Letters to
|
 |
Letters to
|
|
SNES vs Megadrive? Surely this must be a joke.
The graphics were the only serious area of contention at the time, yet look at the stats. The SNES displayed 256 colours from a palette of over 32,000 compared to 64 from just 256. Resolution was 512*448 compared to 320*224. The separate Picture and Audio Processing Units of the SNES meant that, despite the slower CPU speed, it actually processed 88% faster. The graphics chip was far more advanced with its eight graphics modes, including the famed Mode 7 for 3D manipulation. It also had a hi-res interlace mode amongst the other modes that allowed much superior parallax scrolling, sprite numbers and sprite manipulation. But forget all the specs, the games simply LOOKED better on cross-system games. How could MD fans ever been so deluded with their antiquated machine?
On to sound, and well, even the most biased MD fans agreed the SNES's was vastly superior.
With games, the most import area of all, the SNES steals the show again with consistently higher quality. At launch there was the groundbreaking Super Mario World and F-Zero. Soon after, an exclusive "little" game known as STREET FIGHTER 2!!! The list rolls on with the likes of Mario Kart, Metroid, Zelda, Castlevania, ISS, Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island - all firmly entrenched in the pantheon of greatest games ever. How many from the MD are there? Sonic? *does moon*
No contest! But there's more…
What about the controller? Full of innovation and comfort and with greatest d-pad of all time. When the MD finally got SF2, they had to buy a new controller too, and it still sucked.
Finally, the SNES, as a machine, even looked much sexier!!! *does pelvic trust*
Case closed. Now get lost. *shows finger*
I hate the music section. Not the concept of it, but the fact that nearly all the music reviewed there is crap. I mean, the majority of bands I have not even heard of, and have trouble understanding how these bands are supposedly popular and achieve high rotation on the airwaves.
Music tastes are more acute than most forms of entertainment, but that should not preclude Hyper from reviewing all styles, including pop. Something like Kylie's recent album - clearly one of the most anticipated albums of last year, and personally, her second best ever (after Rhythm Of Love) - was ignored. And what about the track selection on Madonna's recent "best of" album (too short, and missing Nothing Really Matters), and so too, god forbid, on Steps' Gold compilation? Sure, their cheesy name and style cringes badly, but facts are, they have produced some great pop songs in the past and this album could be one of the quintessential albums of all time. I'd like to know!
So what is the purpose of the section? To provide a review of current mainstream music releases or maybe just the Hyper crew's favoured latest releases? If you had that attitude to games, we'd get nothing but feature reviews of each Quake point-release patch. If none of the Hyper crew wish to subject themselves to a form of music that does not suit their tastes, then get some contributors that have those tastes. Otherwise, the section is a waste.
WAVERACE TRIBUTE: "One word sums this game up: satisfying. While Gran Turismo2 may be the best racer ever, it had nothing on this in terms of satisfaction when it came to winning. Exemplary controls and water physics are still unparalleled even to this day. The racing was fiendish, making losing despairing, and winning rewarded. In life, there is only one better feeling you can have. What reeked of awesomeness so much was the revolutionary and challenging gameplay that forced you to constantly learn and refine a new skill in order to progress through the perfectly set learning curve of the game. No other game has ever managed to replicate that. Even the impending GameCube version may not because the aspect of water-based racing will not be new anymore. Hopefully Nintendo has some more tricks up their sleeves."
MARIO KART TRIBUTE: Lets face it, MK64 is still the most fun you can have multi-player on the N64 to this very day. The tight handling and mini-turbo feature is classic Nintendo innovation at its best. Unfortunately, the lack of any single-player challenge prevents it becoming the all-time classic - and better than the SNES predecessor - that it deserves to be. The handling feature was rendered superfluous in the over weapon-reliant championships. Some simple options like weapons off, bombs off and live and lap settings would have given some much needed replay value. So too the simple notion of having a super championship at 150cc involving all 16 tracks to be completed with weapons on and then off. Even in multi-player, racing with no bombs and weapons (or selecting your own roster of weapons) would have added some variety and ended the arguments of who is the best racer. And of course, lets not forget the much anticipated 4-player battle mode disappointed. How can such a flawed game be so brilliant? Nintendo magic.
Yo Hyper
After getting the GBA on its release, I can't fault the games or its technical capabilities. But I can fault the size - it's too small. Nintendo supposedly are trying to expand their market, yet they've made a system that is a pain for adults to play. I don't know why they just did not grab a SNES pad, lengthen it a bit, and stick a screen in the middle. With the four buttons, you'd have the perfect hand-held. I respect the pocket-size concept, but they've gone overboard, and I doubt that too many people actually carry it around in their pockets anyway. Even the d-pad is smaller than my old B&W GB. It's crazy.
They really should have brought out a version in a larger size, along with the different colours. With sequels to older games, there was always going to be a significant adult market. As it stands, the only hope is that the GBA can be played through the GameCube. Maybe that is why it is so small - another incentive to get a GC? Are there any plans for that functionality or even an "adult" size GBA?
The darkness is another issue. After reading last issue that the Atari Lynx had the option to have it on or off, the GBA should have this feature too. Most of my GBA playing is at home through the mains, so the battery consumption is not as issue. Was the decision to not include back-lighting expense or battery consumption related? Suppose when you have a monopoly that the handheld market is, you can treat consumers with almost contempt. Contrast that with the home console, where Sony's competition forced Nintendo to relax their stubborn ways in making the GC. In fact, it's the first ever Nintendo system without any known vices. Pity the GBA is not the same.
GT3: What a disappointment. All they've done is upgrade the graphics. Game-wise, all you're doing is racing the same old tracks with the same old cars as GT2. Even the opponent AI seems the same as the same tactics work. Sure it looks sexy, but graphics are not the be-all, and it's surprising Hyper rated it so highly (95%) given that GT2 (87%) was somewhat criticised for its lack of improvement. In fact, it was the same reviewer I believe, yet GT2 actually had many more improvements over GT1 than GT3 has over GT2. There were 8 new tracks, a gazillion more cars, plus the new (at the time) rally mode. Compared to four new tracks (one a dumb test and one a rally), and less of everything else in GT3.
Are games reviewed in isolation or against others? In isolation, GT3 maybe the best and worthy of the marks, but as a successor, it is the worst. My advice to those with GT2 thinking about buying GT3, don't. Unless you're a graphics nut, there is barely anything new. At least with the graphics engine complete, GT4 (we hope) will be the true sequel that actually offers something new, game-wise.
That's it, stop teasing me and my friends. We still play Smash Tennis on the SNES and it is basically the only game keeping it from retirement. But we want to play Lets Smash, and since the day you reviewed Lets Smash for the N64 eons ago, we have been desperate to buy it. But nowhere, never, nothing. No one knows anything about it. Searching the web brings jack as well.
It cropped up at your Hyperactive site buried in some article that bragged about its 4-player brilliance. You're telling me!!! And now Lets Smash is in the top 50 games in last month's Hyper. It's back, tantalising us again. But where is it? Was it ever released in PAL territories? If so, give us some clues. If not, stop teasing readers with non-existent games. And Championship Court Tennis aint around either. It's like picking your chick at a brothel then realising you don't have enough money. Arrghhhhhhhh!
Anyway, I suppose Mario Tennis will be out soon enough which will quell our anxieties, render Lets Smash a distant memory and maybe even retire the old SNES. Who knows. But I can't wait to ace Peachie, the bitch.
The Warrior
There still seems to be nothing to correct one of my pet Nintento hates: the lack of basic in game options like number of laps, lives, weapons on/off, etc. Mario Kart 64 was ruined by this, and FZX nearly as well. Thankfully, FZX was at least a challenge but I still can't help but feel the game suffered a bit anyway. Defeating Master level was a challenge, however, the rest were a breeze; mainly because there were too many lives. Why can't I adjust them? And if any game suffered with the "too many lives" syndrome, MK did. In multiplayer, my friends would love to race 5 laps in FZX, but can't. Why not?
These rudimentary options should be compulsory. MK had this fault too. But also, that game really suffered with the lack of weapon allocation. Why can't I turn off bombs? Why can't I only have red shells? Why can't I have no weapons at all??? Why can't I have a race of skill to take advantage of MK's sublime control??? In single player, why is there not 2 championships: one with weapons and one without? Why is there not a super championship involving all 16 tracks? Heck, why can't I create my own championship, especially for multiplayer? Afterall, some tracks suck.
Nintendo's policy to force you to play the game the way they want, sucks. Sure, they get it right most of the times, but eventually, things get tired and need to be spiced up, or just changed, and you should be able to have that option. Other than WaveRace, I can't think of any Nintendo-developed game that has this. Once I defeated WR on all levels, increasing the laps to 5 and reducing the buoy-misses to 3, allowed me to furhter increase the challenge. And I bet my bottom dollar that racing 5 laps in FZX would make for a more strategic and harder game. If Nintendo wants to keep their games alive, some basic in-game options would nearly always be enough.
The UKKK
"Dull platforming everywhere made worse with poor controls", was a comment made about the Indiana Jones game last month. Yet it still gets 3% short of "great". Is this really an example of the new tougher scoring of games that has been mentioned often since the new editor took over? Really, I have seen no evidence of such toughness, and besides, how the hell would we know if games are a few % lower than previously?
The instigation of this tougher-scoring campaign lies with one game: Quake 3 Arena. The Hyper Crew's unabashed infatuation with Quake has placed them in a dilemma come review time. Outrageously high marks of 97% for other shooters like Unreal & Half Life leaves little scope for Q3A's anticipated supremacy to be reflected in the scores. You can't very well give the game 105%, can you? Solution: embark on a campaign to devalue previous marking system so when Q3A's rightful low to mid-90s score eventuates, it will now represent the brilliance of the game. Else, risk your beloved to be seen as inferior than Banjo-Kazooie (96%). We can't have that - especially from a console game - can we?
Pity your policy was not about when Unreal Tournament got reviewed. This game kills its coloured-lighting glorified predecessor easily, yet got a lower mark. Ridiculous. Previous Quakes/Dooms/Unreals have bored me senseless with their maze/switch/door gameplay. Why could developers not do a shooter in the vane of X-Wing where you embark on missions and face tough AI, I have thought for years. In MP Mode last month, Hyper spoke of "gutsy" for this style of gameplay to be attempted. I've welcomed it. Goldeneye got the mission idea right, and now thankfully, with UT and Q3A, the AI is done. UT's Assault mode is everything I've asked for. There is no greater endorsement for a game if it rejuvenates the genre and/or attracts new players.
With Hyper's scoring, these games are worth 150%, compared to their predecessors. Or maybe these benchmark games should not be scored? People place too much faith in figures, and there is no way you can be so precise. Words mean more. Your six or so categories of your scores in last month's editorial should be adopted in the form of a six star system which would end all the scoring anomalies.
The Warrior
Yep, it has been out for a couple of weeks and is fantastic. Yeah, it's better than the others. Not because of the more tracks, teams, race-modes, etc. And not because of the analogue control. In fact, it makes the game a bit too easy as some of "floatiness" is removed, especially will the slower classes. But what really transforms this game is the cockpit viewpoint. Yeah sure, it is nothing more than a few 'gons strategically placed over the screen of the first person perspective (FPP) mode, but in reality, it really makes you feel as though you are in one of these ships. Quite simply, it places the racing experience into a new dimension - literally!
I've been a great fan of futuristic racers since F-Zero on the SNES, and I have been crying out for a cockpit mode ever since. I was so dissappointed F-ZeroX on the N64 did not have one either. It did not even have an FPP mode either. But WO3? Oooh, baby. It finally has one and is the single most impressive reason to buy this game.
The UKKK - There's no Substitute for Quality
Are you U3K compliant?
I'm not going to suck up and say your mag kicks arse because, simply, I would be lying. I am sick of the PC bias; the first-person shooter (FPS) bias; and the general anti-Nintendo sentiment that has been there since day one when Sega owners were told to "take what is rightfully yours" in regards to SF2 Turbo.
After so long, what has prompted me to right is the response to a letter asking your opinion of which is the best system. While the PC may be the answer for you, for others, it is clearly not. Instead of the traditional "systems that suit your game tastes" line, "variety" was given erroneously for the PC. Forgive me, the PS and N64 also have tremendous variety with high quality titles in multiple genres that the last 2-3 years of Hyper will attest. Bewilderment greets your DC mention too. It is not even out and will have no where near the "variety" of the current systems for at least 2 years! Forget the hype and look at history. Two or three years down the line is the very best time to buy a system in terms of variety and quality.
Of course, you have not even considered HOW people play, but if you hate strategies and flight-sims and want to play with friends, then the PC is hopelessly inadequate. Still today, no system covers all possibilities, and personally, the PC covers the least. Even some of the genres it does handle as well as consoles, like driving/racing and sports, especially in multi-player modes, it is still far preferable to play these on consoles, in comfort, on big screens and all with decent controllers. Not to mention pizza and beer and ensuing riots! "What" and "how" you play are the real issues in determining system choice.
To top if off, you awarded "letter of the month" to a letter than merely raised day/night scenarios in Quake 3. Big deal! Castlevania2 (NES) had day/night variances in the 80s, and countless other games have since. In fact, the whole FPS infatuation is sickening and Half-Life showed how easily a bit of extravagant coloured lighting affected your brains when the inferior Unreal got the same score. We still have not really seen a bad FPS game. Maybe you should start giving second-comments from less-enthused Hyper crew for balance as the same people seem to generally review the same type of games?
As a jaded 30-year-old with all gaming platforms the next-gen hardware is jading me more so as it is not providing next-gen gameplay, and Hyper is not even recognising this. As witnessed by the endless stream of bog-standard FPS PC games, the infatuation with resolution and 'gon crunching is irrelevant if glorified clones is the result. Until Half-Life, the emphasis on eye-candy instead of depth has been glaringly apparent, and surely this "depth" could have been incorporated years ago. Witness Metal Gear Solid: innovation and originality with 4-year-old technology. Really, the current 3D processing levels seem sufficient with the human mind the main restriction.
Half-Life took years, yet Nintendo sets benchmarks at first attempts. Mario64, WaveRace, ISS 64, 1080 GoldenEye and Smash Bros are all genre defining or breaking games (according to Hyper) that may never be bettered. Where are Zelda, Starfox, Mario/Diddy, Karts, F-Zero on other systems? Yes, there are a couple of genres unfulfilled. Yes, other platforms excel in these genres. But I am someone sticking up for the Big N for once. All the above got 90+% in Hyper and if they don't represent quality in multiple genres then I don't know what does.
I'd even argue that N64 has titles that lead, or at least equal, as many genres as any other system. Not bad for a so-called "beleaguered" company. You say you are objective. Well, if that is the case, then bias and/or prejudice surely enters the equation, or you have very short memories. You are not promoting general gamers' views, but mid-20s males that love Quake and PC gaming, who also think the PS is cool and don't think much of Nintendo. I can't believe this represents your readership, but if it does, I am very much the minority and will just tolerate it. I will still buy Hyper, because, at the very least, you do cover all systems well.
THE Warrior (notice the emphasised "the"?) PS: I'm the real Warrior, not that fool who was masquerading as me in the last issue. Don't know who it is, but I was in first - months ago - and demand that any future "Warriors" suffix their names with a "2" or something.
Dear Hyper
I wrote the Hyper Bias letter last issue and would like to say thanks for printing it. Even though I chopped 50% off It, I was sure it was still too long.
You raised some points in the reply, and regards to the "PCs covering the least" quote, yes, I am hypocritical, but I am not the one handing out the ill-conceived advice. Like I said, PCs, like all the systems, really only lack in one or two genres. So the "how you play" option is far more important. Like me, the reader may play regularly with friends, hence, the worst option maybe the PC.
"Multi-player (MP) is preferable on consoles" is subjective, but this was in response to your statement of "online" as the ultimate form in your systems feature a while back. Surely that is subjective too? Anyway, issue was more of online vs social gaming. Unlike me, the reader may have no PC owning friends, so again, PCs would be the worst. And how practical are LAN sessions for regular MP, not to mention price? Look, those two comments I made were used merely to demonstrate what your own subjective and biased comments sound like. They seem to have had the same effect.
Mr. Cheung's gaming trends may substantiate your views, but then, don't ignore the fact that I represent someone that does not.
Mr. Cheung maybe be gravitating to the PC (novelty value?) but has he ditched his PS? Conversely, I bought by P200MMX street-machine (at the time) 3 years ago, and have not been enthused by the shallow, endless stream (until Half-Life) of FPS games and War games and still have no 3D card. Latest game I bought was XWA and I play HL on friends' PCs at our Doomathons (LAN sessions). Also, my PC/Quake loving mates got introduced to consoles via my SNES 5 years ago, and these days own N64 and/or PS because there are games and MP opportunities that their PC does not offer. They have not ditched their PCs at all, just been opened to a whole new world, just like Mr. Cheung. These examples just prove my exact point that no system covers all, and some will cover the least. I suppose the only solution to your paranoia is to not give advice unless readers offer more info.
It's disappointing Hyper has been seduced by 'gon-crunching. You used to bag all the platform game clones, but now not the FPS games. Why? Surely they are not all good - you have never slagged one. For me, once the novelty of the perspective wore off in the Doom days, I have found them to be the most tedious and mundane gaming experiences ever. Only the MP saved them from just being technologically superior eye-candy clones. Half-Life may get 94% instead of 97% (I'd give 9/10) from unbiased reviewers, but that is more a reflection of your dubious scoring system and the fact that the benchmark was originally set to high. In order to differentiate the various games, scores have become so ridiculous for FPS games. I wrote about this months ago and still don't understand how you can just assign a score like that and then splash it on your front cover as legitimate when it is clearly the result of bias. In fact, maybe it is time you explained the system (or even created one) to give them some credibility and remove the confusion?
BTW, I was unaware, or even unnoticed about the Nintendo problems regarding the news. Like I said, you at least cover all systems well.
Thanks again, and for your time, and I obviously don't expect this to get printed and don't even expect a reply. Just hope you accept some of my criticisms/advice from a reader and fan that has been around since day one.
THE Warrior
Hyper
I would like to comment on the Reader's Poll results which threw up some surprises, which if analysed, are really not that big a surprise.
Final Fantasy got game of the year as a result of it being the only serious contender in its genre. Whereas in First Person Shooters, there were so many contenders that the votes got spread out over many games. I bet that if you pooled the votes of each game received by genre, and had the top 5 genres of the year, you would find RPGs most likely below FPS, Platform, Sports, and Racing. If Zelda had come out earlier this year the RPG votes would have been diluted, consequently FFVII would not have been voted game of the year.
As for Goldeneye triumphing, well, maybe it really is better! Seriously, though, I am sure accessibility may have something to do with, especially with Unreal, but what about Quake2? That game has been out over a year (and more recently that GE) and really should have had a large enough player-base to garner more votes. But the real question: is Goldeneye the better overall game? Well, if you strip out all the coloured lighting and stuff (the novelty does wear off), how do they rate in the fun-factor stakes? Personally, GE is as good as Quake2 and Unreal, if not better. And in multi-player, the fact that people can more readily experience "live" battles, which I reckon are much more fun than online, probably added to GE's votes. More people simply had more fun playing GE throughout the year and that is why it won.
By the way, who won the "Worst Character" of the year?
Separately, it always intrigues me how you guys can give a game 89%, or 61%, or whatever. I mean, how can you be so precise? It starts looking especially silly when it gets really high like the 96% and 97% awarded recently. When you also consider the variety in readership and gaming tastes vary so much, it makes no sense to be so accurate, as you continually set new benchmarks where games from other genres are effectively competing against each other. I mean, is Mario64 better than Unreal, or Gran Turismo? The ratings say no, but as an example of their respective genres, they are probably equal in terms of reaching the current relative and relevant benchmark. In that respect, they are all equally as good as each other - it just depends on the gamer's tastes in games - and it is really Hyper's tastes that are pumping up particular game's scores. I reckon you should just score whole numbers out of 10. Whether they all get 10, or 9, is debateable, but they are all certainly of equal standard relative to the standard of their genres and don't deserve to be singled out as inferior to one another.
As a side effect of your system, an environment seems to have been created where any game getting below 90% is bad, or at the very least, average. Even "bad" games can still get 50's and 60's. It gets so silly that people regard an 87% game as a poor game compared to one that gets 90% when, in reality, 3% is negligible - both games are even. Look, I just think the current system allows slight personal preference to enter the ratings to the point where they cease to be objective. It really is amazing what a 3% difference has on games and the perception of how good they are.
Firstly, thanks for printing my letter, but you misunderstood a couple of things.
I don't believe a game that gets below 90% is bad, and I don't honestly believe you guys feel the same either, I just said the illusion is there that a game that just fails to get 90% is not that good. I don't know how many times I have heard, "only 87%..mmm", from my friends. Maybe they are all idiots, but I even sub-consiously think the same too. I'm just conveying the mood of myself and friends, and I don't think we are much different to ordinary gamers and Hyper readers.
Like you said, it is the text where the real truth lies, and is further evidence why the percent system sucks. It rarely matches the text. Rakuga Kids may sound good in the text, but conversely, Extreme G 2 sounds terrible yet almost (by 1%) got the same mark. The reviewer even said, "No sir, I don't like this game". Also, Sin, seemed littered with bugs and problems, and got 89% (or 9 out of 10). And now Zelda seems like the greatest game ever, especially with all the innovation (which has been sadly lacking recently), yet gets the "less than perfect" mark of 94%. In fact all the FPS games seem over-rated - obviously Hyper favourites. Is there any such thing as a bad FPS game? Your ratings say no, but your text says yes. I find your scores more accurate by stripping the last digit off the percentage to get a whole number.
You state that your marks are genre-related, but how the hell would we know that? To me, it was against ALL games, especially when you see "Unreal 97% - highest score ever" emblazoned across the cover of the mag. The simple solution is to give two scores: a standard "out of 10" score for all components (sound, gameplay, overall, etc), and a more precise overall score for the genre. Or maybe a table instead?
The Warrior, Mitcham, Victoria
PS: Why does Rogue Squadron get 5% more on N64? Surely you are not suggesting Nintendo players have a lower expectation of a game; or is it better?
Score Example: Lets assume Unreal just came out.
Visuals 10, Sound 10, Gameplay 9, Overall 9
Half-Life UNREAL (97%), Quake 2, Jedi Knight, Quake
Hyper
Why does your fine mag create a perception that gamers have no friends? The Turok 3 preview devoted an entire paragraph to the pointlessness of such a game on a console as they have no on-line capabilities. While that may hold true for some, you are forgetting that many people live with brothers and sisters, or friends, and the console demographic is much different to the Hyper-staff-typified PC market. Ever heard of a family?
Personally, I never have problems with multiplayer (MP) partners, and in fact, when friends or relatives visit, it is always the console that gets the workout. Quite simply, for "social" MP gaming, consoles are unbeatable for variety, accessibility, value and fun. It'd be wise to be more objective, or even just de-personalise your views, else risk an increasingly biased magazine. Hyper slagging console controllers as inadequate for various PC conversions is more proof. While it maybe true, you never go the other way in slagging a PC's inadequate support for social MP sports and karting games compared with the console equivalent. Oops, I forgot, gamers only play MP on-line. Silly me.
Finally, please stop perpetuating separate PC and console cultures. Statements like "...on any console" really irk me. Why not "...on any system"? Most of the time, that is perfectly feasible. Heck, we are all gamers. Many readers, like myself, would own a PC and a console for the complete gaming experience. Just lash out and say "system" when warranted. It's as though you're afraid of offending.
1. What happened to Lets Smash you reviewed ages ago? No store has heard of it, and your useless Hyperactive failed to reply. Since the SNES days, 4-player Smash is unrivaled. 2. What about Super Smash Brothers? 3. And Empire Strikes Back for the NES? NES Star Wars is the best Star Wars game ever, and I am still waiting for the sequel. Noticed a GameBoy version, is that the same? 4. Ever thought of having a readers' home-page page?
The Warrior - Laying the Smackdown on your Kandy Arse warrior@alphalink.com.au
PS: Menace is better than Jedi. It is even better the third viewing. But not the 4th, 5th, or even 8th time.
Dear Hyper
Being a reader since day one, I have noticed, and especially the last year or so, how you guys' gaming preferences are starting to influence reviews and features. I realise that you guys probably get heaps of letters claiming bias, but what I am saying is your enthusiasm and extensive knowledge of particular types of games are showing through and thus slightly slanted opinions are being formed. In essence, you are starting to write from a PC gamer's point of view rather than a gamer's point of view and becoming PC-centric. If you play certain types of games to death you get a greater understanding of the game and so can more accurately judge its nuances and I feel this scenario is starting to show out.
Example: Unreal and ISS98. Unreal may not be a sequel, but it is still an evolution in the genre, just like ISS. Sure there are quantifiable improvements, but are the improvements so great to go ape-shit over it? Maybe if you are a hardcore FPS fan, but what about a general gamer? Is simply providing flashy graphics commensurate to the hardware (and the animation is not up to par anyway) and including some AI (compare with virtually no AI of the past) really make it the best game ever created as the rating would suggest? Bet you, like most, play Quake in death matches, and since the multiplayer side of the genre is its major plus, how could Unreal rate so high? Of course there are other instances when you go ape-shit over a new graphical standard whilst failing to realise that the gameplay enhancements are non-existent - Fifa series for one.
Now I am a hardcore sports-games fan, especially ISS, and have been playing ISS to death since it's first rudimentary incarnation as Hyper Soccer on the NES eons ago. ISS98 has had as much improvement, especially to its AI, that it really has attained the rank of pinnacle of its genre (sport) - like Unreal (FPS). It is not just the difficulty factor that has seen the improvement, but more importantly the way it plays. It has transformed the offensive nature of ISS64 to a game of perfect balance where the outcome of the game is based solely on human competition, not exploiting "cheapness" in the game. Another game that has this quality is Smash Tennis on the SNES - a wonder in 4-player. ISS98 is truly a masterpiece, but granted only a hardcore fan would appreciate.
Here lies the dilemma: ISS98 gets penalised because no one at Hyper is hardcore enough to appreciate it. Of course in this instance, Hyper got it right. You really have to opinionate from the point of view of the general gamer, with maybe a comment regarding the improvements the hardcore fan would appreciate. With Unreal, you got it wrong. You have based the review from a hardcore perspective. Either that or you are making the assumption that all gamers are FPS fans (or even interested in FPS games), and that is wrong. Let me tell you, some are not. Though, if you are reviewing Unreal from the general perspective, then why did ISS98 - the pinnacle of its genre - rate much lower?
I think here that we have defined the term "hardcore". A hardcore gamer is one that has gone beyond that of playing any game, but whose tastes have zeroed in on specific genres and will generally salivate at the prospect of playing a new improved version of the type. A mainstreamer will salivate at anything!
The Future of Gaming? Again, in last issues feature, you are again opinionating from your hardcore perspective. You say beating your friend on a console is great, but taking on people online is the ultimate. Well, I have done both, and much prefer the player in the room - social multiplayer gaming. I am sorry. The party atmosphere of a group of friends abusing each other and laughing beats online play any day. Again, you are making the assumption based on your own preferences. Also remember that not everyone has a ready PC network at their beck and call either.
Also, you mention that PS and N64 games have reached their plateau, with no startling original titles coming out. Then, you say on the PC it is different citing Quake 2 and Unreal. Forgive me, are these really that startlingly original compared with Doom? What about all the RTS games? How different are these? Other than FPS, RTS and other strategy games, the current state of PC gaming is very limited. Effectively all games are reaching their plateau, and all that is happening is evolution and refinement. The only real genre defining game recently - and that is what we are talking about is WaveRace - the first real and effective water-based racing game - and maybe 3D explorers like Tomb Raider and Mario64. This year maybe only 1080 Snowboarding that has really pushed its genre to create an almost true snowboarding experience, and create a new genre.
Earlier in the year, you detailed how to get the ultimate gaming machine - a PC will all the latest add-ons. But a PC is the ultimate gaming machine if you want to play FPS and strategy games. It does not have the best sports game, nor the best racing games, or even other action and shoot-em-ups, and fighters. Even to the general gamer, it is not the ultimate, unless you are again assuming that general gamers all like PC type games, yet play console games because its cheaper or something? Goldeneye may not be as good as Quake networked, but it is a still a damn fine, and fun game. The article was great, but please, keep everything in perspective. For $4000 a PS and a N64 with 30 games and extra controllers is the ultimate gaming system at the moment. It is really your choice of words, and subtle, yet still biased comments nestled amongst these features, letter-replies and just about everywhere else that really peeves. Look, don't get me wrong, I really love my PC. How else could I play X-Wing/Tie Fighter?
My Thoughts on the Future of gaming? You guys hit the nail on the head comparing the Amiga with a SNES, and really, that is where we are up to at the moment. Though, the SNES did bring gaming to everybody. The 3D capabilities of today are at a point, that the limit of the human mind is now the obstacle for original games. If you think about it, what gameplay experiences cannot be replicated on all the platforms (OK the PS can't do real water)? The new Sega machine will simply make things nicer, not better. It is more than likely that it will not deliver any revolutionary gameplay experiences unlike the PC (Doom, Quake) and N64 (WaceRace, Mario) upon their new-technology launches. The great strength of the Dreamcast is the merging of the console's social-player pluses, the PC's online attributes and each side's gaming niches. Theoretically, this should spell the doom of the PC and traditional consoles as the dominant gaming forces. Time will tell.
For what it is worth, I am 30, been gaming for 15 years, own and constantly play all current forms of gaming systems available today.
Ashley Reid, Mitcham, Victoria
Yes, it's too long to publish. It's funny... it's impossible to please everyone. As soon as we show any element of non-commital opinion on what we think is best/prefer, people scream for it... and then as soon as we do... people scream bias.
Your call on my assessment of ISS 98 works on the basis that I'm not "hardcore" a term I'm growing to hate. I played ISS 64 TO DEATHŠ as I did with FIFA 96 (PSX), FIFA 97 (PSX), and FIFA 98 (PC). What do I need to do to satisfy your belief that I'm "hardcore" in this gaming genre. I found ISS no harder than ISS 64, except with the goalies being a little harder to get past, but as far as other AI went, I didn't encounter any new challenges relative to what I had been with ISS 64.
You make several references to Unreal as well... I did not review the game, and this is where it comes down to the reader having to familiarise themselves with the reviewers over time, because I consciously avoid altering the scores from the other contributors because there's no reason why my opinion (or vibe) on a certain game should affect the score from someone who has played it extensively. I do think Unreal is pretty damn amazingŠ in terms of a detailed 3D environment in a game, it was more ambitious than any other title ever released, and in this sense it succeeded. You'll probably be very happy to see the new section which is starting up in ht enext issue of HyperŠ Retrospect. The page deals with looking at an old classic, and also at recent releases that have had something happen to warrant us writing an updated opinion on them (in this case, Unreal's networking code, and how it has killed the game's chance of growing online).
Nothing is going to spell the doom of the PC, simply because there will always be people who will willingly pay the extra money to get the better video cards and monitors, etc. To me 1024 x 768 res is standard... and playing in 640 x 480 looks ugly and chunky.. and that's HIGH res on a console. Don't get me wrong, I'll happily play a game on any sort of machine if I think the game itself is good enoughŠ I'm just making a point that there are always going to be people who will pay to have the high end PC stuff. PC gaming is never going to die... but it will never be the big mainstream gaming phenomenon that console gaming is. The Dreamcast is just a traditional console with a modem bunged in :) It's a far more exciting prospect to me in terms of multiplayer gaming than has been offered by any other console, sheerly because I have hassles finding good enough players. It depends what you play multiplayer games forŠ I'm sorry, but I'm way too good at games to get any enjoyment out of playing an average person. I have countless friends, almost none of whom want to play me at a game if they visit my place, even though they really want to play the gamesŠ No time for further replyŠ deadline
Dan
Strange as it may seem, I do in fact agree with everthing you say. I will be playing my PC a lot longer than any console. And I do laugh at console people talking hi-res. I wish I could play ISS online too. But Hyper's long standing "gameplay is paramount" ethos seems to have gone unheeded recently (Unreal) and the crew's favourtisms are starting to affect their objectivity, that is all.
See.. this is where I really have to disagree... Prior to Unreal's release, my vibe was "Bah... Quake clone". The game itself got me hooked, and contrary to popular belief I don't like all first person shooters. In fact, while it's my favourite genre, it's also the genre that I'm most fussy about what I like. Unreal to me (and obviously Eliot who reviewed it), wasa far better single player experience than any other first person shooter to date. People will say "what about Doom?", but whilst Doom, was cool and allŠ there wasn't really any feeling of moving through from one level to another in a sequence that implied you were actually following some sort of plot/path. Unreal was the first of these games where you were challenged by monster AI, and also had a feeling that the game was set in a "real place" rather than just a collection of levels. To try and tell someone that Unreal doesn't have good gameplay would be a travestyŠ It has faults, like bad networking code, and the player models are too dark to make deathmatch more frustrating than it should be.
Playing multiplayer a certain way is indeed a personal preference, so why say playing online is better? Especially when a game forces you to play a particular way. That is the whole point I am raising. These are areas that you should not be subjective.
Why is it then that every console gamer that comes in here and sees us playing Quake deathmatch, wants a goŠ and then once they have their first gameŠ they're instantly hooked. The online bit really has to do with finding the best competition for your favourite games. Let's say you're "god" at ISS 98Š And of your (for argument's sake) ten buddies who come around and play games with you, that none of them can come close to beating you. Don't you yearn to play someone else who is also a master of the game? With the gaming leagues that are coming into existence now, where PC gamers can hold a position on a national or state level, and thanks to things like Challenge.au, try to get into the national team to play another countryŠ this is practically turning playing video games into a sport. I just can't fathom how any really avid gamer wouldn't call this one of their dreams. All games force you to play a particualr way... if you want to play ISS 98 with your friends... they have to come over and sit beside you. Actually, most PC games allow you to play LAN or online, so you have the option of if you want to be able to yell at the enemy (and have them hear you.. heh), or not.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking we don't like console games. I'm a fighting game nutŠ and I certainly don't sit around hoping for PC conversions :) I also dig Japanese RPGs, and sports games (although with some of the recent 3D accelerated PC versions, they're just as good on PC), which keep my consoles busy. Heck, I was one of those enthusiasts that ran out and got a PSX on day one and payed $700 for it.
Can't believe you played ISS98 enough, unless you are talking about the lower difficulty levels. Higher up, and more importantly in versus mode, it is almost fundamentally different. Maybe I am just too fanatical.
I played ISS 64 enough to be able to win 90% of the time on skill 5, and after a few games of ISS 98, was able to do the same, which I found a bit disappointing. It's a tricky thing though, to judge a game on how difficult/easy I find it, because I tend to find games easier than most, so my experience may not be on par with everyone else's.
Look, I love Hyper, have been a reader (and still own all copies) since day one and know you can't please everybody. But trust me, these pro-PC traits are starting to permeating the entire magazine from the News and Wow-o-meter (C'mon, is some WW2 flight sim really that appealing to your readership?), to letter replies.
Normally I'd say no... that's why we generally only give flight sims byte size reviews... but European Air War rocks. As for the letter replies, Really appreciate your response.
No worriesŠ I don't mind replying to the intelligent letters... most of them ask very tedious questions, or just say something very stupid :P Despite the fact I know we're objective about it allŠ It obviously doesn't seem that way to everyone, so I appreciate your saying so. Cheers
Dan
Yeah mate, I agree whole heartedly about Unreal. I found that Doom, Quake etc boring in single player for reasons you just stated. Unreal is the first FPS game I have enjoyed (maybe Goldeneye for a bit too) ever, and I hate the suckers! The monotononous search for the key to the door and kill mindless bad-guys got boring real quick once the novelty of the 3D engine wore off. Unreal changed all that. My PC is still not beefy enought to play it with full options, but I do during rest periods at our Doomathons on my friend's PC. Still don't believe the game is worth 97% and thus the best game of all time. It seems the excitement just got to the reviewer. Single player-wise, it really just added stuff that was sorely missed from it's predecessors. And with this knowlege, the review should have been tempered whilst still acknowlegding the leap forward from the "over-rated" previous games. Then I don't think any game is worth that much, except maybe Wipeout2097. It is an almost flawless execution of its gaming objectives.
Console gamers wow at Quake because it is brilliant - it is untouchable on any console. That is why. We have Doomathons (NW sessions in honour of the game that started it all) and I love Quake MP. We played UNreal once, then chucked it in for more Quake. I agree, I would love to take on the World at ISS. I just wish ISS was on the PC so I could. I know there is Fifa, but it has to much "cheapness" for me. Too many bugs to exploit. But then, if you could beat level 5 so easily, then maybe I should just stick to my easybeat friends. Actually, I have not played it L5 yet; L4 took a while (5 games) to beat, so maybe it is not that hard. But my ISS buddy lost 12 games straight without scoring a goal, using Argentina, and including losses to OZ & Uzbekistan on L5. But really, it plays so different now - much more defence orientated, that is what I really getting at. We never had 0-0 in ISS64, but now they are as common as the real thing. And it is not just the goalies that are doing it; there are much fewer shots on goal. The AI on the team-mates to me has been revolutionised - both in defence and offence. Can't believe you don't notice the difference.
I love ALL games were you compete: sports, racers, and FPS in MP (and X-Wing/TF). Own all systems, and read all reviews about the above games (which made it hard to answer a question in your survey - all reviews, or those for the system?). Maybe Unreal is that good. But you have been "wrong" in the past - Fifa97 was a sick joke. I do you belive you are objective too (I still take your reviews as gospel mostly). But it is the pro-PC tone that is starting to be expressed throughout the mag that bugs. Trust me, it is there. Finally, what about the "Spyro the Dragon" reviewer who said this game could lay the final boot into Nintendo? This sort of trash belongs in your cringe-worthy sister mags like N64 Shamer, PC Peon Play and Official GayStation, not in Multi-Format Hyper.
Again, thanks for your time.
Ashley - the ISS Dutch Mentor
Dear Hyper
Being a 29-year-old veteran gamer, I have been an avid reader of Hyper since day one. I have always owned Nintendo stuff from the NES onwards, and now own a PC - once I could afford one - and a PS; and have owned all these for nearly a year. I would like to comment on a few things.
Is Hyper a multi-format mag or is it a multi-format mag? What I am driving at is that since a lot of your readers have multiple systems, they want to know the best games of their genre, period. You compare Fifa and Wipeout 2097 across the PC and consoles, but not ISS against Fifa or Golden Eye against Quake. You did compare Waverace against Jet Rider though, but that was a console comparison. There are never any PC/console comparisons of different games. If I only want one soccer-game, I want the best one. PC Fifa98 might have been the best version, but is it better than ISS? How did Golden Eye stack up against Quake? And then how does Quake2 stack up against GE? I would like to see some real juicy stuff as all it seems you are doing is avoiding a difficult decision; or are you trying to preserve the gaming cultures of the two platforms and not risk-offending people? Personally ISS leaves Fifa98 for dead due to the overwhelmingly superior gameplay; and instead of Hyper suggesting to the readers to go a buy a 3D accelerator card to play Fif98, you should have suggested to by an N64 and ISS and an extra controller for much the same price. Hyper is a multi gaming mag and should strive to find the best games, period; otherwise we can all read the system dedicated, and biased gaming mags, which seem to have different marks - up to 10% either way - to cater for the tastes of the readership.
The constant rivalry between consoles and PCs has always amused me, especially recently with a lot of talk on how PCs will take over. I have been hearing this for years and all that is happened is that my PC friends have each bought an N64 because it offered a game that was not available for the PC and I have bought a PC for the same reasons.
Although I own far more console games than PC games, I don't necessarily believe consoles are better. They simply offer the games that I like most: sport, racing, shooters and action games; and the accessibility for playing with friends are unparralled for these types of games. Conversely I don't like strategy, simulation or corridor games: which are the PC's domain. Simply, each system has its own games and its own derived market. Your listings of the Hyper staff favourite games do nothing other than to prove this point precisely. Adult males playing adult games on an adult platform, whereas a survey of under 18 year olds would show a different result. To a degree, forget about price; forget about graphics and forget about multiplayer virtues; neither platform will take over for the primary reason that each provides its own unique and different games that appeal to their own markets. A walk through Harvey Norman's gaming section will attest to this. Would Mario64 really sell that well on a PC?
Lastly, game 'engines'. What is an engine? To me a new engine provides for a new skill to be learnt, since it is this that drives the game: creates the gameplay. To me it is mostly marketing garble from the software companies. Is Q2 really that different to Quake, or even GE? Sure, different strategies have to be learnt, but the skill to play the game is essentially the same. Whereas Quake compared to Doom, was much different and I would concede that Quake did feature a new engine over its predecessor. What are you views?
The UKKK (The Undisputed Konsole King of the Kosmos)
Dear Hyper
I’m going to dispense with the pleasantries and put you back on schedule. On my diplomatic mission to Alderaan I acquired the new edition of Hyper and to my absolute disgust there was no review of the GREATEST soccer game ever created, International Superstar Soccer 64, which I recently purchased. My disgust is even further compounded by the fact that there has never been a preview in any previous edition! Come on. Get with it you mal-functioning little twerps.
It was fair enough that you neglected to review ISS Deluxe on the SNES since it was not really released here; I had to mail order it from the UK. The gameplay of which was simply outstanding and simply outshone any of 32bit games. It didn’t look like much but it had it where it counted. How you near-sighted scrap-piles can give a diabolical game such as Fifa 9X over 90% is quite beyond my capacity. The game is unresponsive, uncontrollable and virtually unplayable. It’s nothing but Bantha fodder. I think the innovative graphics and commentary clouded your views somewhat.
You know what? I really find your lack of faith disturbing. ISS64 needs to be reviewed and must be reviewed if you are to come with me to Alderaan. If this is not done you will be sent to the spice mines of Kessel and smashed into good knows what. And don’t try to frighten me with your sorcerer’s ways and say you have not received a copy. Pick up your visual scanning! The gaming community that has lived oblivious to ISSD’s brilliance must be made aware of ISS64’s or further star systems will suffer the same fate as Alderaan’s.
You can curse my metal body but all I can say is it is absolutely scintillating, and if Fifa can receive mid-90s, ISS64 should be the first game to get 100%. I could go on about this amazing game but hopefully readers can find out for themselves on page 46. Once this is done your skills will be complete.
Even though Rusty from National Lampoon’s Vacation did not know how to use a magazine, I have used Hyper extensively since its inception and found it incredibly enjoyable and reliable. The force is with you young Hyper, but you are not a Jedi yet.
As for that slimy piece of worm ridden filth that said Mario Kart64 was too easy and should have been downgraded in single player mode, well, copy Gold Leader. But that fault lies in the unlimited continues, not the standard of the racers. Limit yourself to no continues or pay the price for your lack of vision. SMK on SNES, a much harder game, had three. MK64 really should not have had any in my book. The game is simply great fun and this along with the time trial count significantly towards the long-term value. The reviewer got it pretty close to the mark.
Knock. Knock.
Who’s there?
Millenium Falcon.
Millenium Falcon who?
You’ve never heard of the Millenium Falcon!
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
I hope it’s worth the price I paid!
Konsole King