BigSocrates's forum posts

#1 Posted by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

I don't hate Sunshine but it's not a proper Mario game because it features a unique control scheme and abilities that were never seen again. Mario doesn't control like Mario except in a small subset of levels. Compare that to Galaxy and 3D land, which both control pretty much like Mario 64, and Sunshine is definitely the odd one out.

It should be noted that while Pikmin is nice and Animal Crossing is fine, the Gamecube lacks powerhouse debuts for franchises (most of its top games are just iterative) and doesn't have many huge culutrally defining hits like Mario 64 or Goldeneye from the N64, or a billion games from the NES/SNES era. When you think Nintendo you think of the 2D games, followed by the first 3D iterations of those games (Mario 64, Ocarina, etc...) and the N64 rare games (Goldeneye, Banjo-Kazooie) and then the popular appeal of the Wii. What defines the Gamecube? The weird controller? The minor hits? Good iterations of Nintendo franchises like Mario Kart and Zelda (All Nintendo systems have good iterations of those franchises.)

Once again, it's not a bad system at all. I had one. I like Super Mario Sunshine. I liked a lot of games for that system. But it was third fiddle during its lifespan and it lacks megahits. It's just an understated pleasant little system. And that's why it doesn't get attention.


#2 Edited by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

The Gamecube gets overlooked because the system itself looks like a toy for children, it lacks a proper Mario game, and it was the console where Nintendo truly lost third party support. There were many long gamecube game droughts and many multiplatform games were worst on gamecube (though some were best on the Gamecube.) It is also competing against the Playstation II, an all-time powerhouse system in terms of games, and the original Xbox which was significantly more powerful and marked the first serious American made console since the heyday of Atari.

Taken on its own merits the Gamecube is a nice little console with some very good games.

Also you failed to mention the Gamecube smash brothers, which many to this day consider the best iteration of the franchise.

#3 Edited by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

Shadow of Mordor looks AMAZING, but so does Evolve. I will probably get them both and justify it because one is single player focused and the other is multiplayer focused.

If I had to choose probably shadow of mordor. Something about that game is just extremely enticing.

#4 Edited by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

He's choosing to publicly tweet this stuff (and in the manner he tweets it.) He chooses to publicly discuss it on a podcast. I think he wants people to laugh. It's part of his comedic schtick and he plays it up. It's not surprising that someone who is so into wrestling and has a public job would choose to use an amplified persona. He wants people to be amused.

#5 Posted by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

I'm starting to believe that Dan is utterly sincere in the weird stuff he says/does (like insisting that Aioli and mayonaisse are totally distinct because one is called aioli and the other mayonaisse.) This is both extremely distressing and extremely amusing.

#6 Posted by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

How can we decide how much you value multiplayer vs resolution vs specific exclusives? There's just not enough information here. Do you multiplayer once a month or every night? Do you LOVE Last of us and hate Halo or is it more like LoU is a 9 and Halo is an 8.5?

#7 Edited by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

Not that problem, but tons of problems with my voice headset and getting the Xbox to recognize it. One of my pet peeves.

#8 Posted by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

Initially, I thought it began with Left 4 Dead, but the PS1 and SNES both allowed for a simultaneous four players with the installation of their respective Multitaps.

Is it because four is the cleanest split you can achieve on one monitor without going all crazy? But some newer online-only titles still issue a hard cap on four players.

Maybe it's a binary thing.

It's about console split screen from the old days of TVs. a 4:3 TV splits pretty well into 4 quadrants. The N64 added 4 controller ports and since then 4 has been the default. It also happens that 4 is a good number of people to gather together for a game session whether online or off, and a reasonable number of people to coordinate. There are games with 3 player co-op (like Trine) and it's not a binary thing, just a custom.

#9 Posted by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

Totally haphazardly. When there's nothing new out that I desperately want to play I look through my options on my various console hard drives and the discs I haven't played and pick one that I'm in the mood for. Or I pick up something I started awhile ago but never finished. I would probably be better off putting the games in some kind of order so I don't end up burning 2 gaming weekends (each about 3-4 hours) on Medal of Honor: Warfighter (as happened in June) but I get all kinds of weird impulses when it comes to games, and sometimes I just want to play something mediocre and brainless.

#10 Posted by BigSocrates (291 posts) -

@jimipeppr said:

@devil240z: I wouldn't say that having more complicated mechanics and being 3D makes a game inherently better. I can't speak for Jeff, but sometimes games are fun because they're simple.

I didn't mean to say that it was better at all just that they're very similar mechanically so it seems strange to love one and strongly dislike the other.

The games are pretty different, especially in rhythm. Crimsonland is really all about tension and release. At the later levels you are always just on the verge of being overwhelmed and hoping that a nuke or ice powerup or just a better weapon will spawn. No level lasts particularly long and even survival mode is relatively short unless you're very very good. It's also 2-D and relatively simple, never disorienting or reliant on a camera. There are definitely similiarities but I can understand loving one and not liking the other.