You're usually pretty good about responses but please actually read what I wrote (I have no issue with you disagreeing, but it just seems like you're getting the wrong impression). I'm actually baffled by your response considering the lengthy and often thoughtful posts you make elsewhere in the forums.
Sorry, I came off too strong because some of those games you criticized were the games I loved during my childhood. I thought they were all fantastic and I wouldn't compare any of them to today's games. Is it fair to compare Goldeneye to Advanced Warfare or BF4 or Halo series? Of course not. Is it fair to compare Mario Kart 8 to Diddy Kong Racing? Is it fair to compare Super Mario 64/Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time to The Witcher 3, Uncharted 3, 4, etc.?
Go back and play those games. Mario 64 aged a lot better than Banjo did and I don't think that is exactly an extreme opinion.
I don't agree. I gave away my N64 with all of its games but I have replayed both of those games and I've always found Banjo Kazooie and Tooie more enjoyable. I literally loved everything about Banjo series more - graphics, music, exploration, humour, controls, camera angle, you name it. There is not 1 part about Super Mario 64 I like more.
Conker got good scores but its a game that not a lot of people really think of that fondly (and the ones that do seem to for the gratuitous lewdness more than anything). The control at times could be straight up atrocious too. Its scores were also bolstered quite a bit because of the multiplayer aspect which I don't think aged all that well either.
But today some of the most wanted sequels for XB1 by fans are Conker and Banjo. How is that?
You act like I said they all were horrible games, which isn't even close. I pretty much outright said that I just didn't enjoy them as much as other people seemed to (but I personally knew few people who actually did like them that much, had one friend that loved BK, kinda liked DK64, and was obsessed with DKR). And I tried to explain why I think that was the case (them being a bit too generic).
Ok, that's fair enough. You post just came off as very critical of all those games. Sure, by today's standards they fall way short but back then compared to other N64 games, those games all stood out imo as among the best.
No, I loved Goldeneye. We played that a ridiculous amount (both single and multiplayer). Didn't really play 1080 (did have fun with Snowboard Kids 2, although it obviously isn't comparable in play styles). Ocarina of Time is probably my favorite Zelda ever (I can absolutely accept LttP being a better game but I didn't enjoy it as much), although the last one I really played much was Wind Waker so I don't feel like I've played enough of the more recent ones to be able to really say too much.
Right but we both can agree that Goldneye and OoT wouldn't get high 9s today. That's why I judge both of those games in how they were at the time. Both of those games revolutionized the RPG/FPS scene on consoles. PS1 or Sega literally had no such games to match. MS basically made Halo based on the framework of Goldneye's multi-player but made it even more expansive.
You realize it's possible to enjoy something but be critical of it, right? There's plenty of times when I actually agree that a certain game is better but don't enjoy it as much as other ones that are objectively not as good.
That's fine, just I've never heard anyone criticize all of those games. Sure 1-2, but you literally thought almost all of them were medicore, or so it sounded like! I don'tknow how old you were when you played them though. If you were in your 20s, then sure a lot of them you might not have enjoyed as much as I did. I was much younger than that when I played all those titles.
I will admit that N64 was the first console I got when I immigrated to Canada, which means it'll forever hold a special place in my heart and all the games I owned for it. So I'll admit my bias for those games swings the opposite way of yours - way UP.
Sorry, I came off strong. Didn't meant to be such a jerk.