The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Right, settle down class. Peter Xbox, stop hitting Donald Dreamcast or you'll get detention. Stop talking Marvin PS2 and listen up please. Today we're going to learn about the strange creatures that are PC gamers. They're an odd bunch really, never managing to get on well with the console type. But to fully understand these weird human life-forms with their incoherent logic glands you have to know the principle of Johnny Wanna. This is how it goes:
Johnny Wanna was a spoilt young schoolboy who was never satisfied with anything. If you gave him a biscuit he'd want two; if you gave him a scooter he'd want a go-kart; if you gave him cat he'd want a dog. Now Johnny's mum gave him sandwiches for lunch every day. Any other young lad would be pleased with the tasty sandwiches he got, but not Johnny; he wanted more. He moaned to his mother that his sandwiches were just the same same flavours every single day, there was nothing new. "Why can't you just do something different for once?", he whinged. His mother eventually got fed up with this and took action. The next day Johnny Wanna got a brand new flavour of sandwich in his lunchbox. When he discovered this he picked up the sandwich, sniffed it, poked it and looked at it distrustfully. When Johnny got home from school that day, his mother found out that the new flavour of sandwich had not been eaten. Johnny shamefully admitted to her that the the new flavour wasn't familiar, so he had been a little wary of it, and left it.
So class, do you see the moral of the story? Don't ask for something that you don't really want, or if you do ask for it, then at least be prepared to try it.
Now this same principle of Johnny Wanna epitomizes the moaning PC gaming community. They are very vocal in expressing their views on their beloved PC games. 'Flight Simulator is rubbish because it's too realistic'. 'Soldier of Fortune 2 is too linear.' 'GTA 3 runs like a slug'. 'Deus Ex isn't linear enough'....... The list of grumbles is endless. But one topic in particular will make any PC gamer sit upright with vocal expressions at the ready. Originality.
At every new Command & Conquer release, at every Worms edition, at the latest First Person Shooter, a host of cynical PC gamers will complain that it's not innovative enough, it's not different enough, it's just the same classic gaming components re-formed into another weary episode of sameness. They get out the placards, wave the banners and march in protests, all screaming in unison, "We want something different, we want originality in games!!!!". Developers are beseiged by letters and e-mails of complaint, bitterly accusing them of milking the cash cow even dryer rather than developing a decent 'original' game.
So, just every once in a while comes a developer who actually listens to the ranting PC gaming community and decides to make a gaming gem that meets the requirements demanded. After much blood, sweat and tears they produce a glistening masterpiece of a game that simply oozes originality and excels in a plethora of innovative new features. And do the PC gaming mob appreciate this fulfilment of their desires? Did Johnny Wanna appreciate his much demanded sandwich change? No, they don't. When PC gamers are finally given their hearts desire, a truly original game, they panic, diving desperately behind their sofas and under the kitchen table. Concrete bunkers are erected and PC gamers sit huddled in long trembling rows, waiting until this menace moves on. This much-demanded originality scares them, it's too risky to attempt buying.
Two months later the danger is over and no-one pays any attention as yet another doomed developer sinks under the quagmires of bankruptcy for daring to make a difference, for bowing to requests of the very PC gamers that eventually shunned it. Then the PC gamers dig out their placards and banners and start up their protests once again, demanding more originality from games.
Does this sound too ridiculous to be true? You want proof? OK, here's some research for you to do. Firstly go and find out how many copies were sold of Command & Conquer:Red Alert 2, Age of Empires 2 and The Sims expansion pack number 19 or something like that. The sales are phenomenal for these entirely unoriginal titles.
Now go and find out how many copies of the following were sold: Giants:Citizen Kabuto, Sacrifice, MDK 2 and Startopia. All of these titles offered new and innovative ideas, something that hadn't been seen before, as requested by PC gamers. Yet all suffered severe neglect by PC gamers who were too frightened to actually risk spending money on something that breaks the mold and extends the boundaries of gaming. Oh the unfairness!!
Right, thats it for now class, we'll discuss the nonsensical PC gamers in further detail next week. Don't forget to complete your 25 word essays on 'The logic of PC gamers'. Oh, and thankyou for the apple, Fred GBA.
Before I get any heated replies from angry PC gamers I would just like to reassure you that this was a wildly exggerated rant to emphasize my point. I mean no offence to PC gamers, in fact I am one myself. Thanks for reading.
Little Hobbo
Johnny Wanna was a spoilt young schoolboy who was never satisfied with anything. If you gave him a biscuit he'd want two; if you gave him a scooter he'd want a go-kart; if you gave him cat he'd want a dog. Now Johnny's mum gave him sandwiches for lunch every day. Any other young lad would be pleased with the tasty sandwiches he got, but not Johnny; he wanted more. He moaned to his mother that his sandwiches were just the same same flavours every single day, there was nothing new. "Why can't you just do something different for once?", he whinged. His mother eventually got fed up with this and took action. The next day Johnny Wanna got a brand new flavour of sandwich in his lunchbox. When he discovered this he picked up the sandwich, sniffed it, poked it and looked at it distrustfully. When Johnny got home from school that day, his mother found out that the new flavour of sandwich had not been eaten. Johnny shamefully admitted to her that the the new flavour wasn't familiar, so he had been a little wary of it, and left it.
So class, do you see the moral of the story? Don't ask for something that you don't really want, or if you do ask for it, then at least be prepared to try it.
Now this same principle of Johnny Wanna epitomizes the moaning PC gaming community. They are very vocal in expressing their views on their beloved PC games. 'Flight Simulator is rubbish because it's too realistic'. 'Soldier of Fortune 2 is too linear.' 'GTA 3 runs like a slug'. 'Deus Ex isn't linear enough'....... The list of grumbles is endless. But one topic in particular will make any PC gamer sit upright with vocal expressions at the ready. Originality.
At every new Command & Conquer release, at every Worms edition, at the latest First Person Shooter, a host of cynical PC gamers will complain that it's not innovative enough, it's not different enough, it's just the same classic gaming components re-formed into another weary episode of sameness. They get out the placards, wave the banners and march in protests, all screaming in unison, "We want something different, we want originality in games!!!!". Developers are beseiged by letters and e-mails of complaint, bitterly accusing them of milking the cash cow even dryer rather than developing a decent 'original' game.
So, just every once in a while comes a developer who actually listens to the ranting PC gaming community and decides to make a gaming gem that meets the requirements demanded. After much blood, sweat and tears they produce a glistening masterpiece of a game that simply oozes originality and excels in a plethora of innovative new features. And do the PC gaming mob appreciate this fulfilment of their desires? Did Johnny Wanna appreciate his much demanded sandwich change? No, they don't. When PC gamers are finally given their hearts desire, a truly original game, they panic, diving desperately behind their sofas and under the kitchen table. Concrete bunkers are erected and PC gamers sit huddled in long trembling rows, waiting until this menace moves on. This much-demanded originality scares them, it's too risky to attempt buying.
Two months later the danger is over and no-one pays any attention as yet another doomed developer sinks under the quagmires of bankruptcy for daring to make a difference, for bowing to requests of the very PC gamers that eventually shunned it. Then the PC gamers dig out their placards and banners and start up their protests once again, demanding more originality from games.
Does this sound too ridiculous to be true? You want proof? OK, here's some research for you to do. Firstly go and find out how many copies were sold of Command & Conquer:Red Alert 2, Age of Empires 2 and The Sims expansion pack number 19 or something like that. The sales are phenomenal for these entirely unoriginal titles.
Now go and find out how many copies of the following were sold: Giants:Citizen Kabuto, Sacrifice, MDK 2 and Startopia. All of these titles offered new and innovative ideas, something that hadn't been seen before, as requested by PC gamers. Yet all suffered severe neglect by PC gamers who were too frightened to actually risk spending money on something that breaks the mold and extends the boundaries of gaming. Oh the unfairness!!
Right, thats it for now class, we'll discuss the nonsensical PC gamers in further detail next week. Don't forget to complete your 25 word essays on 'The logic of PC gamers'. Oh, and thankyou for the apple, Fred GBA.
Before I get any heated replies from angry PC gamers I would just like to reassure you that this was a wildly exggerated rant to emphasize my point. I mean no offence to PC gamers, in fact I am one myself. Thanks for reading.
Little Hobbo
Right, settle down class. Peter Xbox, stop hitting Donald Dreamcast or you'll get detention. Stop talking Marvin PS2 and listen up please. Today we're going to learn about the strange creatures that are PC gamers. They're an odd bunch really, never managing to get on well with the console type. But to fully understand these weird human life-forms with their incoherent logic glands you have to know the principle of Johnny Wanna. This is how it goes:
Johnny Wanna was a spoilt young schoolboy who was never satisfied with anything. If you gave him a biscuit he'd want two; if you gave him a scooter he'd want a go-kart; if you gave him cat he'd want a dog. Now Johnny's mum gave him sandwiches for lunch every day. Any other young lad would be pleased with the tasty sandwiches he got, but not Johnny; he wanted more. He moaned to his mother that his sandwiches were just the same same flavours every single day, there was nothing new. "Why can't you just do something different for once?", he whinged. His mother eventually got fed up with this and took action. The next day Johnny Wanna got a brand new flavour of sandwich in his lunchbox. When he discovered this he picked up the sandwich, sniffed it, poked it and looked at it distrustfully. When Johnny got home from school that day, his mother found out that the new flavour of sandwich had not been eaten. Johnny shamefully admitted to her that the the new flavour wasn't familiar, so he had been a little wary of it, and left it.
So class, do you see the moral of the story? Don't ask for something that you don't really want, or if you do ask for it, then at least be prepared to try it.
Now this same principle of Johnny Wanna epitomizes the moaning PC gaming community. They are very vocal in expressing their views on their beloved PC games. 'Flight Simulator is rubbish because it's too realistic'. 'Soldier of Fortune 2 is too linear.' 'GTA 3 runs like a slug'. 'Deus Ex isn't linear enough'....... The list of grumbles is endless. But one topic in particular will make any PC gamer sit upright with vocal expressions at the ready. Originality.
At every new Command & Conquer release, at every Worms edition, at the latest First Person Shooter, a host of cynical PC gamers will complain that it's not innovative enough, it's not different enough, it's just the same classic gaming components re-formed into another weary episode of sameness. They get out the placards, wave the banners and march in protests, all screaming in unison, "We want something different, we want originality in games!!!!". Developers are beseiged by letters and e-mails of complaint, bitterly accusing them of milking the cash cow even dryer rather than developing a decent 'original' game.
So, just every once in a while comes a developer who actually listens to the ranting PC gaming community and decides to make a gaming gem that meets the requirements demanded. After much blood, sweat and tears they produce a glistening masterpiece of a game that simply oozes originality and excels in a plethora of innovative new features. And do the PC gaming mob appreciate this fulfilment of their desires? Did Johnny Wanna appreciate his much demanded sandwich change? No, they don't. When PC gamers are finally given their hearts desire, a truly original game, they panic, diving desperately behind their sofas and under the kitchen table. Concrete bunkers are erected and PC gamers sit huddled in long trembling rows, waiting until this menace moves on. This much-demanded originality scares them, it's too risky to attempt buying.
Two months later the danger is over and no-one pays any attention as yet another doomed developer sinks under the quagmires of bankruptcy for daring to make a difference, for bowing to requests of the very PC gamers that eventually shunned it. Then the PC gamers dig out their placards and banners and start up their protests once again, demanding more originality from games.
Does this sound too ridiculous to be true? You want proof? OK, here's some research for you to do. Firstly go and find out how many copies were sold of Command & Conquer:Red Alert 2, Age of Empires 2 and The Sims expansion pack number 19 or something like that. The sales are phenomenal for these entirely unoriginal titles.
Now go and find out how many copies of the following were sold: Giants:Citizen Kabuto, Sacrifice, MDK 2 and Startopia. All of these titles offered new and innovative ideas, something that hadn't been seen before, as requested by PC gamers. Yet all suffered severe neglect by PC gamers who were too frightened to actually risk spending money on something that breaks the mold and extends the boundaries of gaming. Oh the unfairness!!
Right, thats it for now class, we'll discuss the nonsensical PC gamers in further detail next week. Don't forget to complete your 25 word essays on 'The logic of PC gamers'. Oh, and thankyou for the apple, Fred GBA.
Before I get any heated replies from angry PC gamers I would just like to reassure you that this was a wildly exggerated rant to emphasize my point. I mean no offence to PC gamers, in fact I am one myself. Thanks for reading.
Little Hobbo
Johnny Wanna was a spoilt young schoolboy who was never satisfied with anything. If you gave him a biscuit he'd want two; if you gave him a scooter he'd want a go-kart; if you gave him cat he'd want a dog. Now Johnny's mum gave him sandwiches for lunch every day. Any other young lad would be pleased with the tasty sandwiches he got, but not Johnny; he wanted more. He moaned to his mother that his sandwiches were just the same same flavours every single day, there was nothing new. "Why can't you just do something different for once?", he whinged. His mother eventually got fed up with this and took action. The next day Johnny Wanna got a brand new flavour of sandwich in his lunchbox. When he discovered this he picked up the sandwich, sniffed it, poked it and looked at it distrustfully. When Johnny got home from school that day, his mother found out that the new flavour of sandwich had not been eaten. Johnny shamefully admitted to her that the the new flavour wasn't familiar, so he had been a little wary of it, and left it.
So class, do you see the moral of the story? Don't ask for something that you don't really want, or if you do ask for it, then at least be prepared to try it.
Now this same principle of Johnny Wanna epitomizes the moaning PC gaming community. They are very vocal in expressing their views on their beloved PC games. 'Flight Simulator is rubbish because it's too realistic'. 'Soldier of Fortune 2 is too linear.' 'GTA 3 runs like a slug'. 'Deus Ex isn't linear enough'....... The list of grumbles is endless. But one topic in particular will make any PC gamer sit upright with vocal expressions at the ready. Originality.
At every new Command & Conquer release, at every Worms edition, at the latest First Person Shooter, a host of cynical PC gamers will complain that it's not innovative enough, it's not different enough, it's just the same classic gaming components re-formed into another weary episode of sameness. They get out the placards, wave the banners and march in protests, all screaming in unison, "We want something different, we want originality in games!!!!". Developers are beseiged by letters and e-mails of complaint, bitterly accusing them of milking the cash cow even dryer rather than developing a decent 'original' game.
So, just every once in a while comes a developer who actually listens to the ranting PC gaming community and decides to make a gaming gem that meets the requirements demanded. After much blood, sweat and tears they produce a glistening masterpiece of a game that simply oozes originality and excels in a plethora of innovative new features. And do the PC gaming mob appreciate this fulfilment of their desires? Did Johnny Wanna appreciate his much demanded sandwich change? No, they don't. When PC gamers are finally given their hearts desire, a truly original game, they panic, diving desperately behind their sofas and under the kitchen table. Concrete bunkers are erected and PC gamers sit huddled in long trembling rows, waiting until this menace moves on. This much-demanded originality scares them, it's too risky to attempt buying.
Two months later the danger is over and no-one pays any attention as yet another doomed developer sinks under the quagmires of bankruptcy for daring to make a difference, for bowing to requests of the very PC gamers that eventually shunned it. Then the PC gamers dig out their placards and banners and start up their protests once again, demanding more originality from games.
Does this sound too ridiculous to be true? You want proof? OK, here's some research for you to do. Firstly go and find out how many copies were sold of Command & Conquer:Red Alert 2, Age of Empires 2 and The Sims expansion pack number 19 or something like that. The sales are phenomenal for these entirely unoriginal titles.
Now go and find out how many copies of the following were sold: Giants:Citizen Kabuto, Sacrifice, MDK 2 and Startopia. All of these titles offered new and innovative ideas, something that hadn't been seen before, as requested by PC gamers. Yet all suffered severe neglect by PC gamers who were too frightened to actually risk spending money on something that breaks the mold and extends the boundaries of gaming. Oh the unfairness!!
Right, thats it for now class, we'll discuss the nonsensical PC gamers in further detail next week. Don't forget to complete your 25 word essays on 'The logic of PC gamers'. Oh, and thankyou for the apple, Fred GBA.
Before I get any heated replies from angry PC gamers I would just like to reassure you that this was a wildly exggerated rant to emphasize my point. I mean no offence to PC gamers, in fact I am one myself. Thanks for reading.
Little Hobbo
You can get Giants and Sacrifice for a fiver at www.sold-out.co.uk if anyone's interested.
Yeah PC Gamer were saying pretty much the same thing.
Originality is good in idea, but you try and convince the public.
Shame that.
Giants was pretty good.
Originality is good in idea, but you try and convince the public.
Shame that.
Giants was pretty good.
Well in any game I buy I'm looking for just one thing. Not originality, not photorealistic graphics, amazing plot, massive FMV sequences, just something that's fun to play.
Originality is okay, but if the concept it involves renders the game not much fun then I don't really care about it being original. Giants was good, but not great. Depends on just how much originality you're looking for really, because nothing is truly original anyway.
~~Belldandy~~
Originality is okay, but if the concept it involves renders the game not much fun then I don't really care about it being original. Giants was good, but not great. Depends on just how much originality you're looking for really, because nothing is truly original anyway.
~~Belldandy~~
I have to thoroughly disagree with Hobbo here (heh, surprise surprise).
Personally, I thrive on "new" and "original". There's no such thing as "putting me off with something new".
As for your claims of games which sank due to their originality:
Giants: Citizen Kabuto - heard of, but never seen reviewed, badly or otherwise, anywhere. Don't know what it looks like, plays like or resembles. Hence I don't own it. If I haven't heard of it, I'm fairly sure a lot of other people won't have either.
Sacrifice looked old, and never warranted more than a brief glance at the back cover. It looked like it'd been done a dozen times before, and I didn't want to risk my money on unoriginality.
MDK 2 - I played MDK on PS1. That was enough to make me steer well clear.
I played a demo of startopia, and wasn't impressed. It was a fairly fun game, and sure, pretty original with it, but it wasn't that great a game.
Originality is nothing without two extra things:
1) Gameplay. An original idea isn't necessarilly a good one
2) Advertising. Something the PC games market is lacking in considerably.
And if you want to blame anyone for stifling originality, blame the media. PC magazines start ranting about "Super Magnificent Killer Marines 2" before the first game is even on the shelf, and they'll hype it to kingdom come every step of the way, leaving a little room on page 118 for previews of 12 other games, several of which could be considered to be far superior in every sense to the Marine sequel.
And also, you mention original games not being played, and then you mention "The Sims". The Sims was massively original, and massively popular - and still is. That some people are stupid enough to keep digging into their pockets for a few extra bits is irrelevant. The game itself remains relatively the same.
To be honest, sequels do get on my nerves. Unreal Tournament 2003. Why does it have to be Unreal Tournament? Why can't they style it a different way, and move away from what people have been playing to death beforehand? And this is where it all comes to a point. Most pc gamers don't want originality, especially not now, where for the majority of PC gamers, it all boils down to online options. And playing online you want to play well. And you can't play well on a game you just bought which is so different to what you've played before, you can't really claim any high level of profficiency with it. No. You can't have that. You have to have Half Life: Black Mantis Operation Super Attack Squad 15, or Unreal Tournament: The Next Generation.
Heaven forbid you learn to play a new game.
But these people aren't the ones who look for originality. These are not the vocal gamers who cry out for new challenges, new gaming trends, new ideas. These are the muppets who sit online 8 hours a day collecting "frags". The PC gamers who care voice their opinions well, everyone else swallows addon pack 15,000 and gets on with it.
As with all things, the decent few are tainted by the ignorant masses. The vast majority of PS2 owners believe the sun shines out of the DVD slot. XBOX owners for the most part think the sun shines out of Bill Gates' backside, and your average Ninty thinks that Miyamoto is God incarnate.
Ignorance from all corners. But not everyone is that way. There are those that wish for and demand change. But the minority are not a market force. And while thousands of people want to play "Original Amazing Scuba warrior from the Planet of Flaming eyes and 50 foot sharks with tints of Sims, Warcraft and Doom crossed with Flight simulator and turn based combat with real time tie ins and stuff" there are millions more who would rather play "Unreal Tournament X meets Quake 7 - Y2K plus 6 edition - Fifty Fourth Black Hawk Razor Squad Deluxe edition with new extra ammo type for one of the weapons".
The market follows the masses, and the masses want only what they know.
Personally, I thrive on "new" and "original". There's no such thing as "putting me off with something new".
As for your claims of games which sank due to their originality:
Giants: Citizen Kabuto - heard of, but never seen reviewed, badly or otherwise, anywhere. Don't know what it looks like, plays like or resembles. Hence I don't own it. If I haven't heard of it, I'm fairly sure a lot of other people won't have either.
Sacrifice looked old, and never warranted more than a brief glance at the back cover. It looked like it'd been done a dozen times before, and I didn't want to risk my money on unoriginality.
MDK 2 - I played MDK on PS1. That was enough to make me steer well clear.
I played a demo of startopia, and wasn't impressed. It was a fairly fun game, and sure, pretty original with it, but it wasn't that great a game.
Originality is nothing without two extra things:
1) Gameplay. An original idea isn't necessarilly a good one
2) Advertising. Something the PC games market is lacking in considerably.
And if you want to blame anyone for stifling originality, blame the media. PC magazines start ranting about "Super Magnificent Killer Marines 2" before the first game is even on the shelf, and they'll hype it to kingdom come every step of the way, leaving a little room on page 118 for previews of 12 other games, several of which could be considered to be far superior in every sense to the Marine sequel.
And also, you mention original games not being played, and then you mention "The Sims". The Sims was massively original, and massively popular - and still is. That some people are stupid enough to keep digging into their pockets for a few extra bits is irrelevant. The game itself remains relatively the same.
To be honest, sequels do get on my nerves. Unreal Tournament 2003. Why does it have to be Unreal Tournament? Why can't they style it a different way, and move away from what people have been playing to death beforehand? And this is where it all comes to a point. Most pc gamers don't want originality, especially not now, where for the majority of PC gamers, it all boils down to online options. And playing online you want to play well. And you can't play well on a game you just bought which is so different to what you've played before, you can't really claim any high level of profficiency with it. No. You can't have that. You have to have Half Life: Black Mantis Operation Super Attack Squad 15, or Unreal Tournament: The Next Generation.
Heaven forbid you learn to play a new game.
But these people aren't the ones who look for originality. These are not the vocal gamers who cry out for new challenges, new gaming trends, new ideas. These are the muppets who sit online 8 hours a day collecting "frags". The PC gamers who care voice their opinions well, everyone else swallows addon pack 15,000 and gets on with it.
As with all things, the decent few are tainted by the ignorant masses. The vast majority of PS2 owners believe the sun shines out of the DVD slot. XBOX owners for the most part think the sun shines out of Bill Gates' backside, and your average Ninty thinks that Miyamoto is God incarnate.
Ignorance from all corners. But not everyone is that way. There are those that wish for and demand change. But the minority are not a market force. And while thousands of people want to play "Original Amazing Scuba warrior from the Planet of Flaming eyes and 50 foot sharks with tints of Sims, Warcraft and Doom crossed with Flight simulator and turn based combat with real time tie ins and stuff" there are millions more who would rather play "Unreal Tournament X meets Quake 7 - Y2K plus 6 edition - Fifty Fourth Black Hawk Razor Squad Deluxe edition with new extra ammo type for one of the weapons".
The market follows the masses, and the masses want only what they know.
Ingenium Bartender wrote:
> I have to thoroughly disagree with Hobbo here (heh, surprise
> surprise).
>
> Personally, I thrive on "new" and "original".
> There's no such thing as "putting me off with something
> new".
I understand that, I feel the same way. I was though, pointing out the sales of the games which sank to convey the general idea of the PC gaming community. Also bear in mind my last paragraph which says that the post is wildly exaggerated.
> As for your claims of games which sank due to their originality:
>
> Giants: Citizen Kabuto - heard of, but never seen reviewed, badly or
> otherwise, anywhere. Don't know what it looks like, plays like or
> resembles. Hence I don't own it. If I haven't heard of it, I'm fairly
> sure a lot of other people won't have either.
I, however, read PC Gamer every month and read the review of Giants which was highly acclaimed for it's originality. People are as much aware of it as any other no-hype title that is created (give or take a bit naturally).
Even if PC Gamer readers alone bought it the sales would have increased manyfold.
> Sacrifice looked old, and never warranted more than a brief glance at
> the back cover. It looked like it'd been done a dozen times before,
> and I didn't want to risk my money on unoriginality.
Sacrifice brought new ideas to the genre as pointed out by the PC Gamer which awarded it a 'Game of Distinction' award. The graphics which you point out are easily acceptable by todays standards, let alone of yester-year. And don't think I'm bluffing in ignorance here, I own Giants, Sacrifice, MDK2 and the demo of Startopia.
> MDK 2 - I played MDK on PS1. That was enough to make me steer well
> clear.
MDK 1 was a lot more serious than MDK 2, and the sequel really is humourous and a lot more fun. How can you possibly base your opinion of a game on it's predecessor?
> I played a demo of startopia, and wasn't impressed. It was a fairly
> fun game, and sure, pretty original with it, but it wasn't that great
> a game.
OK, so you've admitted it yourself, 'fairly fun' and 'pretty original'. Few other games live up to that alone. It wasn't a masterpeice, but well worth a try.
> Originality is nothing without two extra things:
> 1) Gameplay. An original idea isn't necessarilly a good one
Helloooo, Mr IB at the back of the class please listen properly and take those carrots out of your ears. The whole point of my post was to address an area of daftness in the PC gaming community as a whole. Never in my post did I declare Originality as the be-all and end-all of gaming. I didn't even state my views on it. To paraphrase what I said: PC Gamers should not ask for something if they won't buy it. Clearer now?
> 2) Advertising. Something the PC games market is lacking in
> considerably.
>
> And if you want to blame anyone for stifling originality, blame the
> media. PC magazines start ranting about "Super Magnificent Killer
> Marines 2" before the first game is even on the shelf, and
> they'll hype it to kingdom come every step of the way, leaving a
> little room on page 118 for previews of 12 other games, several of
> which could be considered to be far superior in every sense to the
> Marine sequel.
I don't know what magazines you have been reading, but PC Gamer gives all decent games their fair due. Although I accept your point to a certain extent that some games are more hyped than others.
> And also, you mention original games not being played, and then you
> mention "The Sims". The Sims was massively original, and
> massively popular - and still is. That some people are stupid enough
> to keep digging into their pockets for a few extra bits is irrelevant.
> The game itself remains relatively the same.
I mentioned The Sims expansion packs, not the original game. Get it right!! :-)
I do agree though that some original titles are massively popular, but once again my 'wildly exaggerated' disclaimer comes into play. I was fully aware of ythis point, but it would have detracted from the impact of my post if I had mentioned it.
> To be honest, sequels do get on my nerves. Unreal Tournament 2003. Why
> does it have to be Unreal Tournament? Why can't they style it a
> different way, and move away from what people have been playing to
> death beforehand? And this is where it all comes to a point. Most pc
> gamers don't want originality, especially not now, where for the
> majority of PC gamers, it all boils down to online options. And
> playing online you want to play well. And you can't play well on a
> game you just bought which is so different to what you've played
> before, you can't really claim any high level of profficiency with it.
> No. You can't have that. You have to have Half Life: Black Mantis
> Operation Super Attack Squad 15, or Unreal Tournament: The Next
> Generation.
Like I said, I haven't given my opinion of originality, so exactly who is this post retaliating against?
> Heaven forbid you learn to play a new game.
>
> But these people aren't the ones who look for originality. These are
> not the vocal gamers who cry out for new challenges, new gaming
> trends, new ideas. These are the muppets who sit online 8 hours a day
> collecting "frags". The PC gamers who care voice their
> opinions well, everyone else swallows addon pack 15,000 and gets on
> with it.
Your sentence would make more sense if you defined who 'these people' are. You haven't mentioned them in your previous sentences so I really haven't a clue. The rest of it is nicely worded though. :)
> As with all things, the decent few are tainted by the ignorant masses.
> The vast majority of PS2 owners believe the sun shines out of the DVD
> slot. XBOX owners for the most part think the sun shines out of Bill
> Gates' backside, and your average Ninty thinks that Miyamoto is God
> incarnate.
>
> Ignorance from all corners. But not everyone is that way. There are
> those that wish for and demand change. But the minority are not a
> market force. And while thousands of people want to play
> "Original Amazing Scuba warrior from the Planet of Flaming eyes
> and 50 foot sharks with tints of Sims, Warcraft and Doom crossed with
> Flight simulator and turn based combat with real time tie ins and
> stuff" there are millions more who would rather play "Unreal
> Tournament X meets Quake 7 - Y2K plus 6 edition - Fifty Fourth Black
> Hawk Razor Squad Deluxe edition with new extra ammo type for one of
> the weapons".
Heh, nice!! Once again I agree, but doesn't the 'wildly exaggerated' ring a bell with you yet. This is not a get-out clause you realise. Just a way of having a decent rant without having to stick to the facts.
> The market follows the masses, and the masses want only what they
> know.
What a lovely phrase. Cut it out and stick it on the back of your Richard Scarry ABC dictionary.
No, honestly, that was a good reply, but you made the same mistake as you have before of not reading my post properly, and therefore mis-understanding it's main thrust. Did you even get as far as the last paragraph? :-)
> I have to thoroughly disagree with Hobbo here (heh, surprise
> surprise).
>
> Personally, I thrive on "new" and "original".
> There's no such thing as "putting me off with something
> new".
I understand that, I feel the same way. I was though, pointing out the sales of the games which sank to convey the general idea of the PC gaming community. Also bear in mind my last paragraph which says that the post is wildly exaggerated.
> As for your claims of games which sank due to their originality:
>
> Giants: Citizen Kabuto - heard of, but never seen reviewed, badly or
> otherwise, anywhere. Don't know what it looks like, plays like or
> resembles. Hence I don't own it. If I haven't heard of it, I'm fairly
> sure a lot of other people won't have either.
I, however, read PC Gamer every month and read the review of Giants which was highly acclaimed for it's originality. People are as much aware of it as any other no-hype title that is created (give or take a bit naturally).
Even if PC Gamer readers alone bought it the sales would have increased manyfold.
> Sacrifice looked old, and never warranted more than a brief glance at
> the back cover. It looked like it'd been done a dozen times before,
> and I didn't want to risk my money on unoriginality.
Sacrifice brought new ideas to the genre as pointed out by the PC Gamer which awarded it a 'Game of Distinction' award. The graphics which you point out are easily acceptable by todays standards, let alone of yester-year. And don't think I'm bluffing in ignorance here, I own Giants, Sacrifice, MDK2 and the demo of Startopia.
> MDK 2 - I played MDK on PS1. That was enough to make me steer well
> clear.
MDK 1 was a lot more serious than MDK 2, and the sequel really is humourous and a lot more fun. How can you possibly base your opinion of a game on it's predecessor?
> I played a demo of startopia, and wasn't impressed. It was a fairly
> fun game, and sure, pretty original with it, but it wasn't that great
> a game.
OK, so you've admitted it yourself, 'fairly fun' and 'pretty original'. Few other games live up to that alone. It wasn't a masterpeice, but well worth a try.
> Originality is nothing without two extra things:
> 1) Gameplay. An original idea isn't necessarilly a good one
Helloooo, Mr IB at the back of the class please listen properly and take those carrots out of your ears. The whole point of my post was to address an area of daftness in the PC gaming community as a whole. Never in my post did I declare Originality as the be-all and end-all of gaming. I didn't even state my views on it. To paraphrase what I said: PC Gamers should not ask for something if they won't buy it. Clearer now?
> 2) Advertising. Something the PC games market is lacking in
> considerably.
>
> And if you want to blame anyone for stifling originality, blame the
> media. PC magazines start ranting about "Super Magnificent Killer
> Marines 2" before the first game is even on the shelf, and
> they'll hype it to kingdom come every step of the way, leaving a
> little room on page 118 for previews of 12 other games, several of
> which could be considered to be far superior in every sense to the
> Marine sequel.
I don't know what magazines you have been reading, but PC Gamer gives all decent games their fair due. Although I accept your point to a certain extent that some games are more hyped than others.
> And also, you mention original games not being played, and then you
> mention "The Sims". The Sims was massively original, and
> massively popular - and still is. That some people are stupid enough
> to keep digging into their pockets for a few extra bits is irrelevant.
> The game itself remains relatively the same.
I mentioned The Sims expansion packs, not the original game. Get it right!! :-)
I do agree though that some original titles are massively popular, but once again my 'wildly exaggerated' disclaimer comes into play. I was fully aware of ythis point, but it would have detracted from the impact of my post if I had mentioned it.
> To be honest, sequels do get on my nerves. Unreal Tournament 2003. Why
> does it have to be Unreal Tournament? Why can't they style it a
> different way, and move away from what people have been playing to
> death beforehand? And this is where it all comes to a point. Most pc
> gamers don't want originality, especially not now, where for the
> majority of PC gamers, it all boils down to online options. And
> playing online you want to play well. And you can't play well on a
> game you just bought which is so different to what you've played
> before, you can't really claim any high level of profficiency with it.
> No. You can't have that. You have to have Half Life: Black Mantis
> Operation Super Attack Squad 15, or Unreal Tournament: The Next
> Generation.
Like I said, I haven't given my opinion of originality, so exactly who is this post retaliating against?
> Heaven forbid you learn to play a new game.
>
> But these people aren't the ones who look for originality. These are
> not the vocal gamers who cry out for new challenges, new gaming
> trends, new ideas. These are the muppets who sit online 8 hours a day
> collecting "frags". The PC gamers who care voice their
> opinions well, everyone else swallows addon pack 15,000 and gets on
> with it.
Your sentence would make more sense if you defined who 'these people' are. You haven't mentioned them in your previous sentences so I really haven't a clue. The rest of it is nicely worded though. :)
> As with all things, the decent few are tainted by the ignorant masses.
> The vast majority of PS2 owners believe the sun shines out of the DVD
> slot. XBOX owners for the most part think the sun shines out of Bill
> Gates' backside, and your average Ninty thinks that Miyamoto is God
> incarnate.
>
> Ignorance from all corners. But not everyone is that way. There are
> those that wish for and demand change. But the minority are not a
> market force. And while thousands of people want to play
> "Original Amazing Scuba warrior from the Planet of Flaming eyes
> and 50 foot sharks with tints of Sims, Warcraft and Doom crossed with
> Flight simulator and turn based combat with real time tie ins and
> stuff" there are millions more who would rather play "Unreal
> Tournament X meets Quake 7 - Y2K plus 6 edition - Fifty Fourth Black
> Hawk Razor Squad Deluxe edition with new extra ammo type for one of
> the weapons".
Heh, nice!! Once again I agree, but doesn't the 'wildly exaggerated' ring a bell with you yet. This is not a get-out clause you realise. Just a way of having a decent rant without having to stick to the facts.
> The market follows the masses, and the masses want only what they
> know.
What a lovely phrase. Cut it out and stick it on the back of your Richard Scarry ABC dictionary.
No, honestly, that was a good reply, but you made the same mistake as you have before of not reading my post properly, and therefore mis-understanding it's main thrust. Did you even get as far as the last paragraph? :-)
I read your post all the way through, but what grates on me is that you claim that the very people who demand originality are the ones who shy away from it. This is simply not the case. The people who want originality are the sweet minority, everyone else wants the latest version of Quake, Half-Life or UT, with the odd delve into a MMORPG.
It is for this reason that original games are created, that the minority have loud voices, and influence developers to create new ideas. But at the end of the day, a few thousand gamers won't buy a few million copies of a game. And this is the reason why new ideas fall on their faces.
I'm game for anything. Except Grand Theft Auto.
Don't go there.
ugh
It is for this reason that original games are created, that the minority have loud voices, and influence developers to create new ideas. But at the end of the day, a few thousand gamers won't buy a few million copies of a game. And this is the reason why new ideas fall on their faces.
I'm game for anything. Except Grand Theft Auto.
Don't go there.
ugh
On the original post...
You can't really classify PC gamers as a single entity, or as a general trend with a few exceptions, as you seem to be doing. There is far too much variation in that band. Some are hardcore FPS buffs or RTS gamers, whereas some are casual sports fans. Some play games 24/7, some only for a few hours a week. There is less of a 'general market' available.
This is all true of the consoles around at the moment, but no to anywhere near the same extent.
PC gamers are so completely divided on games and opinions that you simply can't make general sweeping statements about them without that statement being false for the majority.
The Sims sold, and still sells, by the bucketload, yet only a small fraction of the PC gamers like it. A very large chunk are either bored stiff with it, or hate the very concept with a passion. Unlike console games, you need only satisfy a niche market in order for a PC game to be hugely successful.
My point here being that you can never make or need a game with general appeal to virtually all PC gamers, as you can with console games such as Halo.
Original games will sell well if they are any good, and well publicised, as IB pointed out. Shogun, for example. Or Wetrix.
However, if these original games try to be too general in their appeal and in what they do, they will fail to attract any of the different factions and sink like a brick.
You can't really classify PC gamers as a single entity, or as a general trend with a few exceptions, as you seem to be doing. There is far too much variation in that band. Some are hardcore FPS buffs or RTS gamers, whereas some are casual sports fans. Some play games 24/7, some only for a few hours a week. There is less of a 'general market' available.
This is all true of the consoles around at the moment, but no to anywhere near the same extent.
PC gamers are so completely divided on games and opinions that you simply can't make general sweeping statements about them without that statement being false for the majority.
The Sims sold, and still sells, by the bucketload, yet only a small fraction of the PC gamers like it. A very large chunk are either bored stiff with it, or hate the very concept with a passion. Unlike console games, you need only satisfy a niche market in order for a PC game to be hugely successful.
My point here being that you can never make or need a game with general appeal to virtually all PC gamers, as you can with console games such as Halo.
Original games will sell well if they are any good, and well publicised, as IB pointed out. Shogun, for example. Or Wetrix.
However, if these original games try to be too general in their appeal and in what they do, they will fail to attract any of the different factions and sink like a brick.
doeasn't matter if you agree or not its won him a GAD :)
Ingenium Bartender wrote:
> I read your post all the way through, but what grates on me is that
> you claim that the very people who demand originality are the ones who
> shy away from it.
Could you please point me in the direction of a dictionary where 'wild exaggeration' could be translated as 'claim'. I don't claim anything, I just tried to make an entertaining post through the means of exaggeration.
> I read your post all the way through, but what grates on me is that
> you claim that the very people who demand originality are the ones who
> shy away from it.
Could you please point me in the direction of a dictionary where 'wild exaggeration' could be translated as 'claim'. I don't claim anything, I just tried to make an entertaining post through the means of exaggeration.