Conker's Bad Fur Day was a technically bad game.

People blame solely Microsoft but seriously it wasn't them. They were losing employees around the Perfect Dark time. They started seeing less sales. Their games were losing their charm. Banjo Tooie was the last truly great game they made. Ignore the fart jokes, toilet humour, mass swearing and parodies and its just a bad game.

The controls sucked. The game didn't have any real depth. It was a lot more linear than what you expect from a Rare adventure game. No true side quests. Bad camera angles. Need I go on. Try being more open minded about this. Its true Microsoft are to blame for not using Rare's core IPs but they were losing their touch before MS got there. Nintendo saw all this coming. Thats why they sold them. The talent had pretty much gone by the end of the N64 generation.

The only credit Conker really deserves is the south park approach it took. But being honest the fact they resorted to that just to differentiate it from Banjo and Donkey is pretty sad. Look at Starfox Adventures and Conker's Bad Fur Day in another light and its obvious they were slacking anyway. Microsoft was just the nail in the coffin. For all the development CBFD, SA and Kameo went through these games are huge disappointments. Being in development for years you should expect a game bigger than DK64 at the time. Instead we got a game you can literally complete in 2 freaking hours? Seriously? Nintendo knew this would happen and people want to stop being so blinded by the gags.

Conker's Bad Fur Day sucked. Starfox Adventures was mediocre. What were they doing with these games all that time? How can games in development for so long be so short? Were they sitting around doing nothing?

Not the place to discuss this.

There's some points that have nothing to do with the tech. behind Conker. And i fail to share any of your negative feedback. I mean, the controls are good, the camera is good (in general), there's a ton of comedy with it's witty dialogue and bat sh*t crazy characters, the environments are good..

If people can stomach that horrible, horrible framerate (which would have ben a great point, but you miraculously omitted it), then it's a great game to play.

Hell, the graphics themselfs, minus the above stated, are probably the absolute best of the 5th generation. The technical side of Conker is brilliant.

Also,

Not the place to discuss this.

lundy86_4

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

ShadowMoses900

Conkers multiplayer was up there with anything else on the N64. Fun as hell. And the main game was great fun too. But yeah, wrong place for this discussion.

In the garbage.ShadowMoses900

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

ShadowMoses900

The controls sucked. The game didn't have any real depth. It was a lot more linear than what you expect from a adventure game. No true side quests. Bad camera angles. Need I go on?quickposter

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

ShadowMoses900

And who cares if it was linear? The game had a wide array of memorable moments and sequences. It wasn't trying to be platformer along the lines of the Banjo-Kazooie games.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

Lems_R_Tools

Actually there are many Sony games I dislike, the majority of games I play are not Sony games. Look at my Gamertag if you don't believe me.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]In the garbage.AcidSoldner

That was a minor blow to my self esteem.

[QUOTE="Lems_R_Tools"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

ShadowMoses900

Actually there are many Sony games I dislike, the majority of games I play are not Sony games. Look at my Gamertag if you don't believe me.

I 1st played this game in 2007 and all I have to say is how we missed this game in 2001?

[QUOTE="Lems_R_Tools"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

ShadowMoses900

Actually there are many Sony games I dislike, the majority of games I play are not Sony games. Look at my Gamertag if you don't believe me.

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

ShadowMoses900

I don't even know how you can class Dead or Alive in with Duke and Conker. Pretty much most Fighting games have scantily clad women with jiggle physics, look at Soul Calibur, Tekken, Virta Fighter, Mortal Kombat, they all have scantily clad women. Sure there are the spinoffs of DOA like the beach vollyball and crap, but the DOA games are valid legit fighters. So I don't see how the DOA fighters are vulgar and juvenile when it's only thing is come skimpy costumes, expecailly when 90% of all the fighters do this. The original yes, is halarious due to its redicoulous jiggle physics, but 2 and up are solid games.

And the reason I prefer DOA to the other fighters is because it's a complete game, tons of stuff to unlock such as costumes, characters, bonus material that keep you playing for a while as well as the counter system, so someone can't just spam the same cheap move over and over or do a practically infinate combo where you mise well set down your controller because your only hope is if they stop the combo.

All I know is that the Xbox remake is a censored POS with pretty graphics and smooth framerate but everything else was better in the N64 original.

Also, legacy platforms.

Conker is awesome, I don't agree with you.

Lol wut??? no, TC couldn't be more wrong...yes part of the charm was all the silliness of the game, but the game was fun to play and it had a lot of variety, it had platform, shooter, action, puzzles, etc. If anything the only "bad" parts were the water levels, but aside from that it was a really fun game.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Lems_R_Tools"] so what do you consider a good game, other then Sony exclusives.. because you seem to bash everything and anything that isnt made by sony.charizard1605

Actually there are many Sony games I dislike, the majority of games I play are not Sony games. Look at my Gamertag if you don't believe me.

It's the same freaking thing really Dr. Political Correctness.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Actually there are many Sony games I dislike, the majority of games I play are not Sony games. Look at my Gamertag if you don't believe me.

ShadowMoses900

It's the same freaking thing really Dr. Political Correctness.

for a cow its a horrible mistake XD

Im confused as to why anyone would blame MS for bad fur day since that predated the xbox and when it was remade for the original xbox it was the superior version.WilliamRLBaker

.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Im confused as to why anyone would blame MS for bad fur day since that predated the xbox and when it was remade for the original xbox it was the superior version.nintendoboy16

conker's bad fur day was incredibly acclaimed, and was a masterful piece of video game software. truly, it is one of the great platformers of the ages. it's a shame you didn't see that, but the highest tier of gaming intellect and observance is only reserved for an elite few.

Legacy forums is that way ===>MonsieurX

But people criticize MS/Rare in the 'this way' (present).

How could anyone argue otherwise without retrospectively looking for reasons as to why this is not the case.

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Im confused as to why anyone would blame MS for bad fur day since that predated the xbox and when it was remade for the original xbox it was the superior version.WilliamRLBaker

Sometimes bleeping out makes things funnier like South Park or Family Guy. When I see an episode where they intentionally don't censor the words, they somehow don't come off as funny. Like the dynamic of the joke has changed. Sometimes implied humor works better.

[QUOTE="Lems_R_Tools"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The game was very juvenile. I put it in the same category as Duke Nukem and Dead or Alive. In the garbage.

ShadowMoses900

Actually there are many Sony games I dislike, the majority of games I play are not Sony games. Look at my Gamertag if you don't believe me.

People blame solely Microsoft but seriously it wasn't them. They were losing employees around the Perfect Dark time. They started seeing less sales. Their games were losing their charm. Banjo Tooie was the last truly great game they made. Ignore the fart jokes, toilet humour, mass swearing and parodies and its just a bad game.

The controls sucked. The game didn't have any real depth. It was a lot more linear than what you expect from a Rare adventure game. No true side quests. Bad camera angles. Need I go on. Try being more open minded about this. Its true Microsoft are to blame for not using Rare's core IPs but they were losing their touch before MS got there. Nintendo saw all this coming. Thats why they sold them. The talent had pretty much gone by the end of the N64 generation.

The only credit Conker really deserves is the south park approach it took. But being honest the fact they resorted to that just to differentiate it from Banjo and Donkey is pretty sad. Look at Starfox Adventures and Conker's Bad Fur Day in another light and its obvious they were slacking anyway. Microsoft was just the nail in the coffin. For all the development CBFD, SA and Kameo went through these games are huge disappointments. Being in development for years you should expect a game bigger than DK64 at the time. Instead we got a game you can literally complete in 2 freaking hours? Seriously? Nintendo knew this would happen and people want to stop being so blinded by the gags.

Conker's Bad Fur Day sucked. Starfox Adventures was mediocre. What were they doing with these games all that time? How can games in development for so long be so short? Were they sitting around doing nothing?

quickposter

I agree that Conker's Bad Fur Wasn't particularly good fun to actually play. Well not imo, and the camera was one of the issues I raised at the time. It did have great graphics for the time though. In fact, it was one of the most impressive games on the system graphically.

Note: I used to work at Rare at the time Conker was being made and my mate did a lot of the graphics for the game so I think I have a decent grasp on the situation.

'technically' or, rather, 'technologically' Conker on N64 was an incredible game. It featured real-time shadows, reflections, sphere mapping, cool environments, great textures, excellent sound and sound effects (like reverb inside caves and such). It demolished anything on PSX or Sega Saturn from this point of view.

[QUOTE="quickposter"]

People blame solely Microsoft but seriously it wasn't them. They were losing employees around the Perfect Dark time. They started seeing less sales. Their games were losing their charm. Banjo Tooie was the last truly great game they made. Ignore the fart jokes, toilet humour, mass swearing and parodies and its just a bad game.

The controls sucked. The game didn't have any real depth. It was a lot more linear than what you expect from a Rare adventure game. No true side quests. Bad camera angles. Need I go on. Try being more open minded about this. Its true Microsoft are to blame for not using Rare's core IPs but they were losing their touch before MS got there. Nintendo saw all this coming. Thats why they sold them. The talent had pretty much gone by the end of the N64 generation.

The only credit Conker really deserves is the south park approach it took. But being honest the fact they resorted to that just to differentiate it from Banjo and Donkey is pretty sad. Look at Starfox Adventures and Conker's Bad Fur Day in another light and its obvious they were slacking anyway. Microsoft was just the nail in the coffin. For all the development CBFD, SA and Kameo went through these games are huge disappointments. Being in development for years you should expect a game bigger than DK64 at the time. Instead we got a game you can literally complete in 2 freaking hours? Seriously? Nintendo knew this would happen and people want to stop being so blinded by the gags.

Conker's Bad Fur Day sucked. Starfox Adventures was mediocre. What were they doing with these games all that time? How can games in development for so long be so short? Were they sitting around doing nothing?

amaneuvering

I agree that Conker's Bad Fur Wasn't particularly good fun to actually play. Well not imo, and the camera was one of the issues I raised at the time. It did have great graphics for the time though. In fact, it was one of the most impressive games on the system graphically.

Note: I used to work at Rare at the time Conker was being made and my mate did a lot of the graphics for the game so I think I have a decent grasp on the situation.

What projects were you working on?

'technically' or, rather, 'technologically' Conker on N64 was an incredible game. It featured real-time shadows, reflections, sphere mapping, cool environments, great textures, excellent sound and sound effects (like reverb inside caves and such). It demolished anything on PSX or Sega Saturn from this point of view.

N-K0d3R

I find DK64 looked better due to using the extra memory expansion and having lots of dynamic colored lighting.

The textures looked better in DK64 too imo.

Conker had the edge in the poly models and animated lip sync (also speech, which was hard to pull of on the limited cartridge media).

I think the game could be better if it used the memory expansion tho (either for increased resolution or smoother framerate).

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

[QUOTE="quickposter"]

People blame solely Microsoft but seriously it wasn't them. They were losing employees around the Perfect Dark time. They started seeing less sales. Their games were losing their charm. Banjo Tooie was the last truly great game they made. Ignore the fart jokes, toilet humour, mass swearing and parodies and its just a bad game.

The controls sucked. The game didn't have any real depth. It was a lot more linear than what you expect from a Rare adventure game. No true side quests. Bad camera angles. Need I go on. Try being more open minded about this. Its true Microsoft are to blame for not using Rare's core IPs but they were losing their touch before MS got there. Nintendo saw all this coming. Thats why they sold them. The talent had pretty much gone by the end of the N64 generation.

The only credit Conker really deserves is the south park approach it took. But being honest the fact they resorted to that just to differentiate it from Banjo and Donkey is pretty sad. Look at Starfox Adventures and Conker's Bad Fur Day in another light and its obvious they were slacking anyway. Microsoft was just the nail in the coffin. For all the development CBFD, SA and Kameo went through these games are huge disappointments. Being in development for years you should expect a game bigger than DK64 at the time. Instead we got a game you can literally complete in 2 freaking hours? Seriously? Nintendo knew this would happen and people want to stop being so blinded by the gags.

Conker's Bad Fur Day sucked. Starfox Adventures was mediocre. What were they doing with these games all that time? How can games in development for so long be so short? Were they sitting around doing nothing?

nameless12345

I agree that Conker's Bad Fur Wasn't particularly good fun to actually play. Well not imo, and the camera was one of the issues I raised at the time. It did have great graphics for the time though. In fact, it was one of the most impressive games on the system graphically.

Note: I used to work at Rare at the time Conker was being made and my mate did a lot of the graphics for the game so I think I have a decent grasp on the situation.

What projects were you working on?

[QUOTE="N-K0d3R"]

'technically' or, rather, 'technologically' Conker on N64 was an incredible game. It featured real-time shadows, reflections, sphere mapping, cool environments, great textures, excellent sound and sound effects (like reverb inside caves and such). It demolished anything on PSX or Sega Saturn from this point of view.

nameless12345

I find DK64 looked better due to using the extra memory expansion and having lots of dynamic colored lighting.

The textures looked better in DK64 too imo.

Conker had the edge in the poly models and animated lip sync (also speech, which was hard to pull of on the limited cartridge media).

I think the game could be better if it used the memory expansion tho (either for increased resolution or smoother framerate).

I personally think Conker was the better looking of the two visually. If you consider both artstyle and technology. Definately in terms of artsytle and presentation.

CBFD and Starfox were both a lot of fun. I have great memories of both.

'technically' or, rather, 'technologically' Conker on N64 was an incredible game. It featured real-time shadows, reflections, sphere mapping, cool environments, great textures, excellent sound and sound effects (like reverb inside caves and such). It demolished anything on PSX or Sega Saturn from this point of view.

N-K0d3R

Conker had some of the best multiplayer on N64, shut up