb. While I am praying that
Grim Fandango sells a million copies so that more adventure games of that
quality will be made, it is not a revolutionary adventure game. It is a
very well placed step in the right direction. (Much like a Sonic Team game.
It borrowed from Miyamoto and made a really good original game out of it
that nobody can emulate.) Though the head-tracking item spotting is
excellent and I hope to see it done in more games.


Zelda, on the other hand, looks to innovate 3-d adventure games,
specifically combat ones. The targetting system alone is GENIUS. The
auto-jumping could be added to other games, freeing up another button for
more interesting actions. The sheer scope and number of mini-quests should
be an inspiration (or deterrant!) for other games.

I love Grim Fandango. I love the small amount Zelda that I've played. I
hope both sell many, many copies, but I feel Zelda is a great deal more
innovative with a larger scope than Grim.
>Okay, just whatinthehell IS this "targeting system" that everyone is
>jizzing their pants about??? I don't exactly get how simply shifting to
>first-person for weapon targeting could be improved upon, unless Zelda 64
>lets you indirect-fire the bow over walls or something...


Here's Scott's cruddy overview of the targeting system:

An enemy approaches. The fairy will fly toward or over the enemy. (If you
don't want to target that enemy, just turn toward a different one.) Hold
down the trigger button. Two things change: First, the camera goes right
behind Link aiming at the enemy. Second, Link moves so that he is strafing
the enemy, side-walking around him so that you don't have to line up your
sword to hit him and you don't have to line up your shield to block the
enemies shots. This works well because you have a choice of what you lock
on to (unlike Tomb Raider) and you don't have to miss because it's hard to
line up things in 3-d. It simplifies the rules to put them into a more
manageable scenario so that you can concentrate on fighting the guy rather
than trying to turn so that you can block his shots.

I found it very intuitive and it made the fights (especially against the
Staflos skeletons) great fun, almost like a fighting game.
>What that simply means is IF they catch the bug in the console game,
>they will have to postpone its release date until the bug is fixed.
>So would you rather play a game with some bug in it or not to play the
>game at all, just waiting for it?

Ask all the Fallout 2 players who will be forced to ditch their saved games
when they install the upcoming patch--I think they might prefer the latter.
 

Neptonic

Member
Apr 29, 2016
3,445
5
250
22
Arizona
These are amazing to read.
As someone who hears about Usenet all the time on the bombcast, but was way too young at the time to ever even interact or know what it was, these posts are fascinating.
 

heavy liquid

Member
Jun 6, 2004
5,405
4
1,335
And I am not just trying to advocate PCs. It is true that at this point,
only the PC can provide this kind of interaction and open-ended gameplay.
However, in the future we will see Nintendo's DD (providing it comes with
the modem) and Sega's Dreamcast open up this new world of gaming.

Haha, I remember being really excited about the possibility of the Nintendo DD, too.

Man, I can't wait for that to come out in the US!

 

Spine_Ripper

Member
Jun 2, 2013
3,870
0
0
> <<Most of those RPGamer guys are PSX fans, and usually have negative thoughts
> against N64... Esp that stupid, biased.. son of a bitch, A.K. But oh well.>>
lmao, I thought the 90s was a more civilized age on the internet
 

Lothar

Banned
Aug 31, 2011
8,819
1
0
Even in the EMBARRASSMENT of riches that was 1998, there was ennui.

That one PC fanboy was seeing how the industry would go though, sorta.

Gamers online in 98 loved the games in 98 but just their system's games. I remember the MGS vs Zelda debates. N64 owners tried to act like MGS wasn't a big deal, PSX owners complained about Zelda's frame rate, said it was too easy, and the game was for babies.
 

Peltz

Member
Apr 26, 2014
16,507
15
575
Even in the EMBARRASSMENT of riches that was 1998, there was ennui.

That one PC fanboy was seeing how the industry would go though, sorta.

Yeah, really amazing stuff. It made me smile when one guy said he longed for the day when he could just put a disc into a console and play online without needing to use a PC. It's amazing how far we've come considering we can now do MMOs on our Smartphones.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
May 11, 2015
26,985
0
0
The Palace of Wisdom
Zelda 64 DOES have a bad framerate!!! Thanks for all the LIES!!! (11/29/98)





TIME Magazine calls Zelda a "Masterpiece" (11/18/98)



(the rest of the thread is arguing about whether 2000 or 2001 counts as the start of a new century)


Translation: Famitsu's Zelda Review (11/18/98)


Note: this translation was by Nob Ogasawara, the translator for most of the Pokemon series up through Platinum.


RPGamer Zelda Review (11/28/98)
















videogames.com Zelda Review (11/23/98)







EGM gives Zelda64 all 10's!!! (1/6/99)



(the rest of the thread is a long ass debate about Japan's relevance in the market circa early 1999)
Reading your posts is honestly what made me want to sign up for GAF.
 

Nocturnowl

Member
Jan 1, 2011
27,451
2
0
Somehow my first time seeing this thread and boy, seeing the same sort of arguments and complaints that bring down discussion to this day still occurring 2 decades ago is certainly something.

We're cursed to never escape over the top reactionary posts, cursed I tells ya!
 

Narroo

Member
Jun 6, 2013
2,074
33
350
It was incredible. Before that port, I had only played it at my local Pizza Hut and that purple toothpaste laser just blew my mind. When I got the Playstation version, I couldn't believe how good a translation it was. And all of the options/customization. Really solid game.

I'm happy that I'm not the only one that called it the Toothpaste laser.
 

Spladam

Member
Jun 12, 2015
2,244
8
400
Ok, with regards to this gem of a Usenet post:
On the subject of choosing a video game.....my five cents....

Personally, I think the Nintendo is a piece of right wing garbage akin to the
IBM PC. Slow, out of date, but heavily marketed so that mindless dweenies will
think it's the hottest thing since Zelda had her first period. I have yet TO
SEE A SINGLE GAME ON THE THING SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER THAN STUFF I PLAYED ON MY
OLD ATARI 800 SEVEN YEARS AGO.....Yes, there are some nice games, but they do
not do anything extraordinary and in fact clearly show the glaring limitations
of the thing's inferior pre-VLSI hardware.

On the subject of the Sega Genesis and the Turbografix 16. At least these guys
are using hardware invented after the Apple II, give 'em credit! The graphics
in these games are NICE! I really can't give a decent opinion as to which is
better, they're both fantastic!

But now I get to stand on my soapbox and have some fun. Correct me if I am
wrong, but isn't the Atari 7800 superior hardware wise to the NES? I heard
thing could manipulate 64 BIG sprites at once. It was developed right when
the slump hit the videogame industry, and two fantastic and innovative games
Rescue at fractalus and Ballblazer NEVER got the recognition they deserved.
I have yet to see ANYTHING on the NES half as good as these wondrous
creations from Lucasfilm. All I ever see are variations on the horizontal/
vertical scrolling find the magic trinket and or blow it up while a host of
randomly drawn stick figures get in your way theme. I'd rather pay 25 cents
in an arcade and at least get decent graphics and sound.

Just out of curiosity I used his original Usenet handle and the name he signed the post with to try to track him down, just wondering how folks like this (us) would feel about their comments now. I believe he is this gentleman, Scott Le Grand, an obviously brilliant developer for NVIDIA who holds GPU technology patents and has done some amazing work. I found his twitter account, and I'll see if I can find an email for him. I would really like to get his reaction to his comments three decades ago.

Not positive he's the same guy, but his bio says he developed a space shooter in 87, and he posted on the Usenet group that he was indeed developing a video game, dated 1987. Would be interesting to see his reaction. One thing is for sure, despite his views on Nintendo and the NES at the time, the dude is REALLY intelligent.

For reference, here is the original Usenet thread.