175 replies to this topic

[Gorf]

 phuzaxeman, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:55 AM, said:

owned....defending cybermorph is just hillarious.  not to mention even trying to defend ultra vortek (aka ultra boring).

Owned ? I hardly think so.

Star fox is a hack and a trick at best. It could never hold a candle to wht the Jagur is doing
unoptimized and ported over I might add. Not a large effort like Starfox had to be.
Oh and no extra processors on the cart either. Again, the 68k of the Jaguar can do Star Fox
and do it better. Why? I dont know..I think the game is lame at best. Cybermorph crushes it
in play, graphics, colors levels and class.

[Gorf]

 Rev. Rob, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:59 AM, said:

You know, I didn't think I was really that hard on the game. It certianly does have its place in history, and I find it to be a fun novelty. I played it for two hours before I wrote this, just as a refresher, and it's more enjoyable than not. Simply stated though, it's nowhere near stellar.

But still a better app then Star fox.

[phuzaxeman]

 Gorf, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:39 AM, said:

 phuzaxeman, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:55 AM, said:

owned....defending cybermorph is just hillarious.  not to mention even trying to defend ultra vortek (aka ultra boring).

Again, the 68k of the Jaguar can do Star Fox
and do it better. Why? I dont know..I think the game is lame at best. Cybermorph crushes it
in play, graphics, colors levels and class.

the jaguar could have done a lot of things...but it didn't.  that's the frustrating thing.  if you love the game, that's the most important thing. more power to you.

i know there's a lot of jag fans on here (me being one myself), but games like cybermorph is what it is.  my experience, the ratings, reviews, and forums the past decade conclude that cybermorph was lower than avg at best.

[phuzaxeman]

Sigurd says, "lol, look at you and your little buddy pattin each other on the back, for a post well trolled.
Anywho, to my point, I never defended the gameplay of Ultra Vortek, just spoke about it because of the statement that SF2 and MK2 on the SNES beat it graphically. I own both those games for the SNES, I am also a HUGE MK fan, and altho I myself enjoy the MK series more then anyother fighting game around, Ultra Vortek makes MK2 on the SNES look like crap, aswell as SF2 on the SNES.
I find you trying to defend that to be hilarious.
Now, why was this whole thread made? to stir the pot and dis Cybermorph? or did you actually want to try your hand at writting reviews and was hoping for some creative critiz'em??"  

---------------------------------------


how long have you owned the jag?

and how many contributing atari articles have made for any atari mag?  here are some of mine:(http://www.ataritime...showarticle=248)
(http://www.ataritime...showarticle=416)

you need to be careful before you start callin people trolls.  just because my opinion differs, doesn't mean that i'm a troll. and i find it funny how because one has a different opinion, some people start taking things personal and start making personal attacks.  

if you were a true MK II/Street Fighter II fan back in the day, you'd know and understand that when the snes released street fighter II and MK II, it was ground breaking for a system to bring those games home.  those ports (sf2 and MK2) on the snes were pretty close in gameplay and graphics to the arcade.  so if Ultra Vortek makes SF2 and MK2 look like "crap,"  then in essence its making the arcade look like crap too because those (MKII/SF2) ports are so close to the arcade....

Edited by phuzaxeman, Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:40 AM.

[Brian R.]

It's a damn shame that someone can't post a review without being called a troll. Having a different opinion is fine, but counter opinions can be presented without resorting to namecalling and insults.

[Sigurd]

 phuzaxeman, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:16 AM, said:

Sigurd says, "lol, look at you and your little buddy pattin each other on the back, for a post well trolled.
Anywho, to my point, I never defended the gameplay of Ultra Vortek, just spoke about it because of the statement that SF2 and MK2 on the SNES beat it graphically. I own both those games for the SNES, I am also a HUGE MK fan, and altho I myself enjoy the MK series more then anyother fighting game around, Ultra Vortek makes MK2 on the SNES look like crap, aswell as SF2 on the SNES.
I find you trying to defend that to be hilarious.
Now, why was this whole thread made? to stir the pot and dis Cybermorph? or did you actually want to try your hand at writting reviews and was hoping for some creative critiz'em??"  

---------------------------------------


how long have you owned the jag?

and how many contributing atari articles have made for any atari mag?  here are some of mine:(http://www.ataritime...showarticle=248)
(http://www.ataritime...showarticle=416)

you need to be careful before you start callin people trolls.  just because my opinion differs, doesn't mean that i'm a troll. and i find it funny how because one has a different opinion, some people start taking things personal and start making personal attacks.  

if you were a true MK II/Street Fighter II fan back in the day, you'd know and understand that when the snes released street fighter II and MK II, it was ground breaking for a system to bring those games home.  those ports (sf2 and MK2) on the snes were pretty close in gameplay and graphics to the arcade.  so if Ultra Vortek makes SF2 and MK2 look like "crap,"  then in essence its making the arcade look like crap too because those (MKII/SF2) ports are so close to the arcade....

The troll comment was really ment to be more of a joke then an insult, so I will apologize for that, I thot the sarcasm/joke in it came thru but perhaps not.

First off, I got a Jag the week it came out!! They were 275$ here, but after owning if for several years I let it go, I was young and I missed it ever since, thus I got another one.

Second, I am a huge MK fan, I said that NOT a SF fan, I hate SF.
I own and play MK1-3, UMK3, MK4 MK DA. D, A. I have the spin off games also. So yes I do love my MK. But the question was does Ultra Vortek have better visuals then MK2 on the SNES. Yes it does, sorry to say that as a MK fan, I also own and love my SNES so its not just biased fanboyism. I dont take away from how good MK looks on the SNES, but Ultra Vortek looks better.
But for MK2 being close to the arcade in visuals? For a SNES version, yes it was amazingly close to the arcade, I never dissed the arcade?
(also the same argument goes for SF, MK looked better then SF so I just didnt add that)

EDIT, lol, I just read your post again, sorry, I just woke up and my contacts are not in yet
None, none of my reviews articles have made it anywhere, I have not written any. Can you not tell by my great spelling and grammar skills?
Again, my comment was ment to be more of a fun poke, that is why I didnt really want to join this thread, everything is getting taken as an attack.

Edited by Sigurd, Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:15 AM.

[Gorf]

Star Fox is, by every understanding a fantastic techinical feat for the SNES. I cant' deny that and still
have any semlance of sanity left. However, it's hardly a yawn to attempt something like it on the Jag.

Cybermorph, for the Jaguar, yes, is nothing special techinically for the Jaguar but it is still a great long
lasting vid gaming trek. It's not a shoot em up in the normal, arcady, fast paced sense. It is also impossible
to do on the SNES.

Game preferences are like assholes.....everyone has one. If it's not your asshole chances are you'll think it
stinks.   Facts are facts. All the opinions in the world cant change them no matter how hard one may try.
I think the trouble is sometimes we all like to throw in our opinions mixed in with the facts.

Differing opinions are one thing, controversial is another. Perhaps, again, it is the emotionless
feel of a post off the net. I bet if all of us were sitting in person, we'd have the same conversation,
and even maybe the same pot shots but I bet it would be fun and a lot more friendly feeling.

Im not trying to brow beat anyone but if you come across in most of your post as if you are trolling
then, what can I say...I dont mean you of course, but I think you might see my point of view. If you
like Star fox over a game like Cybermorph, God bless you and enjoy it, but don't beat on Cybermorph
unfairly and then compare it to Star Fox as if it is even the same thing in the fisrt place. It's a completely
different game.

Dont say picking up pods is boring as if it is a generally agreed upon opinion, because it absolutely is
not. I view the picking of pods very much like defender and rescuing humans. In fact there are a level
or two whre you do just that. Cybermorph is not always a fast action game, like Star Fox is and it was
never meant to be. It does not have a predefined AND predetermined method of completing a level as
Star Fox does.

I don't think it is even reasonable to compare these two games at all. I seriously do not
believe for a second that ATD and Nintendo were competing wth these levels. Star Fox is an arcady fast
paced on rails shooter, Cybermorph is a more laid back... go the hell where you want, as you want for
as long as you want, until you are satified video gamming adventure. There is a level or two with a time
limit or a certain amount of time to do something before something else makes that impossible.

This 'review' came off more like an EGM editorial than a fair assement of  Cybermorph, im sorry.
There are other posts by the Rev that certainly come across to me as trolling. It seems I am not
alone in this assement. Others have stated similar complaints.

Hey...maybe Im wrong about the Rev's intent but he, to me is not coming across that way.
What can I say? After all that is only MY opinion.  Truly I have no ill will toward anyone.
It aint worth the energy it takes to maintain a grudge.

[spiffyone]

Funny how you employ a fallacy of logic to distract from facts about the game called Cybermorph by attacking a console called 32X that was released three years later.

I won't get in the middle of this "debate", but I'd like to point this out Rev., because you got it wrong:

32X was released in Nov. '94.  The Jag came out in Nov. '93.  So 32X came out a year later, not three years later.

And 32X is not a console.  It is an add-on to a console.  Nothing more.

[Brian R.]

Well, the first response this guy got to his review was a pointless "yawn." It was doomed from the start.

[Atariboy]

If Star Fox is so easy to do on the Jaguar, its ashame someone doesn't port it over. I'm not aware of anything thats been done thats been worth playing over the past few years or is in the pipeline for the Jaguar besides Songbird releasing a few nice unreleased games, and a nice port of a 25 year old arcade game by Gorf here.

Star Fox is a much better game in my opinion, something similar on the Jaguar would be awesome.

Edited by Atariboy, Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:05 PM.

[kevincal]

 Gorf, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:28 AM, said:

 phuzaxeman, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:10 AM, said:

SNES STARFOX > Jaguar Cybermorph

In your on rail dreams. Cybermorph shits on starfox.

I feel both games are equally mediocre.     Now StarFox 64 rocks.  

[Gunstar]

it won't ever be ported over becuase it's a Nintendo property, and even if they would ever license it for someone to port to ANY other system, which they won't, not unless they pull a "Sega" and go into software only, no Jaguar developer could afford the licensing and the market is FAR too small to make it worth while. Something similar could easily be done though, and even just using the 68000 co-processor, as many Jaguar games do, instead of the REAL Tom CPU. But if you want a game that is similiar, and in some ways better (becuase it has the "on-rails" aspect like Starfox, but also has some 360 degree free-roaming levels), then hope that the uncorrupted version of Soul Star can be found and released for the Jaguar CD. Although it's Sprite-based instead of polygon based, it's graphics and gameplay are superior to Starfox's IMHO. Check it out on the Sega CD (which isn't as good graphically as the Jaguar version) or find one of the corrupted copies floating around on the Jaguar for a taste of it. And I've even been able to get passed the level that crashes most of the time (there is a trick), and have played at least half the game, never finished only becuase I'm not good enough to get further. The fact is that no matter what some people think about Cybermorph, it's pushing around at least 10 times as many polygons as StarFox and something similar to Starfox can easily be made for the Jaguar.

Edited by Gunstar, Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:28 PM.

[Gunstar]

 kevincal, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:26 PM, said:

 Gorf, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:28 AM, said:

 phuzaxeman, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:10 AM, said:

SNES STARFOX > Jaguar Cybermorph

In your on rail dreams. Cybermorph shits on starfox.

I feel both games are equally mediocre.     Now StarFox 64 rocks.  

at least you are making some sense with these two statements.

Edited by Gunstar, Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:30 PM.

[kevincal]

 A Sprite, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:08 PM, said:

Quote

Posting those two links only showed me that most people with
working vision can Clearly see that Cybermorph is superior, in both color and crispness AND FRAME RATE.

But not color choice, imagination, or design.

Sorry Gorf, but that's my first time seeing it, and my first thought was that it'd be an awesome tech demo for the Amiga, if anyone wanted to try it. But between the fog, and the empty world, I was reminded less of an epic space adventure and more of those tiny suckerfish that clean aquariums out...

It's great if you're looking for a neglected game to love and nurture, or something Zen to occupy your hands while you add up your bills, but there's a reason Starfox shot it down at retail.

Ok, this isn't fair.    That was the 1st level in Cybermorph.  Things get much more colorfull and action-oriented in the later levels...  The main reason StarFox outsold CyberMorph is because about a zillion people already owned a SNES whereas obviously, the Jag didn't sell too well.  No thanks to poor Atari marketing...

[ls650]

 Brian R., on Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:22 PM, said:

Well, the first response this guy got to his review was a pointless "yawn."

I posted that pointless yawn because the original post was pointless - it was yet another bloody worthless troll.

*Yawn*.

[Rev. Rob]

 Gorf, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:35 AM, said:

 Rev. Rob, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:33 AM, said:

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence (which you ignore), you march on in defiance. Why is that?

What evidence might that be Rev? I've yet to see anything to back up your claims.

Now "you're" lying.

Quote

Your a troll. You do things like a troll does.Im not the first and only to point this out.

Such as?

Anyhow, you write like you're eight years old? Are you? I doubt that you are, as you claim to be old enough to have had a Jaguar when it was released, the the evidence suggests otherwise. However, you don't see me calling you names like and eight year old would do, do you? No, that's somethat that you resort to.

[Rev. Rob]

 Sigurd, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:34 AM, said:

 Rev. Rob, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:59 AM, said:

 phuzaxeman, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:55 AM, said:

 Rev. Rob, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:38 PM, said:

Gunstar, Gorf, you two are absolutely beyond fanatical.

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Claustraphobic levels?!? They are open and 360 degree, and larger than just about anything at the time.

The levels are itty bitty. The claustrophobia is further confounded by the fact that you're forced to fly through a maze of hills that you cannot fly over.

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Short draw distance of polygons?!? All games at this time, that could even compare to Cybermorph suffered from the same thing.

That's really not an excuse. It causes the game to hold up poorly.

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Enemies popping out of thin air?!? You can see the enemies at LEAST all the way to the edge of draw distance, which is far enough.

Not really.

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Flight sim?!? If you think it's a flight sim, your dead wrong. It's not a similation AT ALL! It's a 3D shooter!

I didn't call it that.

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Have you even played the game more than 5 minutes? I doubt it!

That's an interesting defense... “pretend.” If you pretend that I haven’t played Cybermorph, a game that I’ve owned for over a decade, does that alone make you right? Pretending?  

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Adequate tech demo?!? Diehard Gamefan crowned it GAME OF THE MONTH back in the day! And they said it shit all over StarFox at the time! I have the magazine that they wrote about a 7 PAGE review glorifying the game as the FUTURE!!!

But they were wrong, weren't they? First of all, I didn't review the game in 1993, I did it last night. Second, virtually no other publication ranks it so high.

From AtariAge:

Quote

Electric Escape Atari Archives (by Robert A. Jung) 65%
The Atari Times (by Gregory D. George) 60%
Game Zero Magazine (by Unknown) --
Justclaws JagSite (by Unknown) 60%
Video Game Critic (by David Mrozek) 65%



Average Score:   63%

6.3 out of 10... that's a score that I can agree with.

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Jaguar and Cybermorph forgotten almost as soon as they came?!? YO! Jerk, here it is 14 years later and you are talking about BOTH!!!

Not only are you a troll, but a ignorant and stupid one too!

Such harsh name-calling over a video game review? Jerk, Troll, ignorant, stupid... Did someone once beat you up with a Cybermorph cart or something? A little bit of 'acting like an adult' would not be a bad thing, you know?

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

Now don't get me wrong that I'm a Cybermorph fanboy or that I think it's "all that" even compared to later Jaguar titles or it's sequel (which IS "all that"), but it deserves it's props in Jaguar and general gaming history. And no putz like you who most likely wasn't even there (I don't mean you weren't alive, but just that you were probably a SNES or Genesis fanboy at the time) at the Jag's or Cybermorph's release is going to be taken seriously with your  half-wit opinions.

You're not a fanboy, but you managed to call me three more names and use your ‘pretend’ defense again. Hmm... Ya, I don’t believe you.

 Gorf, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 AM, said:

No console on its best day before the Jaguar could come close to what Cybermorph.
was doing. It had no competiton unless you want to include a decent PC(of that time.)

Or 3DO...

 Gorf, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:44 AM, said:

Perhaps we should start a thread called "Remembering Rev. Bob" how he
could not handle the fact that Cybermorph is enough proof alone that Jaguar
is superior to 32x.

Star Wars Arcade is much, much more graphically intensive than Cypermorph. More polygons, no draw distance problems. That argument is not based on fact, but fantasy.

 Gunstar, on Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 AM, said:

32X cant do as detailed a game as Cybermorph.

Except a number of 32X games (Star Wars Arcade, DarXide, Virtua Racing Deluxe, and so on), are more detailed than Cybermorph.

By the way, what does all of this nitpicking have to do with Cybermorph anyways? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way, I expect an answer.

As a game it does not need to be compared to other games that came out many years later on 32X, Playstation, Saturn, or 3DO. It does not need to be compared to games of its own time. It merely needs to stand on its own merit as a game. When it does that, it's roughly a 6 out of 10, even this many years later. That's actually not too bad.

None of this nitpicking will also change the fact that unlike Battlemorph, which is an excellent game, Cybermorph suffers from dull and uninspired game play. It plays like a bonus level of a Sonic game (get the blue spheres, get the rings, et cetera). Fetching pods is not compelling game play. The lack of an ability to keep your progress is not immersive.

Funny how you employ a fallacy of logic to distract from facts about the game called Cybermorph by attacking a console called 32X that was released three years later. Once certainly has nothing to do with the other. Your non-defense of the game only exemplifies its inherent short comings.

owned....defending cybermorph is just hillarious.  not to mention even trying to defend ultra vortek (aka ultra boring).  

avp, tempest 2000, battlemorph yeah, but cybermorph?  c'mon....

Thanks.

You know, I didn't think I was really that hard on the game. It certianly does have its place in history, and I find it to be a fun novelty. I played it for two hours before I wrote this, just as a refresher, and it's more enjoyable than not. Simply stated though, it's nowhere near stellar.

lol, look at you and your little buddy pattin each other on the back, for a post well trolled.

How am I trolling when my opinion is pretty much in line with what's on this website?

Quote

Anywho, to my point, I never defended the gameplay of Ultra Vortek, just spoke about it because of the statement that SF2 and MK2 on the SNES beat it graphically. I own both those games for the SNES, I am also a HUGE MK fan, and altho I myself enjoy the MK series more then anyother fighting game around, Ultra Vortek makes MK2 on the SNES look like crap, aswell as SF2 on the SNES.
I find you trying to defend that to be hilarious.

Why are you saying this to me? I didn't say a think about Ultra Vortek.

Quote

Now, why was this whole thread made?

To remember Cybermorph. See: Thread Title

[Rev. Rob]

 ls650, on Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:22 PM, said:

 Brian R., on Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:22 PM, said:

Well, the first response this guy got to his review was a pointless "yawn."

I posted that pointless yawn because the original post was pointless - it was yet another bloody worthless troll.

*Yawn*.

Can you even give an example of how my post is trolling?

[A Sprite]

Trolls make sheep cry.

Why would you want to be a troll?

It's much happier to like what the flock likes. Come join the flock.

Strength through unity.

Unity through strength.

And name calling.

Troll.

You started it! :cries:

[Rev. Rob]

 A Sprite, on Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:09 AM, said:

Trolls make sheep cry.

Why would you want to be a troll?

It's much happier to like what the flock likes. Come join the flock.

Strength through unity.

Unity through strength.

And name calling.

Troll.

You started it! :cries:

LOL!

This dude is awesome.

[Gorf]

Yawn!

[A Sprite]

Yawn!

Dammit, now look what you made me do.

[ls650]

*Yawn*

[A Sprite]

[ZylonBane]

 Rev. Rob, on Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:00 AM, said:

Can you even give an example of how my post is trolling?

Troll or not, you are certainly a dumbass who doesn't know how to keep his quotes to a reasonable length.