I don't think it was intended to be a sequel or anything. It's just using the look of Paper Mario in a "platformer." But I agree it looks fucking awesome. Apparently you can switch from 2d to 3d at will.bph said:Anyway, I'm excited about SUPER PAPER MARIO, but it's apparently losing a lot of its RPG elements...
Imo, that's a "horrible" thing to say, and you take company mergers far too seriously. Electronic Arts didn't come in and boss Nomura, or Kitase, Yoshida or Uematsu. Enix doesn't knock on Square's door and say "Shit, would you mind changing this about how you use your game...?" Square didn't beat down the door of Tri-Ace while working on Valkyrie Profile 2 and demand changes, and enix had no impact on Kingdom Hearts. You also forget the window between the Square EA and Square Enix merger, so in other words, your logic is completely counter-intuitive.bph said:Squaresoft=Good Company. SquareEA=mediocre company. SquareEnix=Horrible company. That's all I'll say about that.
Specifying a figurative termbph said:I never used the term Bronze age, why did you put it in quotes?
Fact, I'd like you to meet a little someone called personal opinion.bph said:The fact that these people produced good games in the past does not mean that they will automatically produce good ones in the future.
And again, that's your personal opinion which you keep blindly stating as universal fact. I didn't enjoy VI as much as the general crowd, but that doesn't mean I think the game is complete shit and haggle the fact 90% of Square's so-called great generation was the reason Final Fantasy had the name "Final" in it to begin with. And if you're calling VII+ a cash cow, why even bother to continue it to begin with if that wasn't the very intent?bph said:VII, VIII, X, X-2 and Advent Children were not good, with Advent Children being the biggest piece of mindless drivel I've ever been witness to.
And I don't see how magically a year or two and a shift to 3d somehow justifies calling every game hence forth "mediocre" or "shit".bph said:To put it in perspective, Godfathers 1, 2 and 3 were directed by Francis Ford Coppola and had Pacino as Michael Corleone. And yet, SOMEHOW, magically, the innate essences of Pacino and Coppola didn't manifest in 3, and it is a horrible film. I don't understand how the same people who once did good work making something new automatically qualifies it as good, irrespective of its own content.
4,5,6 and Mystic Quest?...bph said:Finally, on your last point, I never said that "games aren't what they used to be". There are companies making games just as good as those SNES Final Fantasies,
Final Fantasy VIbph said:those companies simply are not SquareEnix, and their staffs do not include Nomura or Kitase.
Than you're either being hypocritical or a rebel without a cause. I critique every Square game, because every single one is flawed in their own right. I don't prefer a given "age" or "Generation", yet you do. How can you claim to hold no bias yourself when you hold every release up to a previous title or console and yet be open minded?bph said:I'm simply willing to look at these people and their work objectively, without becoming a fanboy who mindlessly praises anything they produce.
You'd be right captain, and I agree with it being crudy, except for one thing,bph said:And on that note, the fact that they were involved with Advent Children cancels out any of the leeway they may have deserved; I mean, that thing was just godawful. Ugh.
Not really, I wouldn't really care to bother with it if I hadn't noticed a huge steaming pile of hypocrisy. Again, actually bother to do some research on what exactly the company "Square" entails, instead of preaching about their "popular" titles and how you like A generation better than B. Both have their hits and misses, and there's a fine difference between "legitimate criticism" and "stating opinions as facts."Griffith No More! said:NERD FIGHT!!!
I have nothing wrong with a differing opinion, or someone preferring a set game. My one (and only) point that you and GNM continue to take out of epic proportions and dig a hole into is that there is no "Decline" in Square's quality that isn't just that, a differing opinion, and the fact Square is called "EA" or "Soft" or "Enix" has no impact on the quality of said games, and to further this, many of the "great" games on the SNES and PSone have been rebranded and sold under the "SquareEnix" title, so there's no need to hackle the company or call anybody who purchases their new games "mindless".bph said:Honestly though, can't we just agree that we have differing opinions about these games, and get back to the topic of Super Paper Mario? Now THAT looks like a good game.
Wow.Manji said:As for paper mario, yes nice game glad to see it, etc.
Not really personal, it could have been about Namco or or Capcom or *insert popular company a*, simple as that.Walter said:Seriously... why's it always so personal when it comes to Square?
I preferred the first myself.Walter said:Did anyone else NOT enjoy Paper Mario 2 as much as the original title?
Epic, I know. Deep breath.Walter said:Wow.
Manji said:Not really, I wouldn't really care to bother with it if I hadn't noticed a huge steaming pile of hypocrisy.
Manji said:Again, actually bother to do some research on what exactly the company "Square" entails, instead of preaching about their "popular" titles and how you like A generation better than B.
Manji said:Both have their hits and misses, and there's a fine difference between "legitimate criticism" and "stating opinions as facts."
Walter said:Seriously... why's it always so personal when it comes to Square?
The last paragraph wasn't directed at you, and you just wasted your past 15 minutes typing up a massive misunderstanding on your part that I didn't really bother to read. But that's whatever it is you were talking about for you, and the pretentious assumptions that goes with it.Griffith No More! said:too much stuff
Yet you keep bothering to reply. I hear an echo.Griffith No More! said:I guess it doesn't matter who your posts are "directed" to since you only seem to hear your own voice
Your own fault for being to eager too input a witty SA tag in you've been dying to use, not mine. It was a simple statement that there shouldn't be a prejudice against any company, versus trying to apply some stereotype to me and sate your ego all over it.Griffith No More! said:which caused this entire misunderstanding in the first place.
T_T! WHY GOD, WHY!Griffith No More! said:You are correcting, talking to you is a waste of time.
Oh come hither Griffith, you really think I care about what you or BPH thinks about _______ game or why? I said "respect opinions" aside more than enough, it wasn't a footnote or legal document stamp, it was there with intent. The point was the company hate is needless, just judge the games on their stand alone merit, as it should always be done. I don't care what company it's for, I've said this enough already. I'm not a fan of Advent Children, hell I saved your image for fun.Griffith No More! said:Why are you so defensive about this, anyway? You're starting to sound like this happens to you a lot. =)
hmmmmm......Well I guess you could say I got more defensive about it because to me the argument (at first) seemed a little bit "Old" vs "New" gaming, it was really more my goal to filter that out than Square. I Guess I did get more defensive than I usually do. I was just going to make it short and casual butGriffith No More! said:Glad we're dropping the cute stuff (after the first line anyway, at least I'm always being cute when I hither others =), but the perception of a square champion came from your reaction to casual comments. Not so much the point you were making in itself, but its application to what had been said and how it characterized those of differing opinions. It just seemed uncalled for and a bit presumptuous.
And c'mon, you got defensive about Square, admit it.
OH NO YOU DIDN'T.Griffith No More! said:Everything by Square after they joined forces with that evil Electronic Arts!