Was NIGHTS into Dreams really that bad?

Avatar image for liquiddragon
#1 Edited by liquiddragon (3526 posts) -

I remember seeing it at a friends house and getting to play it a little when I was kid. I only had a Genesis and it was the first time I saw a game running on a disc and I thought it was pretty cool.

The thing is, I was in the 1st grade and all video games were cool to me so Idk if it was actually good. Giant Bomb or I guess mostly Jeff has dumped on it over the years so Idk if it's just Jeff being Jeff or what.

Is it like Sonic Adventures where ppl turned on it over time but liked it when it came out or was it more of a over hyped, over marketed mess?

I only played it that one time so I kinda want to get my hands on it. What did you think of NIGHTS at the time, what you do think about it now?

Avatar image for humanity
#2 Posted by Humanity (18944 posts) -

It was an era where people were really trying to do something with 3D spaces and it didn't always work out.

Let's just say it wasn't great.

Avatar image for brunothethird
#3 Posted by BrunoTheThird (843 posts) -

I think with games like Nights, Spyro, and Sonic, they're always shown in their best light when described more like kids games -- upbeat, bouncy, fun jaunts through candy-coated worlds. When reassessed with our adult eyes and more finely tuned critiquing skills later in life, they fall apart, but you can rationalize it's unfair to do that based on what the intention of the games were, which wasn't to be cutting-edge platformers/action games, but kids platformers/action games. They don't have the obvious integrity of the best in class, or other qualities like Super Mario had to satisfy adults and kids alike, but have heart and soul for days, and still shine bright enough in a nostalgic way. They're all totally fun to play and charming, but don't have the legs and prestige to hold their own when you actually sit and analyze their constituent parts. Your best bet is to play them capriciously on a whim, without the intention of sitting down and saying, "Right, let's see what this is *adjusts monocle*"

Are they great or even good games today? Man, that is pretty tough to say; certain aspects hold up; just as many don't. Do I like them? absolutely. Being more objective about it, I'd say they were necessary games that were better in their day before so many games did what they did so much better, and now they're interesting ancestors.

Avatar image for theht
#4 Edited by TheHT (15875 posts) -

I remember absolutely loving everything I saw about this game as a kid, until I played it at a Blockbuster Sega Saturn kiosk and was like "oh this isn't actually very good at all."

Still dig its style though.

Avatar image for drsocial
#5 Edited by DrSocial (23 posts) -

Nights is super fun, but it doesn't explain its mechanics very well. Also, a lot of people expect it to be more than a simple high score challenge because of the marketing. Some of the boss fights are rough and running around on foot as the kids adds nothing to the game.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
#6 Posted by BigSocrates (1966 posts) -

NiGHTS was a functional 3-D game on the Saturn, which made it very exciting for Saturn owners, who really didn't have a lot of polygonal options at the time, and were hungry for 3-D games that could compete with all the stuff coming out on PlayStation and the upcoming N64.

It was also from the creator of Sonic on a system wihtout a Sonic game, so people kind of flocked to it as a replacement for Sonic.

It wasn't good enough for any of that. It's a kind of interesting weird game that isn't terrible per se, but it's not anywhere near the level of a Mario 64 or even a Crash Bandicoot. It looked good and served as a Saturn 3-D tech demo.

I mean what else did Saturn owners have in 3-D? Panzer Dragoon. Virtua Fighter. Uhh....Clockwork Night? Bug!?

I'm not saying the Saturn was an objectively horrible system, but it was not a good 3-D system and that was especially true during its first couple years. Sega fans were excited for NiGHTS because they didn't have much else. Playstation and N64 owners were much less impressed.

Avatar image for rejizzle
#7 Posted by Rejizzle (1136 posts) -

Nights isn't good, but it has Styyyyyyyyle.

Avatar image for relkin
#8 Posted by Relkin (1214 posts) -

It's not great, but it's not anywhere near as bad as Jeff makes it out to be. It's just Jeff being Jeff.

Avatar image for luchalma
#9 Posted by Luchalma (548 posts) -

With certain games Jeff digs his heels in and goes way overboard with his hate for it as if he feeds off the collective eye rolling of the fans of said games to sustain him. Nights is one of those games. Is it amazing? No. Not really. It's not even really great. But it's ok.

Avatar image for geirr
#10 Posted by geirr (3796 posts) -

I generally think it wasn't just that bad, it was actually worse.

Avatar image for cikame
#11 Posted by cikame (2910 posts) -

It's fine, the music's fantastic and it's a pretty looking game, but the gameplay is fairly simple.
That's not to say it can't be rewarding, stringing along a combo is fun, but it's kind of a quick arcade thing you'd check out for a few minutes before moving on.

Loading Video...
Avatar image for ntm
#12 Posted by NTM (11871 posts) -

I never cared for it, but my brother loved it.

Avatar image for ungodly
#13 Posted by Ungodly (449 posts) -

I played it, and beat it. It didn’t stick with me like it did others. I just remember that I hated being the kids, and that the flying in some spots didn’t feel great. My sister really liked it at the time, though.

Avatar image for jamesyfx
#14 Posted by jamesyfx (155 posts) -

I'm always kicking myself cos I had a copy of Christmas Nights and I threw it away after I got rid of my Saturn at the time.

It fascinated me that the entire game would look different depending what date was set on the console.