• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Giant Bomb Quick Look Thread 2

The bolded is where most of my problem with the game stems. It's not satisfying as an arcade score-attack game because of the console level structure, and it's not satisfying as a console game due to the intrusion of the arcade elements. Instead, it sits in this weird middle ground where the two design models are in constant conflict.

I really don't think it has much of a console structure to it, I think it's pretty much entirely arcade influenced. I do think that's where people stumble over it though, in that they approach it expecting a console experience and then not really knowing what to do with it. I think it's something that deserves repeating: it's a full priced game (for the time) that has seven levels. They can only justify that by setting it up to encourage replays and experimentation. You're really not supposed to be able to clear them all in one go.
 
The idea of the game is to work on good runs through each circuit for each stage, which is why you're scored on each and get a leaderboard at the end. Collecting items, going through rings and killing enemies all give you points, and you gain multipliers based on how many you can link together. What you should be doing after destroying the cage thing is to keep running the circuit for as much time as you have available to get a high score, then continuing to the next part. Brad was getting low grades because he wasn't doing anything to raise his score, and you can't complete the game with this approach because you need a C or better on all the stages to unlock the last one. I think it's fair to say this is an arcade game that never saw release in the arcades. The levels are pretty short and there's seven in total, but they get pretty intricate, so you're intended to play them over and over to work out a perfect line.

There's a lot of other stuff, like the proto-Chao system, but I've never really understood how that works. Also, there are little touches like making the music change dynamically based on how you're playing.

This is what ridiculously high level Nights looks like, but you don't need to take it this far to be able to finish the game or get As on the courses.
That video makes it look much more fun, but that guy had memorized just about everything in that level. Seeing those levels for the first time looked extremely disorienting.
 
I've never played Nights and hold nothing against it but man 4 minutes into the QL and Jeff spewing all this venom is just too entertaining (sorry Nights fans).
 
That video makes it look much more fun, but that guy had memorized just about everything in that level. Seeing those levels for the first time looked extremely disorienting.
Yes, but the levels are really short, and you have enough time to run through them 3-4 times before you get turned back into a kid.

It's not an experience game that you play once and put away forever. It's a score attack game that you keep playing to improve.
 
I really don't think it has much of a console structure to it, I think it's pretty much entirely arcade influenced. I do think that's where people stumble over it though, in that they approach it expecting a console experience and then not really knowing what to do with it. I think it's something that deserves repeating: it's a full priced game (for the time) that has seven levels. They can only justify that by setting it up to encourage replays and experimentation. You're really not supposed to be able to clear them all in one go.

I don't think the game would have really worked as an arcade game either, though - maybe on spectacle alone if it came out 4 years sooner, but the structure would make for a lousy arcade experience, unless they made it a whole lot harder early on.
 
Does nights really hold up any worse than any other "classic" 3d ps1 or n64 game (besides mario 64 and oot, ill give you those two)?

Some of them hold up, some of them don't. There's a lot of weird transitional games in that era that got a pass when they came out even though they really weren't very good, sure. There's also a number of games with solid design that stands the test of time, and not just games from Nintendo.
 
I don't think the game would have really worked as an arcade game either, though - maybe on spectacle alone if it came out 4 years sooner, but the structure would make for a lousy arcade experience, unless they made it a whole lot harder early on.

If you were putting it in an arcade I think you could make it work by setting it up like Hydro Thunder or Daytona, having a track list up front broken down by difficulty. You can get through Spring Valley without really understanding what you're doing, but the later stages you'll probably either make below a C or just fail. Same with Hydro Thunder, you can make your way through the easy stages without much trouble, but selecting the harder ones without knowing what you're doing and you probably won't make it. The more I think about it the more I think a Nights arcade cabinet really could've worked.
 
Goddamn i'm so behind on GB content.

OeHiT.png
 
Collect the blue orbs.
Hit the weird floating orb thing on the track when you've got 20 blue orbs.
Return to the starting position to go to the next "track", before time runs out.
If you run out of time, you'll turn into the kid again. This essentially means you've failed that section of the level. So, basically, don't run out of time.
Rinse and repeat 4 times, and then win the rubbish boss fight.

This is how you finish NiGHTS. If you want to be good at NiGHTS, you gotta use your remaining time to keep doing more laps of the track and boost your score. But in terms of what you should be doing, that's the general checklist.

The more you play it, the better you get. The game gets better as you do. Can't stress that enough.

Alternatively for those of you out there who need a visual guide, here's one that I think is too big to inline.
 
That video makes it look much more fun, but that guy had memorized just about everything in that level. Seeing those levels for the first time looked extremely disorienting.

I've gatta play this game, I can't see how it could possibly be disorienting since you're always progressing to the right. It's amazing how confusing they were making, what looks to be a fairly simple game, seem.

It's true that whole generation has dated very poorly, but yes, there are still plenty of games that hold up better. Metal Gear Solid for example.

Why do you think so?, this year alone I played through Crash Bandicoot, Spyro 1 & 2 and Banjoo-Kazooie. All for the first time (except Banjo) and they were great fun and held up fantastically. What's so poor about them? Unless you just can't get over the graphics or whatever. The games that do "age poorly" for me are often, if not always, games that survived through gimmick at the time. That always played poorly but people got caught up in a certain aspect and that carried them through liking the game (FF7 and it's pre-rendered cut-scenes for example)

Does difference between camera control being on the right stick as opposed to C-Buttons or L and R and some different design ideology (which is varied anyways) really break these games for people? I'm actually playing more and more old games because modern main stream gaming has me playing a whole lot of Call of Duty and Gears of War-likes and it's getting extremely dull. Not that there aren't any exciting new games or anything.
 
I guess they feel looking that kind of stuff up before doing a Quick Look would make the videos less entertaining.

It's not like QL's are even that structured, though. Sometimes they're QLing games they're almost done with or half way through and replaying sections they've done.

It's also not as if when they do go in blind, that they're like "Yeah I haven't played this yet so If some stuff messes up there's definitely a chance it could be my fault, it's just for fun" It's more like "Let the record show I was holding the grab button" blaming the game style.

Which can be frustrating to watch if you know better, I love GB, but I can't blame anyone who is intolerable of that stuff. I've just learned not to take the QL's and certain other things about GB very seriously and enjoy the personalities on the site and their cool subscriber content.
 
Why do you think so?, this year alone I played through Crash Bandicoot, Spyro 1 & 2 and Banjoo-Kazooie. All for the first time (except Banjo) and they were great fun and held up fantastically. What's so poor about them? Unless you just can't get over the graphics or whatever.

Those are all excellent examples of games that do hold up well, especially the Crash games. I have some issues with Spyro and Banjo, but they're definitely more playable now than a lot of the games of the era.

That doesn't really change the fact that a lot of real clunkers were made during this era which were propped up by novelty at the time, and a lot of games that really show their age through early 3D game design missteps.
 
I honestly think that in their rush to declare old games "outdated" lots of people confuse styles that are no longer in fashion with bad design.
 
Why do you think so?, this year alone I played through Crash Bandicoot, Spyro 1 & 2 and Banjoo-Kazooie. All for the first time (except Banjo) and they were great fun and held up fantastically. What's so poor about them? Unless you just can't get over the graphics or whatever. The games that do "age poorly" for me are often, if not always, games that survived through gimmick at the time. That always played poorly but people got caught up in a certain aspect and that carried them through liking the game (FF7 and it's pre-rendered cut-scenes for example)

Does difference between camera control being on the right stick as opposed to C-Buttons or L and R and some different design ideology (which is varied anyways) really break these games for people? I'm actually playing more and more old games because modern main stream gaming has me playing a whole lot of Call of Duty and Gears of War-likes and it's getting extremely dull. Not that there aren't any exciting new games or anything.
I think 'dating' comes down to two things really, performance, so many of those games run like shit, people complain (and rightly so) about games not hitting 30fps now, but so many PS1 games don't even get close. Even the most acclaimed and beloved OoT runs really poorly. Which ties into the other issue, controls. Not just terrible 3D camera controls, or less intuitive action mapping, but the actual control response, a lot of those games feel like you're playing through jam or something. Compared to what was quite often pitch perfect response of SNES games, it was a huge step back.

The games that I think tend to hold up better are ones that don't ask for highly finessed play, and don't require camera control.

Visually I don't really have any problem going to and from those games.
 
I knew nothing about Nights except that it had a bad Wii sequel before this... I just don't understand where the fun comes from in that game? It kinda reminds me of doing practice sessions in F1 games, trying to get the perfect lap down (which itself is boring after a while), but without any of the thrill or tension.
 
green scar, you should know that before segata left to sequester himself in a boy's club he highly recommended the wii game as having better flight sections than the original
 
I knew nothing about Nights except that it had a bad Wii sequel before this... I just don't understand where the fun comes from in that game? It kinda reminds me of doing practice sessions in F1 games, trying to get the perfect lap down (which itself is boring after a while), but without any of the thrill or tension.
More or less. It's like Mirror's Edge's time trails, but instead of being heart stoppingly masterful, it's like smearing shit over your face.
 
I honestly think that in their rush to declare old games "outdated" lots of people confuse styles that are no longer in fashion with bad design.
I agree. The distinction is sometimes meaningless, however. As is the case with beat'em'ups and Nights.
The former only worked as coin-eating machines. The latter is the most uninspired and depressing use of new technology before the advent motion controls. The fact that it takes place in a comatose clown's last trip to lala-land can't hide that.
 
green scar, you should know that before segata left to sequester himself in a boy's club he highly recommended the wii game as having better flight sections than the original

All I know about the Wii game is the weird fucked up NiGHTS coaster thing. That alone is enough to put me off ever playing that thing
 
I agree. The distinction is sometimes meaningless, however. As is the case with beat'em'ups and Nights.
The former only worked as coin-eating machines. The latter is the most uninspired and depressing use of new technology before the advent motion controls. The fact that it takes place in a comatose clown's last trip to lala-land can't hide that.

Konami's games were not the only beat-em-ups around, try as people might to make them seem like they were.


And calling Nights "uninspired" is more lala-land than anything in the games themselves.
 
That quick look crushed my memories of Nights. I kinda want to play it again, at the same time might want to save my good memories of it. Game doesn't look like it age well at all.
 
I despise all beat'em'ups equally. I could never tolerate any of them for more than 15 minutes. They gave birth to fighting games though, so their existence is retroactively justified in my mind.

All I ever saw in Nights was someone throwing their hands in the air at the question of what they would design if it had to revolve around the analogue stick. So they went and made a game about revolving the analogue stick and tried their damnedest to make it look as exciting as they could. I don't know what exactly you would call inspired there.
 
Jeff doesn't like Nights, so he's a stand up fellow, but he doesn't like RE4, so he's a terrible human being. I don't know what to believe.
 
So watched the Nights QL.

Like... what is the game?

I mean what is the objective?

You get points by flying around a course, then you're graded on your performance. It's a video game.


Also Rufus is right, a unique score attack game about flight on a 2.5D plane with a transformation mechanic where you play as a clown in a dream is totally uninspired and *brain runs screaming from skull*
 
Jeff's irrational seething hatred of Nights mirrors my irrational seething hatred of Skyrim so I can relate to him on that.

Despite me caving in and getting Skyrim from the TRU sale today. It was $10 so it's like they're paying me to play it!
 
This Nights stuff has finally given me a good question to send jeff for jar time. now I just need to find the address to send to him. I'll just scrub to the end of the latest jar video. he says it there, no?
 
I feel Jeff on Nights, I never got it either. I picked up a Saturn super late though. I basically played it like they played the QL. Floated around for a while, didn't have any fun, ended up glad I only payed about $5 for it.
 
Also Rufus is right, a unique score attack game about flight on a 2.5D plane with a transformation mechanic where you play as a clown in a dream is totally uninspired and *brain runs screaming from skull*
Certainly unique, but I find interacting with it hardly stimulating. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
 
Top Bottom