LogFAQs > #949089517

GrabASnickers posted...

It's been a while so I don't remember it a ton, but I kinda feel the opposite about it. It's almost too much wow factor, like they were constantly trying to introduce some big new concept or setpiece.

They were, but I never felt that got tiresome. The paradigm for both games (smaller, self-contained levels with their own themes or gimmicks, generally tied together by the overall mechanic of accounting for unusual gravity) allowed a ton of room for creative, interesting level design, which was really showcased in that Galaxy 2 just did more of the same but still didn't run out of new ideas (technically Throwback Galaxy wasn't new, but I felt it was a beautifully executed piece of nostalgia). I actually would have liked to see a Galaxy 3 if they could have kept that up, but I recognize that that's a relatively unusual opinion.

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah without the nostalgia I'm sure its unplayable.

Honestly, camera issues aside, I don't actually find that 64 has aged as badly as people say it has. The level designs and platforming are still very solid by modern standards, the music's good, plenty of content with a solid range of difficulties, the graphics are easy to ignore because I know it's an N64 game (it's going to look bad. That's a given)... It's really mostly just that the camera has aged really poorly. It *works*, in that I never feel like it's impossible to manipulate it in a manner that allows me to do what needs doing, but it's completely unacceptable compared to even the standard set by Banjo Kazooie a year later, let alone modern analog camera controls. I don't think it's nostalgia making it playable so much as it is that people who played it before have had the necessary practice to be able to wrestle the camera into compliance without being turned off by how primitive it is.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.