"Am I the only one who doesn't like ratchet and clank?"
I'm guessing a big fat "no"
I'm guessing a big fat "no"
-
-
moron!Originally posted by recipherComment
-
Christ alive, I've suddenly remembered why I usually stay out of General Gaming. Not liking a game is as valid a reason to create a thread as liking the game. Criticism where criticism is due tbh.
Anyhow, it features some of the most retarded game design I have ever seen. Basically, the problem I have with it is that it punishes crap players. If you die, you respawn with the ammo levels you had at death. Except, you're just respawned halfway back from your dying position on the map. It truly is crap. So the more you die, the harder (and more expensive) it gets to continue.
Considering this is a platformer (where mistakes are ineveitable) this is inexcusable. Never got beyond the final boss battle, as it was really annoying.Last edited by Crispin; 02-05-2005, 14:41.Comment
-
Ahh, yes I'm in agreement here. It was an amusing waste of time at first, but rapidly became extremely dull and frustrating.
I much preferred J&D, personally.Comment
-
Don't. You'll make me cry.Originally posted by butchcvc
My point seems to have been lost. Or I've not put it across very well.
Imagine, if you will, if everyone started a thread about a game they don't like. Kind of dull. Especially if the choice of game isn't an established classic.
If the game picked had been something generally regarded as being fantastic, and the thread had been "Tell Me What You Find Great About ..." then that's a different matter.
As it is, it's just an excuse to whine about a dull game. Oh well. I'll leave you in wallow in your negativity next time.Comment
-
It's not that your point has been lost, it's just not a very good one. Amongst people who like platformers, Ratchet and Clank is a name that that is thrown about alot, is perceived to be a solid title, and has clearly influenced later platform games in this generation (e.g. Jak 2,) and will continue to do so. This is interesting considering the game has many flaws. It's also interesting to note how it escapes the criticism so often levelled at Rare's platforming output over the past 7 years, despite perpetrating collecting on a greater scale.
Summary: You don't perceive it to be a classic or important, however others do, and thus this thread has validity.Comment
-
Fair enough. Must be my time of the month.Comment
-
I didn't like it. It's not that it's a bad game just hugely overrated.
What really annoys me though is when people bring it up as a classic example of the 3D platformer. It's a shooter with a little bit of jumping and 3D platformeresque controls (so no strafing which lets it down IMO) - you simply can't compare it to something like Mario 64 or the original Jak and Daxter.Comment
-
I know..... unbelieveable eh?Originally posted by Crispin
I'm on the last boss right now and I'm ready to throw the ps2 out the window. Why the hell is it so difficult? Goddamn!
And from about halfway through the game it began to feel more like a third person shooter rather than a platformer.Comment
-
Come on, it's not that hard. Ok it gets harder on the final level but it's still perfectly doable.
I memory serves me right you just spin around him on the rails...?Comment
-
Yeah, the grindrail. I have to get the PDA first though so I can buy devastator missiles on the go... that should smoke his ass.
(I didn't get all the weapons in the game, though I heard that R.Y.N.O. will kill him in 5 shots. Too bad I don't have 150,000 bolts).
Comment
-
It's bland and generic. Much like Jak and Daxter. Much like Rare's offerings.
I really think Mario 64 was both the best and worst thing to happen to the platform genre, though. It's an excellent game, but its set the bar so high that it still hasn't been raised 8 years later, even by the company that made it!Comment
-
Meh, SMS is better. SM64 DS shows how far platformers have come in that time. Yes, some of the problems are due to the control system, but others are just down to game design found in the original SM64. SMS is a much more polished and superior product. Not as revolutionary, but it would be a bit bloody difficult to see how it could be. Mario 64 was a seminal work and hugely important and amazing for it's time, but 3D platformers have surpassed it since.
Not a huge number have though, I'll give you that. Certainly not Blinx or Ratchet & Clank. :P
The PS2 Prince of Persia, if it had been given an extra year in development, probably would have surpassed it in terms of quality. In terms of game design, it's actually more important (though it would appear not as influential - but it may just be a matter of latency in game development) than Mario 64.
**** up in Mario 64, especially the five minute fest that is Bowser in the Sky and it's all over. **** up in POP, and it often isn't. The next logical step in platform design will be to allow multiple routes to the same objective, each with it's own perils and risks and rewards. Sections in SMS began to address this, and then in other sections, ignored this completely and went for very old school platforming.Last edited by Crispin; 04-05-2005, 14:45.Comment
-
Well that depends if you consider PoP to be a classic platformer. I don't.Originally posted by Crispin
It certainly is a very platform-orientated game, but it has more in common with something like Ico (except with a lot more combat, obviously).
That doesn't make the latter 'better' than the former though. It's just a difference in approach.**** up in Mario 64, especially the five minute fest that is Bowser in the Sky and it's all over. **** up in POP, and it often isn't.
In any case, platormers, and indeed many games since the year dot have done the whole '****-up-and-its-all-over' thing. It's not something unique to Mario 64.
The best bit about Sunshine? The void levels. Nintendo needs to make a whole game out of these alone.Comment
-
Na, the best bit of Sunshine was "I'm your mother?!!", with the expression Peach pulls. Shame the end didn't build on the whole bestiality idea.Comment
Comment