The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How do you define a bad game?
Dodgy camera angles? Boring bits? Annoying control system? Bad graphics? Awful Sound?
All of the above?
In my case it is simple, whether I finish it or not. For those that don't know I own over 50 Gamecube games, and I've recently sold 13 so I did have much more. A game precentage score for me works out by how much I complete it.
I don't like the "does it have good graphics or sound", for me it comes down to simply whether I enjoyed it and how much I played of it. Take Eternal Darkness, it may surprise you that I never finished it. As I have said I have a lot of games and not a lot of time, so only the games I truly enjoy are the games I finish.
Is Eternal Darkness a bad game then?
No, although I never finished it I got about 93% through the game before I just got fed up and moved onto the next one. This is why long games have to be truly spectacular in order to keep my attention. So Etenal Darknes was mostly good.
But is this a fair way to assess games? I mean I finished Mario Sumshine with all 120 shines which surly means I enjoyed the game and I did the same with Zelda, finished it totally.
But surly I cannot continue this assesment onto certain games, such as Luigi's Mansion, Wario World and Pikmin. 3 very short games. Well I guess I can in a way. Luigi's Mansion had "hidden mansion mode" I never played it because to be frank if I saw any more than 4 hours of the game I'd scream. I came back to Pikmin several times and... shock horror... I never finished Wario World.
In fact I never finished half the games I got. This year I have completed just the one game, Prince of Persia. To be fair I've only ever really played that and FIFA this year but regardless the only game I can truly declare as great this year is Prince of Persia.
But what about Harvest Moon? We all ended up criticising harvest moon because it got boring in the end but lets be fair here. We played the game for 10 hours plus before we started to get bored. In fact I had played the game for about 20 hours, far longer than I played Prince of Persia.
So what is the better game? Well I'm afraid it is still Ubi-Soft's platformer. It is all part of good game design, if the game is going to get boring then liven it up. If you feel you've exhausted your options then stop the game. I would have stopped playing Luigi's Mansion after 4 hours if it didn't finish itself. The game never got boring because it didn't let me, it kept me interested and Miyamoto finished the game before interest was lost.
If Harvest Moon got boring it is the fault of the Natsume, they should have improved it greatly, added more variety or... shock horror... ended the game.
But you see some games, especially in my collection, still get a bad time. Beyond Good and Evil remains unplayed, I played just 5 minutes of Metal Gear Solid and the same for Skies of Arcadia. All 3 games are supposed to be very good, but going on my Good-Bad game system they are all "technically" bad.
The Metroid Prime case study is also an interesting one, my game was wiped and therefore I only finished 70% of the game. I loved what I played but I'm not going back to it. But this isn't the first time that I've "ditched" Metroid Prime and the time before was again not the game's fault.
You see I don't like getting frustrated, no one does. So when someone tells me sections of games are rock hard I dread getting to them, in fact it can sometimes stop me playing the game altogether. Now there were a few tough bits on Prince of Persia, I lived in total bliss that these sections existed. So when they arrived I struggled through them and carried on. So it was the reviewers and you guys that put me off Metroid Prime. All the "omega pirate" talk actually frightened me from playing the game, I didn't want to get frustrated. Yes a hard boss fight is great and a game that frustrates you is also important, but I don't want to be aware in advance this would happen.
Viewtiful Joe suffered the same fate as the ill-fated Retro Studio's classic. I got through that funny shark boss, although it was tough I enjoyed it.
I knew it wasn't going to get any easier. So I stopped playing.
And it was because I knew it was going to get VERY hard.
Not that I couldn't beat the Omega Pirate or the boss level in VJ. I am a very talented games player and I could do them easier than most. But the knowledge that I could be stomping my feet and throwing controllers isn't one I wanted.
It makes me sad slightly. On the eve of getting my X-box I have barley progressed in Skies, I haven't even turned Beyond Good and Evil on and Metal Gear Solid should have been finished by now... instead I'm playing a below par football sim and Mario Kart multiplayer with my mates.
This summer I played and finished Super Mario World again. Now why would I want to do that with so many games I have yet to even start??? When classics like Metroid Prime and Viewtiful Joe lie unfinished.
Is it because the games in question just can't live up to the excellence of the older titles? Or am I just too lazy to play games?
What do you think?
I'm off to play Beyond Good and Evil.
Dodgy camera angles? Boring bits? Annoying control system? Bad graphics? Awful Sound?
All of the above?
In my case it is simple, whether I finish it or not. For those that don't know I own over 50 Gamecube games, and I've recently sold 13 so I did have much more. A game precentage score for me works out by how much I complete it.
I don't like the "does it have good graphics or sound", for me it comes down to simply whether I enjoyed it and how much I played of it. Take Eternal Darkness, it may surprise you that I never finished it. As I have said I have a lot of games and not a lot of time, so only the games I truly enjoy are the games I finish.
Is Eternal Darkness a bad game then?
No, although I never finished it I got about 93% through the game before I just got fed up and moved onto the next one. This is why long games have to be truly spectacular in order to keep my attention. So Etenal Darknes was mostly good.
But is this a fair way to assess games? I mean I finished Mario Sumshine with all 120 shines which surly means I enjoyed the game and I did the same with Zelda, finished it totally.
But surly I cannot continue this assesment onto certain games, such as Luigi's Mansion, Wario World and Pikmin. 3 very short games. Well I guess I can in a way. Luigi's Mansion had "hidden mansion mode" I never played it because to be frank if I saw any more than 4 hours of the game I'd scream. I came back to Pikmin several times and... shock horror... I never finished Wario World.
In fact I never finished half the games I got. This year I have completed just the one game, Prince of Persia. To be fair I've only ever really played that and FIFA this year but regardless the only game I can truly declare as great this year is Prince of Persia.
But what about Harvest Moon? We all ended up criticising harvest moon because it got boring in the end but lets be fair here. We played the game for 10 hours plus before we started to get bored. In fact I had played the game for about 20 hours, far longer than I played Prince of Persia.
So what is the better game? Well I'm afraid it is still Ubi-Soft's platformer. It is all part of good game design, if the game is going to get boring then liven it up. If you feel you've exhausted your options then stop the game. I would have stopped playing Luigi's Mansion after 4 hours if it didn't finish itself. The game never got boring because it didn't let me, it kept me interested and Miyamoto finished the game before interest was lost.
If Harvest Moon got boring it is the fault of the Natsume, they should have improved it greatly, added more variety or... shock horror... ended the game.
But you see some games, especially in my collection, still get a bad time. Beyond Good and Evil remains unplayed, I played just 5 minutes of Metal Gear Solid and the same for Skies of Arcadia. All 3 games are supposed to be very good, but going on my Good-Bad game system they are all "technically" bad.
The Metroid Prime case study is also an interesting one, my game was wiped and therefore I only finished 70% of the game. I loved what I played but I'm not going back to it. But this isn't the first time that I've "ditched" Metroid Prime and the time before was again not the game's fault.
You see I don't like getting frustrated, no one does. So when someone tells me sections of games are rock hard I dread getting to them, in fact it can sometimes stop me playing the game altogether. Now there were a few tough bits on Prince of Persia, I lived in total bliss that these sections existed. So when they arrived I struggled through them and carried on. So it was the reviewers and you guys that put me off Metroid Prime. All the "omega pirate" talk actually frightened me from playing the game, I didn't want to get frustrated. Yes a hard boss fight is great and a game that frustrates you is also important, but I don't want to be aware in advance this would happen.
Viewtiful Joe suffered the same fate as the ill-fated Retro Studio's classic. I got through that funny shark boss, although it was tough I enjoyed it.
I knew it wasn't going to get any easier. So I stopped playing.
And it was because I knew it was going to get VERY hard.
Not that I couldn't beat the Omega Pirate or the boss level in VJ. I am a very talented games player and I could do them easier than most. But the knowledge that I could be stomping my feet and throwing controllers isn't one I wanted.
It makes me sad slightly. On the eve of getting my X-box I have barley progressed in Skies, I haven't even turned Beyond Good and Evil on and Metal Gear Solid should have been finished by now... instead I'm playing a below par football sim and Mario Kart multiplayer with my mates.
This summer I played and finished Super Mario World again. Now why would I want to do that with so many games I have yet to even start??? When classics like Metroid Prime and Viewtiful Joe lie unfinished.
Is it because the games in question just can't live up to the excellence of the older titles? Or am I just too lazy to play games?
What do you think?
I'm off to play Beyond Good and Evil.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> I played Eternal Darkness twice, I think. Go figure.
I know, I couldn't stand the game.
> I played Eternal Darkness twice, I think. Go figure.
I know, I couldn't stand the game.
Well the dungon keeper Gold CD I bought when I still owned my Win 98 didn't work on that but I checked to see if it worked on my Xp just this week and to my great surprise it worked, so if you have a copy of the collectors DKG then give it a go. I'm going to try and beat my most hated level, Level 18, coz I left that one unfinished last time as I couldn't beat it.
The good thing about DK is that you can't use any cheats at all (i've tried the ones they say but they never work) so it's down to pure skill which I was very good at producing in those games.
The good thing about DK is that you can't use any cheats at all (i've tried the ones they say but they never work) so it's down to pure skill which I was very good at producing in those games.
I ****ing love Dungeon Keeper. Too bad I never actually owned it or the sequel :(
It wouldn't run on my PC now, they're too old :(
It wouldn't run on my PC now, they're too old :(
I played Eternal Darkness twice, I think. Go figure.
I remember when I used to play Dungeon Keeper on my old windows 95, I was able to get up to level 16 and beat that really easily (this was out of 20) then I had to be really strategic with level 17, and i ventually beat that will a lot of skill, but when it came to level 18 that was realy tough, whereas somepeople say that level 19 is a lot more easier to play, but I never managed to get that far. Now that isn't a bad game, in fact it was a brilliant game for it's time (being able to control the dark side, and being able to possess your minions) but what made it good was it's ability to make the levels last for hours while you bide your time and train up the minions, and it's ability to make you actually think of a strategy to overcome your enemies with maximum damage to them, and minimum damage to yourself (IE laying down traps at every single step down a corridor that can either drain their health to a minimum, or kill them instantly) and if they come in waves then you have some time to reset traps, only at the cost of the gold to build them.
Now that was a great game, even if it oesn't have great graphics compared to now I still rae it as one of my all time greats.
Now that was a great game, even if it oesn't have great graphics compared to now I still rae it as one of my all time greats.
Same with me.
The computer cheated like such a b*tch...
The computer cheated like such a b*tch...
Games are the only things that can really p!ss me off to extraordinary levels, and this flangegroper computer + internet connection.
Everything else - everything else important - had no effect on my anger levels.
Everything else - everything else important - had no effect on my anger levels.
I never managed to complete Z.
Eternally stuck on level 19 of 20, as were my friends.
The amount of times my parents banned me from playing because of the rage it induced..
Eternally stuck on level 19 of 20, as were my friends.
The amount of times my parents banned me from playing because of the rage it induced..
er-no wrote:
> I've never been able to complete Shadowgate on the NES, this wound me
> up so much as a child that I now try and complete every game I own.
> Most of them are really easy.
Haha, I did that game.
That took many, many long Saturday afternoons and many, many cups of apple juice. Good times.
When we first got it, my dad couldn't get past the first door where you just need to click on the thing above it.
Ah, what I game. I've never met anyone who actually remembers it.
It got pretty scary near the end, though - there was some monster under the stairs that could kill you or something.
And that room with the dragon "Pick up the shield!"
Memories ...
Yes, the only games I remember never completing are on the NES - Solstice and Battle of Olympus for 2. And Marble Madness, piece of shiz.
I think I'm pretty honest critic of games - my Harvest Moon review on here seemed, to me, the only one giving it a fair enough score.
> I've never been able to complete Shadowgate on the NES, this wound me
> up so much as a child that I now try and complete every game I own.
> Most of them are really easy.
Haha, I did that game.
That took many, many long Saturday afternoons and many, many cups of apple juice. Good times.
When we first got it, my dad couldn't get past the first door where you just need to click on the thing above it.
Ah, what I game. I've never met anyone who actually remembers it.
It got pretty scary near the end, though - there was some monster under the stairs that could kill you or something.
And that room with the dragon "Pick up the shield!"
Memories ...
Yes, the only games I remember never completing are on the NES - Solstice and Battle of Olympus for 2. And Marble Madness, piece of shiz.
I think I'm pretty honest critic of games - my Harvest Moon review on here seemed, to me, the only one giving it a fair enough score.
The best game ever to complete was Mission:Impossible. If you waited through all the credits, you got to run around the embassy level at the end and talk to all the staff that made the game.
Then you could get out your gun and/or blowpipe and shoot them all in the face. At one point Ethan Hunt and that girl that he loves in the film come down the stairs all dressed up and snazzy, and thre are fireworks, and then the game actually ends.
Then you could get out your gun and/or blowpipe and shoot them all in the face. At one point Ethan Hunt and that girl that he loves in the film come down the stairs all dressed up and snazzy, and thre are fireworks, and then the game actually ends.
Page: