Rare doesn't make good games anymore: U ...

When people make this statement I just become crazily confused. People say, even, that the highest Banjo could possibly get is AA because Rare isn't good now. Uhh... am I the only one to realize they released 4 games this gen: Kameo, which was AA, PDZ which was AAA (but imo its a 8.0), Viva Pinata (AA) and then Viva Pinata 2 (AA). Really guys?I think it stems from the fact that 1) PDZ gets so much hate. Should it be AAA? No. But should GTA be AAAA? lol. PDZ is a solid game. 2) Kameo and VP are both kick*** games. I prefer Kameo to be honest. Both are VERY underrated, both as graphically and by the more important part- gameplay/ fun factor. Somethiing not really related, but jees, anyone realize just how many detailed characters Kameo has on screen at once without a technical hitch? This is with insane textures and just all around great graphics. Crazy. In case you haven't played it: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/8054.html?type=** and one thing about Viva Pinata, Kameo, and the upcoming Banjo. These games are all unique and pretty innovative. Here's some of the ''nonexistant''innovationRare doesn't make good games anymore: U ...
I think the arguement isn't that they don't make good games, but that they aren't what they were.In fact, verbatim ''Rare isn't as good as they used to be''.No one is saying there bad, for the most part, but that they lost their charm. Grabbed by the Ghoulies is the big reason I first started hearing it. I own Kameo, and would have given it a 7.5, fun game. I also own both VP's (even though Bill Gates had the game made to gain FEMALE Gamers, Google it.) and the VP's are fun in a move the cursor around a square the entire game kind of way. I do agree they have done solid games this gen. Rare doesn't make good games anymore: U ...
[QUOTE=''SolidTy''] I think the arguement isn't that they don't make good games, but that they aren't what they were.In fact, verbatim ''Rare isn't as good as they used to be''.No one is saying there bad, for the most part, but that they lost their charm. Grabbed by the Ghoulies is the big reason I first started hearing it. [/QUOTE]Charm is completely different and I think they demonstrated that they still have it. Just watch the intro to Nuts and Bolts or play Kameo and VP. But seriously- Kameo and VP are VERY good. As you mentioned GBG, was the start of it. I personally think people are grabbing on to that game. It's passed. That's really the only BAD game they made.
Judging by it just being a game, screw everything else about it, doesn't banjo look fantastic?
see heres the thing, they went from being the greatest dev. like on the planet On ign, just for the n64 ALONE, they made 7 AAAe games, and 5 or 6AAe games name one dev that could do that now? they cant its impossible, no one can top rares old streak not even them, but its not just because of that the quality of their games have fallen greatly and could be done much much better (i mean my god, compare perfect dark for the n64 to pd0, its a freaking n64 game and its miles ahead of it) and now they are just ok. Their games are not even in the same ball park as the games they used to make, which is why people blow out of proportion about how bad or good their games are.
[QUOTE=''JackDaniels121''][QUOTE=''SolidTy''] I think the arguement isn't that they don't make good games, but that they aren't what they were.In fact, verbatim ''Rare isn't as good as they used to be''.No one is saying there bad, for the most part, but that they lost their charm. Grabbed by the Ghoulies is the big reason I first started hearing it. [/QUOTE]Charm is completely different and I think they demonstrated that they still have it. Just watch the intro to Nuts and Bolts or play Kameo and VP.But seriously- Kameo and VP are VERY good. As you mentioned GBG, was the start of it. I personally think people are grabbing on to that game. It's passed. That's really the only BAD game they made.
Judging by it just being a game, screw everything else about it, doesn't banjo look fantastic?[/QUOTE] I have all of Rare's games from N64 onward. I have a few of their SNES, Genesis and NES games too. Banjo looks to be fun, but I can see why oldschool Banjo fans are dissappointed with the new direction.
I think Rare is still good though, although I think Naughty Dog/Insomniac became the new Rare last generation. This gen is still up for grabs though.
[QUOTE=''SolidTy''][QUOTE=''JackDaniels121''][QUOTE=''SolidTy''] I think the arguement isn't that they don't make good games, but that they aren't what they were.In fact, verbatim ''Rare isn't as good as they used to be''.No one is saying there bad, for the most part, but that they lost their charm. Grabbed by the Ghoulies is the big reason I first started hearing it. [/QUOTE]Charm is completely different and I think they demonstrated that they still have it. Just watch the intro to Nuts and Bolts or play Kameo and VP.But seriously- Kameo and VP are VERY good. As you mentioned GBG, was the start of it. I personally think people are grabbing on to that game. It's passed. That's really the only BAD game they made.
Judging by it just being a game, screw everything else about it, doesn't banjo look fantastic?[/QUOTE] I have all of Rare's games from N64 onward. I have a few of their SNES, Genesis and NES games too. Banjo looks to be fun, but I can see why oldschool Banjo fans are dissappointed with the new direction.
I think Rare is still good though, although I think Naughty Dog/Insomniac became the new Rare last generation. This gen is still up for grabs though.[/QUOTE]yeah insomniac is the only dev. that can put out a really awesome game every single year, and not only that they did stuff on the side like Rachet quest for booty, lol when the hell did they have the time to do that? i mean making resistance 2 in just one year must be killer, i wouldnt have dreamed that they would even think of doing anything else
RARE still make good games, but they don't compare to their old classicswhenever a new game is coming out, people expect another Goldeneye, Perfect Dark or Banjo Kazooieso they're naturally left disappointed with the game they get instead
They've released 3 games this generation. How can you say that? And Rare has admitted that GBG is basically a failure, and that PDZ and Kameo were rushed (i dont understand the latter. i guess they could have improved the length?)Since the N64, they've only made 3 unique full fledged games. Does this not look AAA? http://www.gametrailers.com/player/41120.html?type=Just listen to the music!I actually only played Banjo on the n64. I liked it. Now Im seeing this game. It looks so different but it feels like Banjo, not by gameplay, but the idea of exploration and the wit. The wit and charm is what Rare is to me. Banjo is captitalizing on that.
I hate their viva pinata games
Rare is just as good as they used to be, but IMO, too many people remember the ''old'' Rare through nostalgia instead of what it really was.As for PD:0, I think that was so poor because of the massive development time it had (it was started as a GameCube title after all), so it was dated by the time it came out.
[QUOTE=''epic_pets'']I hate their viva pinata games[/QUOTE] Well, that's not surprising. Unlike Unisex games. like Adventure/Plaform games, VP is more like the SIMs/Havest Moon/Animal Crossing. It's going for a more Female demographic (Google Bill Gates VivaP), and the micromanagement demographic. It won't appeal to platform/Advanture enthusiasts.That being said, it's still a quality game, but just not up a lot of gamers alleys.
This is comming from a guy who was brought up on Rare games. No. Rare of today is nothing compared to the Rare of yesterday. We are talking about a company that dished out Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Banjo %26 Kazooie, Banjo %26 Tooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Conker, Jet Force Gemini, Donkey Kong 64 AND Killer Instinct in ONE generation. I love 鑝. With all my heart, but they make average-good-great games as of now. Edit: Oh my god. I just read trough what I wrote. Those guys really was the best developers on this planet, beating out everyone and everything else. That track record rips everything to shreds. Amazing lineup.
[QUOTE=''SpruceCaboose''] Rare is just as good as they used to be, but IMO, too many people remember the ''old'' Rare through nostalgia instead of what it really was.As for PD:0, I think that was so poor because of the massive development time it had (it was started as a GameCube title after all), so it was dated by the time it came out. [/QUOTE]The main problem with PDZ wasn't that it was unpolished,it just felt like a N64 game in a way.
If you prefered TimeSplitters to Halo, you'd love PDZ.

That's the best way to put it. And development actually began on the N64.
[QUOTE=''Gamingcucumber''] This is comming from a guy who was brought up on Rare games. No. Rare of today is nothing compared to the Rare of yesterday. We are talking about a company that dished out Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Banjo %26 Kazooie, Banjo %26 Tooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Conker, Jet Force Gemini, Donkey Kong 64 AND Killer Instinct in ONE generation. I love 鑝. With all my heart, but they make average-good-great games as of now. [/QUOTE]Relatively, only like 1-2 of those games would have been out if we copare it relatively by time
[QUOTE=''JackDaniels121''][QUOTE=''SpruceCaboose''] Rare is just as good as they used to be, but IMO, too many people remember the ''old'' Rare through nostalgia instead of what it really was.As for PD:0, I think that was so poor because of the massive development time it had (it was started as a GameCube title after all), so it was dated by the time it came out. [/QUOTE]The main problem with PDZ wasn't that it was unpolished,it just felt like a N64 game in a way.
If you prefered TimeSplitters to Halo, you'd love PDZ.

That's the best way to put it. And development actually began on the N64. [/QUOTE] That's not true. I am a HUGE Timesplitters fan, and PDZ was lame compared to Halo imo.Timesplitters > Halo >>>>>>>> PDZ. Besides, the guys that created Perfect Dark N64 made Timesplitters 1-3, you can tell. The Twin Analog scheme used in Timesplitters was found a year later in HALO 1.
[QUOTE=''JackDaniels121''][QUOTE=''SpruceCaboose''] Rare is just as good as they used to be, but IMO, too many people remember the ''old'' Rare through nostalgia instead of what it really was.As for PD:0, I think that was so poor because of the massive development time it had (it was started as a GameCube title after all), so it was dated by the time it came out. [/QUOTE]The main problem with PDZ wasn't that it was unpolished,it just felt like a N64 game in a way.
If you prefered TimeSplitters to Halo, you'd love PDZ.

That's the best way to put it. And development actually began on the N64. [/QUOTE]That is what I was meaning, and from what I have read, it was started after PD and was being made for the GameCube, not the N64.
[QUOTE=''SpruceCaboose'']Rare is just as good as they used to be, but IMO, too many people remember the ''old'' Rare through nostalgia instead of what it really was.As for PD:0, I think that was so poor because of the massive development time it had (it was started as a GameCube title after all), so it was sa dated by the time it came out. [/QUOTE]dude no way, you have to take into account what the games were like at the time, Goldeneye revolutionized first person shooters on consoles( i mean they invented the head shot!!) more than any other the only competitor being halo ce, rare hasnt done anything revolutionary or done things like topped nintendo at their own game of platforming like they did with banjo, which was pretty much better than sm64, and is their any chance that the new banjos going to be better than galaxy? i highly doubt it. The just arent the revolutionary awesome company they used to be, They gave us like 2 or 3 amazing games a year back in the n64 days, its pretty much impossible for them to ever beat their old record or even come close to matching it
[QUOTE=''SolidTy''][QUOTE=''JackDaniels121''][QUOTE=''SpruceCaboose''] Rare is just as good as they used to be, but IMO, too many people remember the ''old'' Rare through nostalgia instead of what it really was.As for PD:0, I think that was so poor because of the massive development time it had (it was started as a GameCube title after all), so it was dated by the time it came out. [/QUOTE]The main problem with PDZ wasn't that it was unpolished,it just felt like a N64 game in a way.
If you prefered TimeSplitters to Halo, you'd love PDZ.

That's the best way to put it. And development actually began on the N64. [/QUOTE] That's not true. I am a HUGE Timesplitters fan, and PDZ was lame compared to Halo imo.Timesplitters > Halo >>>>>>>> PDZ. [/QUOTE]Really? I can't understand that. Timesplitters and PDZ have so much in common. Maybe you should turn the autoaim on in PDZ? It really helps to be honest.
[QUOTE=''JackDaniels121''][QUOTE=''Gamingcucumber''] This is comming from a guy who was brought up on Rare games. No. Rare of today is nothing compared to the Rare of yesterday. We are talking about a company that dished out Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Banjo %26 Kazooie, Banjo %26 Tooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Conker, Jet Force Gemini, Donkey Kong 64 AND Killer Instinct in ONE generation. I love 鑝. With all my heart, but they make average-good-great games as of now. [/QUOTE]Relatively, only like 1-2 of those games would have been out if we copare it relatively by time[/QUOTE]But then again. We have to look at what they have done on the DS, GBA, Xbox and 360 since they was sold to Microsoft. In anyway, it's still a clear case as far as I'm concerned. If Banjo Nuts and Bolts can't do it. Nothing can.
Rare still makes fantastic games. Ignore the bashers.