I played a ton of Cyberpunk 2077. I’ve done a lot of side missions, a bunch of the main missions and then started the DLC, when the game pointed me in that direction. The game still has many bugs and glitches, but they are pretty minor. The DLC seems to be worse than the main game, although even then it’s minor stuff.
Yeah I know. Cliche as fuck. But for those who weren’t around when It came out, it’s really hard to describe just how absurdly revolutionary OoT was. Between it and Mario 64 (another Top 5 game for me), you essentially had the foundations of 3D gaming that are still used today.
But besides that…it’s an amazing game that I’m still replaying nearly 30 years later. Ever single complaint I have about this game is a tiny issue that has been solved in other versions (like binding the Iron Boots to the C button).
The last console I had was the Sega Mega Drive, so I don’t have much knowledge of console games, but are you sure Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time “essentially set the foundations of 3D gaming that are still used today?”.
Quake 1, was released on June 1996. Quake II was released on December 1997.
Ocarina of Time was released on November 1998, the same time as Half-Life.
Sure, Mario 64 was released in June 1996, same time as Quake 1, but Quake 1 also had multiplayer - a key milestone for 3D gaming at that time).
You also had Frontier: First Encounters, released in April 1995, with primitive, but full 3D graphics:
I am just curious, is there something about Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time that I don’t know about with respect to their contribution to 3D gaming (either from a technical or game design perspective)? They are clearly great games, I just don’t really understand how they could be the foundation for all 3D gaming.
Fair enough lol. Not all 3D gaming obviously (I mean they aren’t First person shooters, like most of your examples), but effectively the Action, Adventure, Platforming, etc angle (which makes up a fairly massive chunk of games today).
What I’m talking about is the fundamental gameplay of both. Online Multiplayer was revolutionary, but it wasn’t really a fundamental change to the gameplay itself (Like with Marathon introducing mouse control)
It’s interesting that you mention Tomb Raider though because that’s a perfect comparison. It was a fairly indicative of the industry as a whole with its stiff controls, static cameras, and dodgy combat.
Mario 64 brought a full range of movement and action to games. It was really the first 3D game where just moving was fun (which is why they started the game in a peaceful courtyard, they wanted you to just have a fuck about). It also brought the user controllable camera to games (It hasn’t aged well, but that camera system was amazing when it came out). Also, while it didn’t invent the Hub world (it had been used in 2D games) it pretty much set the standard for it.
OoT built on Mario64 with two major bits of gameplay. Target lock-on (Then called “Z-Targeting”) and contextual buttons. Both of which are just so fundamental to games these days it just feels obvious. More relevant back then (but not now), it created the template for how you could faithfully transition a series from 2D to 3D while perfectly maintaining the feel of the 2D series.
Now, neither of those things alone would justify it being in my Top 5. The fact that they’re both so aggressively fun and well made does that.
I see. I still think claiming that Mario 64 and Zelda 98 are the foundation for most 3D action and adventure games doesn’t really align with reality.
Especially the piece about Mario 64 being the first 3D game were movement was fun. I understand that the definition of fun is subjective, but this is basically false.
Beyond Quake, in Frontier: First Encounters you could literally fly between solar bodies, do planetry landings, fly between cities. This is far more difficult to pull off well than the relatively primitive movement in Mario 64.
Same with setting the standard for player hubs. I haven’t played Mario 64, but I have seen friends play Mario Galaxy and the hub area in Galaxy is well designed, but simplistic and with no dynamism related to gameplay.
Not sure about how exactly target lock-on functions in Zelda 98, but target lock-on definitely existing long, long before Zelda and in more complex, dynamic environments.
Don’t get me wrong, you like what you like and clearly Mario 64 and Zelda 98 are good games, but it is strange to put them on the pedestal in this manner. Especially when many of your statements almost approach a PR level of what I assume is hyperbole (e.g. “first 3D game with fun movement” - this is clearly false).
Mario 64 was the first use of the analog stick in a console game. Push it a little bit to walk, push it all the way to run, and several states in between. Maybe you can find a simulator that had analog control, but I’m sure you can see the difference.
Ocarina of Time was a solution to that type of game in 3D space that, as discussed above in things like Tomb Raider, was far more awkward in its predecessors as the industry was figuring out how to make games work in 3D. It’s very similar to how Halo wasn’t the first console FPS, but it was the first one smart enough to put guns, grenades, and melee all on their own buttons, among other innovations.
I'd also add Mario 64's use of a controllable third person camera - all the games @Agent_Karyo mentioned are first person, and I don't think movement in those types of games is at all comparable. The camera was the key point to making a 3D platformer even possible at all, and it immediately became vital to many other genres too.
I know that by today's standards that camera is known for being rather antiquated, but it was revolutionary for its time. One detail I think deserves more credit is how they tried to anthropomorphize the camera as Lakitu to introduce it to players.
Yeah, OoT feels dated by modern standards, but that’s largely because it set the standard for 3D games. Future games have built upon the mechanics, but OoT was what paved the way.
Update: moved to Monday (tonight) because transparency sucked and I was tired.
Seeing: very little or slow twinkling
Transparency / Light pollution: Polaris visible, only one of the cup stars of Ursa minor visible to the naked eye. This is actually slightly better than normal for my area.
Equipment: 12" dob, 1520 mm focal length, 2" 2x Barlow, 2" 34 mm wide field eyepiece.
What I hit: M44: sketched it from my 10x50 RACI. I love finding M44 because cancer is dim as fuck, and I’ve got a cool trick where I just make a right angle with my left hand, pointer finger touching Pollux, thumb touching Procyon, M44 will be right in the 90 degree angle.
M65, M66 again. M66 was actually readily apparent to me, for some reason, where M65 took a bit of work to resolve. Did not manage to resolve NGC 3628. I also accidentally resolved another galaxy about three degrees south of and about two degrees below Iota Leonis. Found it purely by accident, couldn’t find it again, looked very slender, stretched almost across the view in 100x (34 mm wide field + 2x Barlow).
What I attempted: Bode’s galaxy. Spent probably an hour trying to starhop to it with different tricks (I think the thing that got me closest was drawing a line through UmA’s front elbows and shoulders and following that down to the level of Alioth. That got me onto a very neat little square of stars with a trail pointing towards the horizon, which I followed again and again to nothing. Very frustrating. I tried again to hit the owl nebula and cigar Galaxy, also no dice. Not sure if I just suck this bad at star-hopping or if the light pollution is really kicking my butt.
I spent so long on it that I ran out my clock and had to choose one last thing to do. Bootes was now plainly visible in the mid-altitude east, so I decided to try and hit M3 by making a right triangle with epsilon bootes as one angle, Arcturus as the right angle, and M3 as the last angle. Didn’t work. Tried a few other spaghetti plate strategies to find M3 and got nowhere. I mostly tried slowly slewing over at 100x mag, which I know is low for globs, but I figured it would at least stand out as a kind of weird bullshitty star that I could investigate, but nothing stood out.
I just picked it up for like $1. I haven’t played it much, but it is definitely interesting. I like older games because they were more experiemental and less “safe.” So they tend to be more unique than modern games. I dont hate all modern games, but they are beginning to feel extremely “same-y” in recent years.
After being soured by the Roadcraft demo (crashed on Linux day 1) Im happy to wait 2-3 days before buying a new game. (Doesnt fix the $0.13 issue though)
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze