-
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.
NeoGAF Top 50 Nintendo Games of All Time (2016 Edition)
- Thread starter Sadist
- Start date
TheSpaceBetween
Member
Fair enough, even if I don't agree with it unraveling. One of the things I love about Prime is the variety. While most people hate the Phazon Mines it's one of my favorite areas in the whole series, even if a lot of it is linear battles with Space Pirates. I especially loved the mushroom hopping section with all the Metroids and the use of the X-Ray visor.
I can understand people not liking Prime compared to the 2D games due to the controls and mechanics, and feeling a lot different than the 2D games. But Prime is actually structured very similarly to the Metroid games that came before it. SM64's structure showed next to no resemblance to 2D Mario. Unlike Prime though, controls and mechanics are faithful 3D replications of the 2D games. I'd still argue that Prime is closer to the DNA of the 2D Metroids than 64 is to the 2D Mario's though. But it is a matter of opinion.
Oh, and OOT and SM64 are far from being flawless as well, what with OOT's boring overworld, weak ass final dungeon compared to Z 1-3, and SM64's camera, and the hundred coin collectothons to name a few.
MrChocolate
Member
As always, Majora's Mask get robbed... Ah well, someday people will learn to appreciate the superior game.
I think the little turn that Mario does is the absolute right decision, despite the fact that it will cause you to fall on occasion (the blue coin block on Tick Tock Clock is a good example, and has a camera turn plus narrow ledge combo that can and will drop you off, even if you're careful).
Now I admit, it's extremely unorthodox to keep that kind of a move when it can be so dangerous.
Two reasons why I would.
First, the game is built around running in circles. Running in a circle is probably the most obvious thing to do when you first step into a 3D world. It's simply not possible to do on a 2D plane. And so Nintendo built many gameplay elements around this idea, from boss fights to enemies to coin dispensing wooden posts. It's simply fun to run around in a circle, and so Nintendo anticipated that and built gameplay around it.
Second, SM64 depends on its controls and movement perhaps more than any other single game. It's imperative that he control well, not in relation to the level design, but in an intrinsic way. Running around in that tight circle as Mario leans into the run conveys a sense of reality on the character that doesn't exist in the other games. SM64's Mario appears to actually exist and inhabit the world (see this post for some very interesting comments, though I'm not sure if the poster would necessarily support my thinking on this specific control element), because he behaves realistically in fundamental ways (Giles Goddard addressed this latter point in an interview I can dig up). Galaxy's Mario is light on your tv. SM64's mario feels real.
Now, I'm assuming that the little turn you're talking about is the start of Mario's circling run, and if so then I think it's simply the price to pay that on rare occasions you're going to fall. Which is fine, because 99% of the time those decisions contribute to what is the most well animated and responsive and real-feeling digital avatar ever created.
And, to Dion's point, you can in fact execute an instant 180 degree turn, though you really have be precise to do it.
Good point on the structure. I tend not to look at it through that lens, but rather focus on each of the gameplay elements that make up the whole. But certainly structure is important, and Prime has it.
Come on now, you may not personally like them but calling those three games weak as shit is just plain wrong.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
I don't know about Splatoon, but Wii U games will have a drop, not doubt about it. They got many votes just because they are on the Nintendo's current gen system. If this was made when Wii was Nintendo's current system, games like Metroid Prime 3, Punch-Out, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Skyward Sword, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Donkey Kong Country Returns, etc, would get far more votes than it did now.
...
Because it excels in the gameplay aspect. Even more than the original Xenoblade. Don't even try to deny it.
Personally, I enjoyed the story despite its open-world approach and even enjoyed the playable cast. The sidequests are really well done.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Ocarina of Time is just not good in the year 2016. The pacing is glacial, the story is hilariously childish and dull even for 90s nintendo standards, its "open world" is both empty AND tiny, the z-target combat was innovate at the time but its crazy antiqued by modern standards...thats on top of the game being ugly as sin and running at a piss poor framerate.
Its gon get by on lists like this for historical significance and nostalgia for the rest of our lives.
This isn't "Top 50 Nintendo Games that Still Hold Up Today".
EDIT: Although tbh, I think they totally do hold up today.
OoT's pacing is fantastic, and I don't even care about pacing.
And if it's the case that it is, in fact, bad, along with the other things on the list, it should have been identifiable as such in 1998. The idea these things could only be gleaned in retrospect or have somehow been made bad by the supposed improvements of other games is nonsensical.
MrSaturn99
Member
Having replayed it a couple years back I think OOT holds up incredibly well. The pacing is rock-solid compared to later 3D Zeldas.
The only thing I'd ding it for are anything related to text, from the infrequent text speed to Navi's interruptions to the dry localization. (Note the lack of contractions)
Bingo.
The only thing I'd ding it for are anything related to text, from the infrequent text speed to Navi's interruptions to the dry localization. (Note the lack of contractions)
Bingo.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Its perfectly logical, actually. Video games are more bound by technology than other mediums like books or paintings or movies. What was cutting edge and gold standard one day can be hilariously antiqued and out of date the next. We used to watch VHS and carry cassettes in Walkmans, too. Technology marches forward, building on things from the past.
mrmickfran
Member
Yeah, but everything else is garbage.
Allan Holdsworth
Member
I propose allowing 25 votes next time (2020?), with 10 you really can't do much other than listing the classics.
The pacing is probably the best in 3D Zeldas. While replaying it on the 3DS made me realize it's not as good as I remembered (Twilight Princess is a better version of it in not all, but many aspects), pacing is a thing that Ocarina gets just right.
The pacing is probably the best in 3D Zeldas. While replaying it on the 3DS made me realize it's not as good as I remembered (Twilight Princess is a better version of it in not all, but many aspects), pacing is a thing that Ocarina gets just right.
It's not logical at all. Games do not age. This phenomena does not exist. It exists only in your head, and half the time i suspect the people who say it didn't like the game in question in the first place. It's just a shorthand way to delegitimize the opposing viewpoint.
Just sticking with 3D Zeldas for the moment, OoT does not have the complexity in dungeon design of TP, and it doesn't feature the ultra smooth play control of WW. None of that matters though, because OoT delivers on its dungeon concepts flawlessly, and plays more than well enough. Whereas TP steps on land mines in the overworld, and WW has some of the worst dungeons ever put in a Zelda. OoT simply out executes these other games (and every other Nintendo game too), and if it does so within the confines of simpler gameplay paradigms then it's not really relevant.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
Is this top games published and/or developed by Nintendo or that were playable on a Nintendo console at any point in time?
The first post in the voting thread has the rules:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1240521
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I'm always so puzzled when people bring up the other mediocre 3D zeldas to raise up Ocarina of Time. Like yea, the framerate is terrible, and its ugly as sin, and the combat is simplistic ticky-tacky nothingness, and the overworld is a flop but look over there! A distraction! Look at those other Zelda games that are even worse in certain aspects!
Not the strongest of arguments! I'll never be convinced its great outside its original impact, but I would prefer arguments of its worth that were praising the game on its own merits, not pointing out other games are even worse.
Edgy as fuck.
Everything ages. It's not unheard of for ideas which include design philosophy to become antiquated or the foundation of philosophy to be improved upon drastically. Some things are able to better withstand weathering compared to other, and some things have a resurgence in newly found appreciation, but as culture and technology evolves and as design philosophies change, older titles begin to show their age although the video game industry has ingrained the idea of franchises and formulaic design into the public.
There's eleven pages worth of arguments in its favor in the other thread if you want to check it out. Suffice to say that its optional dungeon has better gameplay ideas than most dungeons in other Zelda games, and story and graphics have absolutely nothing to do with gameplay. You shouldn't get hung up on them.
Also, you made the point that games inevitably age. I offered you an explanation for how someone can elevate an older game above newer ones and, quite logically, kept it within the same series.
You've now brought up more things that presumably were not apparent to you in 1998.
Did you like the combat on release, but not now?
Did you think the graphics were good, but not now?
Did you think the frame rate was fine, but not now?
Because it sounds to me like you didn't like the game on release, and are seeking to explain that through the conceit of a game having aged.
And if you did like it in 98, didn't notice any of that stuff, but don't like it now, then I don't know what to say. To like a game at one point but then not like it is totally irrational.
mrmickfran
Member
Here's how many list fared against the people of Gaf:
1. Super Mario Galaxy >> #4
2. Xenoblade Chronicles >> #13
3. Kid Icarus Uprising ; >> #28
4. Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island >> #16
5. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker >> #12
6. Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door >> #17
7. Bayonetta 2 >> #34
8. Metroid Prime >> #5
9. Sin & Punishment: Star Successor >> #70
((
10. The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds >> #33
I am absolutely disgusted at you people for listing Kid Icarus and Bayo 2 so low.
1. Super Mario Galaxy >> #4
2. Xenoblade Chronicles >> #13
3. Kid Icarus Uprising ; >> #28
4. Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island >> #16
5. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker >> #12
6. Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door >> #17
7. Bayonetta 2 >> #34
8. Metroid Prime >> #5
9. Sin & Punishment: Star Successor >> #70
((10. The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds >> #33
I am absolutely disgusted at you people for listing Kid Icarus and Bayo 2 so low.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Story/graphics are part of the game, I judge the whole product, not the indivual bits that suit my argument.
As for your conclusion...haha, what a completely idiotic conclusion to come to! Standards change, taste change, it's part of the human experience. Do you love all the junk you loved as a kid? Do you still pour ketchup all over your fries and think girls are icky? Do you still consider that crummy Disney TV movie you watched a million times when you were 7 years old to be a classic? Like what an absolutely batshit insane opinion to have lol.
Brink is the Citizen Kane of disney channel movies.
So we agree it's great then? This thread doesn't say people have to pretend all these games came out in the same year when considering their vote. If people want to ignore the impact of games likes OoT and Mario 64 had at the time, then more power to them. The results show that this isn't the case.
Whether they're personally affected or are looking at the titles impact on gaming as a whole, these games are important and impressive no matter how dated the visuals or performance is. Start your own voting thread if you want, call it: "Top 50 Nintendo Games of All Time (but you have to ignore context)".
Out of curiousity, do you think The Godfather is a bad film cause the blood looks fake? Is Seven Samurai bad cause it's in black and white?
Chezzymann
Member
I think a lot of SNES and NES games hold up today, but a bunch of N64 games just dont. 3D games dont start getting bearable until gen 6. So i think its a fair argument to make
Greatest Ever
Member
How is this edgy?
ViewtifulJC
Banned
We get it, you hate it. There is no need to continue reiterating your opinion on the game, especially in a thread that is supposed to celebrate the top 50 Nintendo games of all time.
Zedis Lapedis! We should probably rank these.
It's not possible to not notice OoT's frame rate, or its graphics, no matter what year you play it in.
It's not possible to confuse Hyrule Field for a place filled with things to do.
Yet you would have us believe that's what you experienced.
And perhaps you did, along with many others.
But the rest of us don't have to pretend we missed them just because you did.
DecoReturns
Member
im getting the urge to replay a bunch of these games. I think I'll start with Ocarina of Time and then go to Mario 64.
Fire Emblem Path of Radiance at 45. That's cool, the game was practically a commercial failure, but at least I gave it the #1 in my list.
Fire Emblem Path of Radiance at 45. That's cool, the game was practically a commercial failure, but at least I gave it the #1 in my list.
mrmickfran
Member
WrenchNinja
Member
Seems like a solid list
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Because at the time, our standards were different. At the time, the graphics were amazing! At the time, I hardly knew what framerate was, it didnt matter to me. The field, in my young mind, was quite large and interesting compared to playing Link's Awakening on my Game Boy and moving through those little 4x4 squares. At the time, the Z-lock combat was the best thing in 3D action games I'd had ever seen, and was exciting and intense.
At the time. Its no longer that time. I feel differently about it now. This is a natural process that literally billions of people do about billions of things from their past, and to act like its some irrational process is, frankly, bizarre.Its anti-intellectual, honestly. If you feel exactly the same way about a thing you experienced in your childhood, ignoring all the experiences and personal growth and taste you've accumulated over the course of your life, let the rest of us know, will you? For you'd be the first person in the history of the world.
Which isn't to say its impossible to love something you did in the past(my personal favorite video game is from 1993), but to insist that what you thought was good must always and forever be good is soooooo weird. Life is not encased in ember, to be preserved forever.
You feel Metroid Prime should have been higher? I can agree, but 5's good enough for me, and a spot higher than the last list to boot.
What is with all the OoT hate?! Really boggles the mind that people seem to think it is a) a bad game and b) everyone who likes it to this day is fooling themselves or has no discernment.
a) on its own isn't obnoxious really, just wrong It is when you bring in b), which is pretty much universally the case with the OoT hate in this thread, that it becomes obnoxious. I'd say a lot of the best games of all time are pretty damn old and no that is not because I played them when I was a kid in the 90's--plenty of them I didn't, including OoT, which I only got to play in about 2003 or 2004. My family went SNES to Playstation and then to multiplat in the latter half of the PS2/GCN/Xbox years.
There is more to a game than its production values and its technology. There is its gameplay, pacing, artistic vision, storytelling, etc. I'd say the latter are more important and they aren't 'bound to improve' as the medium ages, unlike the former (well, even there there could be some future change in the industry, which destroys AAA development and higher tech development. Say, non-mobile gaming crashes and we take some steps backwards in budget and power allotted to games).
I'd say OoT still has the best story in any Zelda. The best Zelda (character) in any Zelda. The best pacing in any 3D Zelda. Better dungeons, overall, than any of the 2D games as well as MM and WW. Moreover, it does this while presenting a package that has less blemishes and obvious failings as a Zelda than any of its successors.
As to why turn to comparison to other Zeldas...comparison is sort of how you highlight what makes a particular game standout as special. You put the game into context against its competitors for best Zelda game or best Nintendo game when discussing that very thing.
There is sort of a baseline assumption that people in this discussion care about Zelda and hold it up as some standard of a good game. This is a best Nintendo games thread, after all. Moreover, I'm pretty sure the complaints aren't overly fine-grained but rather broad, i.e. complaints that OoT isn't really good and not complaints that it should be position 2, not 1.
Couple this with considering Ocarina in the context of its time, and it should at least make sense that such a game would win.
OoT does Zelda well, more completely so than any of its successors and was the first game to do it in 3D. I think that is a great thing. So do other people. I don't see what is so foolhardy about seeing it this way.
a) on its own isn't obnoxious really, just wrong
It is when you bring in b), which is pretty much universally the case with the OoT hate in this thread, that it becomes obnoxious. I'd say a lot of the best games of all time are pretty damn old and no that is not because I played them when I was a kid in the 90's--plenty of them I didn't, including OoT, which I only got to play in about 2003 or 2004. My family went SNES to Playstation and then to multiplat in the latter half of the PS2/GCN/Xbox years.There is more to a game than its production values and its technology. There is its gameplay, pacing, artistic vision, storytelling, etc. I'd say the latter are more important and they aren't 'bound to improve' as the medium ages, unlike the former (well, even there there could be some future change in the industry, which destroys AAA development and higher tech development. Say, non-mobile gaming crashes and we take some steps backwards in budget and power allotted to games).
I'd say OoT still has the best story in any Zelda. The best Zelda (character) in any Zelda. The best pacing in any 3D Zelda. Better dungeons, overall, than any of the 2D games as well as MM and WW. Moreover, it does this while presenting a package that has less blemishes and obvious failings as a Zelda than any of its successors.
As to why turn to comparison to other Zeldas...comparison is sort of how you highlight what makes a particular game standout as special. You put the game into context against its competitors for best Zelda game or best Nintendo game when discussing that very thing.
There is sort of a baseline assumption that people in this discussion care about Zelda and hold it up as some standard of a good game. This is a best Nintendo games thread, after all. Moreover, I'm pretty sure the complaints aren't overly fine-grained but rather broad, i.e. complaints that OoT isn't really good and not complaints that it should be position 2, not 1.
Couple this with considering Ocarina in the context of its time, and it should at least make sense that such a game would win.
OoT does Zelda well, more completely so than any of its successors and was the first game to do it in 3D. I think that is a great thing. So do other people. I don't see what is so foolhardy about seeing it this way.
More new games made the list than I expected.
I don't get looking outside of the game's time when compiling an all-time list, especially when even you have said that it has historical significance.
I don't get looking outside of the game's time when compiling an all-time list, especially when even you have said that it has historical significance.