• buttnugget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This is the one right before that on SNES. I think it’s Donkey Kong Country? Let me look it up.

      Yep, that’s the one. At the time, the graphics were revolutionary. It’s not a huge surprise it doesn’t look as good on a non CRT, but that’s an unfair retrospective criticism me thinks.

  • don@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 hours ago

    There we go again with that generational divide horseshit. Plenty of people from baby boomers to (probably) Gen Alpha have liked it, for various reasons. Stop trying to pin your ridicule on whatever generation you happen to dislike.

  • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I’m glad to see pushback on DKC, like I was about DK64. DKC2 is the only one I really enjoyed, the rest aren’t great. Being honest, I think Rare has been overhyped for years.

    • Spice Hoarder@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Konker is a fun concept, but it’s honestly a pretty bad game. And I’ve played it through and through a few times. It feels bad giving any sort of criticism to developers who absolutely pushed the hardware limits of their consoles.

      • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Part of why Conker doesn’t feel like a good game to me is that the story feels totally disjointed. The emphasis on shock value overrode everything of value.

        • tiny_iota@endlesstalk.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          thats what made it so great, it poked at every trope it could within its boundaries, which with nintendo was insane.

          the great mighty poo! and that sunflower with the bouncies. 12 year old me was astounded even back then nintendo let them get away with it. Even the multiplayer modes where you are nazi teddy bears was insane for its time.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      No their games lack innovation. The games are essentially the same as they were 3 decades ago but with better graphics.

      • jeff 👨‍💻@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Damn, what a wild take.

        Nintendo might not be as innovative as some indie games but they constantly innovate and define new genres.

        I mean, look at the consoles. Wii, Wii U, and Switch are all crazy innovative.

        Some of their more innovative stuff might not be as popular, e.g., ARMS and LABO. Even their mainline series have some innovative mechanics for the genre.

        Serious question. What company is more innovative than Nintendo?

        • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I was referring more to their games. They haven’t defined a genre in over 25 years. I’m not saying they don’t make decent games. I’m saying the games are lack luster and more of the same of their decades old catalog.

          Again not saying they don’t do some cool things from time to time but they do more turds than golden eggs.

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I won’t deny the technical achievement that this game was for Nintendo, and the coup it was for Rare (at the time). And i would never take pot-shots at anyone’s joy of nostalgia around this game: Not all of my own favorite picks are winners. But I absolutely agree with this greentext. I recall getting this game new and just feeling underwhelmed by it.

  • InvalidName2@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    On the one hand, I didn’t like it that much when it came out. It’s not that I hated it or hated on it, just wasn’t my thing. Mario games were far superior platforming experience all around, in my opinion.

    Graphics for the time and platform were great. If you weren’t there at the time and your frame of reference is modern (32-bit or later) graphics, of course they suck. But that’s hardly fair or objective, when it comes to understanding why they were well-regarded AT THAT TIME.

    But, I’ll add this: A number of my friends’ kids were introduced to 8-bit and 16-bit games first, in lieu of exposing them to toxic modern phone/tablet games. And the SNES Donkey Kong game(s) were/are amongst the games that the kids enjoyed and played the most. So, there’s something to that, if you ask me.

  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    184
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    The reward for 101% was getting 101% ya muppet. Does this idiot think people play games for intangible pointless achievements instead of having fun? It must fucking suck going through life needing an extra reward for doing something fun.

    • M137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m trying to steer my younger (13) half-brother into thinking like this, that you’re doing stuff for fun. There doesn’t need to be instant (or not instant) rewards, especially the kinds that are so common now with many games that are made for kids and teens like a “billion zoomble bucks”, ultra rare legendary gold skin (that is not actually rare in any way), digital stickers you can’t even use for anything and whatever else. The reward should always be to have fun.

      • toy_boat_toy_boat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        first off - don’t get me wrong - i love the history for this

        but how many times do you think people have done a repost post like yours?

        is that n-1?

    • kalpol@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I have a solid memory of my roommate and I hitting Mine Cart Madness, and when I finally made it through we whooped and hollered so much the upstairs neighbor got mad and came down to shush us, at 4 PM on a Saturday

  • Aeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Anyone tell that fool that CRTs were literally the only kind of TV that existed at the time

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Admittedly, this game doesn’t look particularly good on a CRT, either.

      The hype about the visuals being “3D” was so weird and misinformed, and you could absolutely tell at the time.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        IMO, that’s all a part of the Rare+Nintendo hype at the time. Killer Instinct was in the same campaign for these pre-rendered 3D graphics as the wave of the future. Don’t forget, they had to go toe-to-toe with Sony’s Playstationat that time, so bringing anything that looked like real 3D on a SNES was kind of a big deal.

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Killer Instinct was one of the flagship titles for the Ultra 64, running on next Gen hardware in the arcade. The SNES version was basically a demake to get a 64 bit game to run on 16 bit hardware, which is a pretty big technical marvel if you ask me.

          Still have my OG Black cartridge!

      • Sparrow_1029@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It was pseudo-3D, I remember reading an article about how they made the sprites, but can’t find that… wikipedia has

        Donkey Kong Country was one of the first games for a mainstream home video game console to use pre-rendered 3D graphics

        and they used SGI workstations to create the models and animations before compressing/converting them to 2D sprites

        Rare invested their NES profit in Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) Challenge workstations with Alias rendering software to render 3D models. It was a significant risk, as each workstation cost £80,000.

        (sharing bc I thought that’s a crazy amount of money for 1992)

        • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It used isometric 3D since the SNES lacked any 3D capability.

          It was made by the same people that did those isometric games on 8 bit computers, Ashby Computer Graphics, aka Ultimate, which changed their name to Rare.

        • mkwt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          Meanwhile, Nintendo positioned this method to compete with Aladdin, which simply hired Walt Disney animators to do the sprites.

      • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        In that era you had CRTs or Rear Projection TVs.

        Rear Projection was bigger (55" 4:3) but often times was susceptible to burn-in and had a worse quality picture compared to a CRT

        Before LCDs it was plasma which until the the late 2000s had more technical advantages over LCD Refresh rate, contrast. LCDs couldn’t really match them until the 2010s (I never had a plasma display though so I don’t fully understand plasma)

        DLP was a thing and could get up to and over 80" while maintaining quality but DLP could not be wall mounted as they were quite big like rear projection screens

        • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Before LCDs it was plasma which until the the late 2000s had more technical advantages over LCD Refresh rate, contrast. LCDs couldn’t really match them until the 2010s

          glances at Sharp Aquos 1080p LCD TV from 2007 currently in living room

          still works really well

          fucking 80 lbs

          • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Bad viewing angles, poor contrast ratios, poor refresh rate and poor display speed.

            I was not saying that they were non existent or unreliable. The technology was just poor at that time and beaten by Plasma displays in those areas

            Plasma displays had 2 problems though (besides cost) They were heavier than LCDs and their backlights would dim over time.

            Edit: I was reading on wikipedia… they work like those plasma globes!

            Plasma displays were affected by screen burn-in where as LCDs typically are not.

            Also it seems like on Contrast ratio plasma still is not beaten by LCD displays

            Though there are a lot of LED backlight technologies that help. Such as being able to only run a portion of the backlight for a given area.

            For a while there were also Dual Layer LCD panels. They would effectively use one layer of LCD to control color and another to try to control brightness / prevent light bleed through. I think those are obsolete for the most part now.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display

            • lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              I still have the plasma TV in my house my dad bought in 2007. The backlight is a little dim but not too much, and there is no significant screen burn-in to my knowledge.

              It’s great for mid-late 2000’s consoles and TV shows.

              • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 hours ago

                I bet, they are still technically good displays that can potentially surpass most modern LCDs.

                OLED does beat them in every way now though

            • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Plasma displays had 2 problems though (besides cost) They were heavier than LCDs and their backlights would dim over time

              Plasmas dont have backlights, they worked similar to oled.

              • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                You are correct. They were susceptible to burn in and dimming over time but did not have a back light.

                I never owned a plasma display because they were too expensive. CRT until 08 when we upgraded to a Vizio LCD for me

                I should’ve corrected that after my wikipedia dive

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yea but LCDs were shit and had shifting colors across the screen even when you were sitting right in front of them.