The Apprentice Presents: Gaming in the 90s

[The Apprentice]

Today: Virtua Racer - 32X - 35%
Is it just me or will I buy ANY racing game I come across? Serriously. I'm wasting money on games like this. I bought this game for $2.00, and I don't regret it because this is one game I've always wanted to play. Virtua Racing is one of the earliest fully polygonal console games, and it shows- this game is ROUGH. It gets worse too, this game runs off a cartridge, so the sound quality is bad, and I mean the latest Smashmouth album bad. After playing enough to review this, (one race per course, all three cars tested) I have come to the conclusion that this is the only game on Earth that will actually take away my hearing. The game's style of play should be the redemption factor in these early 3D titles, but this is just bad. The game works, but it's an exercise in human torture- it feels like I'm using all of my concentration keeping the car under control rather than trying to win.

Final Thoughts: The only way to play a worse racing game is to buy a Jaguar.

[The Apprentice]

Today: Hardware Review - Nintendo 64

I'm going to come right out and say it: The N64 sucks. Don't kill me yet, wait for me to finish the review before you go on some rant about how I was unfair or something.

Games: The Nintendo 64 was a magic box that fell out of Santa's sack and into many young gamers' living rooms in the 1990s, and to them, at the time, might has well have come from god itself. It pushed the new wave of 3D games better than anything else in 1996, and we got titles like Super Mario 64, Donkey Kong 64, and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Adopters of the system who didn't own a Playstation (like me and my brother ) couldn't be happier. That is until we learned of some amazing games we would miss out on, like Metal Gear Solid, Sonic Adventure, and Crazy Taxi. By the end of the decade we were just waiting for the next Christmas to come around and another magic box to materialize under the tree sometime in the middle of the night. What I'm trying to say, is that there were good games on the N64, but not enough, and not owning another system made that painfully obvious to us. 65%

Graphics: 3D was one of the massive problems that plagued the 5th generation, where we had a system made for 3D that never had enough resources to pull off wonders, a system built to handle anything thrown at it that was not utilized correctly until its day was done, and a system that was built for 2D that was forced to do cheap parlor tricks in the 3rd dimension to satisfy the magazines.
Early 3D was painful to look at, and the N64 was never equiped with the tools to advance beyond its early years. Cartridges could not hold enough data for high resolution textures, and that makes all the difference. While the Playstation pulled ahead later in the generation, the N64 continued to have very poor visuals into the new century. 65%

Audio: Once again, the N64 falls short, only in this case it fails hard. Without CD audio, a basic nessesity of the 3D era, the N64 had many games with incredibly aweful sound. 50%

Controller: What exactly were they thinking here? The controller is actually alright, but its design is comical. The PS3 boomerang controller has nothing on this. Nintendo wanted to have both a D-Pad and analog stick on their controller, but they put everything in the wrong place. The analog stick is all by itself in the middle of the controller, and while it is usable, it should have been on the left side where symmatry could be utilized, especially since the D-Pad was almost never used. The expansion area is great, but they should have put the rumble pack and the memory pack in the same unit, because it's annoying to change between them during gameplay. 80%

Final Thoughts: See? I have reason! I can't be the authority on this, but as far as I'm concerned, the N64 is the worst Nintendo system ever made, beaten only by the virtual boy. Go get a Gamecube instead.

[Curlypaul]

I'm new to the n64 and I'm enjoying it so far althougth I do understand some of your points.

That particular generation probably had a higher percentage of system exclusive games than any other, so I reckon which ever console you bought at the time and serious gamer would have been a bit green about at least some of the games that are on the other 2 systems. Thats not really a problem now since you could get a saturn, ps1 and n64 for less than £50 but at the time it was very frustrating. It depends on whether you are basing your review on the memories you have for the system, or on whether its a worthwhile purchase now.

Your point about the cartridges limiting the potential of the system and the quality of the sound are again fair points, but in their favour they are much more durable and reliable than optical media and there are no load times, which is a big plus compared to the painfully slow disk reading of the n64's direct competitors.

A big selling point for the n64 was the analog controller, which does indeed look stupid although as you say the stick its self is pretty good but what is that grey gunk that comes out of it just before it goes all slack and useless? its pretty hard to find replacement sticks in the UK which makes buying a controller and importing a new stick an expensive game. You are also right that nintendo should have release a rumble/memory card in one, although I think there are only a couple of games that use both.

Personally I'm happy with the n64, it has plenty cool games that I cant buy for any other system and loads of variations on the controller to collect.

[The Apprentice]

Woo! My thread is leading the sticky in page views (finally)! I'm trying to beat Legend of Zelda OoT on the Wii so I can review it. As for the N64 review, I was speaking about the system, and nothing else. It wouldn't be all that great of a review if I said "Buy an N64 to add to your already huge game collection, there are a couple good games on it" because that wouldn't be interresting. I'm strictly saying that by itself, the N64 has a somewhat weak library of exlusives. The Dreamcast however, I could live on that thing forever. That's why the N64 isn't all that great next to the Dreamcast.

[Curlypaul]

Yeah fair enough, compared to some other systems its definatley a bit on the weak side and your arguments are all pretty valid. I didnt mean to sound like I was out and out criticizing the review, just thought I would add my 2 cents as I know you prefer some active discussion in this thread.

[The Apprentice]

Note: It is taking a lot out of my integrity not to review NiGHTS because I know I'm going to give it a perfect score, but it always turns me off a review site when they give games a perfect score, so no NiGHTS review is coming... for now.

Today: Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings - PC - 90%

Wow. Just six months ago, I had never played a strategy game in my life. Now it is one of my favorite types of gaming. A month or two ago a friend loaned me a copy of Command and Conquer: Generals, and I got hooked. After a while of playing that game I hungered for something deeper, so while I was at Wal-Mart last month I checked the discount section of the PC games area looking for strategy, and the game I wanted was Civilization, but I couldn't afford it. Then I noticed Age of Empires in a special edition box set, both the first game and the second with their expansion packs for $10.00. This review is for AoE II, without its expansion. <Blog Over>

The game has an animated cinimatic intro that sets a mood for the game. It's fun to watch, even though the footage is grainy and dated. Then you are treated to a wide variety of game modes to choose from. The tutorial level is an easy start, but don't expect to take on heavy difficulty in the rest of the game after completing it if you're new to strategy. I'm still pretty green on the details of these types of games, but now I have played enough to take on standard difficulty, and the game gets better as you face harder opponents. After completing the tutorial, you can play campaign mode if you like, I didn't bother because I honestly don't care what happened in those particular wars. The main part of the game is actually the random map battles. You set up all the aspects of the game, much like you would in any strategy game, and then got to war.

There are actually two things that make this an incredible game to experience: developement and diplomacy. When you start the game, you only have a town hall and a few people. As you play, your city grows and developes. Building certain things allows you to unlock other things, and as you build new oppertunities open for you to conduct research. Research allows you to accomplish things that would normally be hard to do, for example you can launch flaming rocks out a catapult for extra damage instead of building two catapults. Research enough, and you can move to the next age of your civilization, from the Dark Age to the Imperial Age.

Diplomacy happens in random map games or in online battles. You can live relatively peaceful with other cities in the area or you can smash each other's brains out. Maybe you have a more stealthy idea, such as allying with a large city's king, but then secretly supply another city with the goods they need to take your large ally down. Just as he thinks he is unstoppable, his ally and an enemy turn on him and bring him down together. Playing this way brings the game to a whole new depth.

The graphics are two dimensional and isometric, but easy to read and run on just about any computer. They do a good job conveying the action and are bright and colorful without spoiling the sense of struggle between the cities. The sound is kind of lame, with minimal, gritty sound effects that don't properly capture the moment. The music is excellent, ranging from a calm, slow beat like the ones found in puzzle games, to fast songs with quickly beating drums that frame battle nicely, but sometimes these types of music play at innapropriate times, which can kill the mood.

Despite some of the momentary problems, the game stays solid because its matches last a very long time; sometimes as much as four hours. The game is perfectly balanced between its many playable societies, which each have advantages and disadvantages. There's even a level editor and campaign creator for those with lots of free time. This game is very fun, and I highly reccomend it.

Final Thoughts: If you read my entire review here, you should have a good idea of what your $10.00 will get you. Buy it.

[The Apprentice]

Today: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Nintendo 64 - 50%

Okay guys, I'm so sorry for writing this review, I swear I am. This is making me shake my head whenever I think about it because this game is terrible. I spoke too soon when I told my brother "I'd BEAT Ocarina of Time if you buy my spare Dreamcast!" He, being a massive Nintendo fan and long time promoter of Zelda, immediately spun around and said "Deal."

What followed was one of the worst experiences in my gaming life- I ended hating a game I wanted to love. The game tells a massive story through well thought out cut scenes and has a brilliant idea of what it wants to be, but the problem is that when control is given to the player the gave caves in. What I saw was a game with great graphics, music and atmosphere, but terrible control, glitchy mechanics, and gameplay mechanics that are completely frustrating.

It starts out well, the first two dungeons are great and offer a uniqe gaming experience with great environments and simple but effective puzzles. Then you get to play a level in the girth of a giant fish, and that's where the fun ends. You're supposed to carry "Princess Ruto" from room to room with no appparent direction getting shocked by EVERYTHING, including enemies that float through the air so you can't get a moment's peace to assess the situation before getting hit again. You're supposed to trek through several wrong hallways and mazes carrying some stupid princess while being shocked by evil jellyfish until you stumble on the boomerang.

The other dungeons are much worse and I could easily sit here and rattle off all the many problems with the game, but that would take too long and loose your interest. The idea is that while Nintendo created a timeless classic of a story, they pioneered a new territory of videogaming and did well- in 1998. The standards of gaming are much higher now and all the same things done in OoT are done today, and much better, too. The poor mechanics of OoT have become so decrepit that I actually had to stop playing mid way through the fire temple. It was too frustrating to continue, and to keep my promise to my brother we changed the game to Link to the Past, so you can expect a review of that sometime in the future.

It's just sad that a game so good has been ruined by changing times, and now whenever I see it in the top ten lists of all time for videogames I cringe because I know that the people who rated the game that highly did so purely out of nostalgia. OoT has no leg to stand on in 2008/2009, and even my brother (who hasn't actually played the game since five years ago) had to admit that OoT has not aged well, and he wishes he could have the control scheme of Twilight Princess instead.

Final Thoughts: I can't stand this game.