The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Anyone?
Page:
Hey, I'm not from Nintendo, I'm just telling you what i've herd.
That's so stupid though! There's nothing wrong with complex, deep immersive games, isn't that the whole point of them!? I know they want to simplify things but that alienates the hardcore gamer, their most precious fan.
Apparantly, Nintendo just want to stop people from getting board of games bacause they're too complex, ie. hard.
No they really are trying to simplify games. Look at all the games they've made for the GC. None of them are complex - the new ideas they've come up with - Bongos, touchscreen, microphone, it all points towards making games more accessible and 'removing the physical obstruction of the controller'. They said it themselves! You can't deny that that's what they're doing!
That kid was a freak, I've never met a 4 year old that can even play a game like Mario, let alone Halo!
That's a terrible example!
Nintendo don't try and simplify games, they are looking for a simple idea, a simple concept that they can expand into a game. And Nintendo have been doing that for years.
DS has very simple games at the moment. But they are quickly made launch games.
There will start getting complex, just you watch, they'll get complex :D
At least I hope they will.
That's a terrible example!
Nintendo don't try and simplify games, they are looking for a simple idea, a simple concept that they can expand into a game. And Nintendo have been doing that for years.
DS has very simple games at the moment. But they are quickly made launch games.
There will start getting complex, just you watch, they'll get complex :D
At least I hope they will.
Child Of Our Time on BBC1 with Professor Robert Winston has a little Irish kid who has an Xbox and has completed Halo. I know it's not a common phenomena, but I don't really see who Nintendo are trying to appeal to. Controllers are simple enough to understand - you press forward to go forward and so on, it's all logical and not really much of a barrier.
That said, the DS touchscreen does seem to be enticing a lot of people to use it. My example is when I took mine into 6th form and everyone wanted to use the touchscreen, and everyone picked up the controls of the Mario Minigames within seconds. The interesting thing though, was that when playing Mario, people automatically reverted to using the D-Pad, because they were familiar with it. My point here is that new features such as a touchscreen are really good, and they work very well for games that are designed around them. The problem lies when you try and stuff other games into the touchscreen, by making it into a mock analog stick or whatever. With Revolution, whatever new control methods Nintendo have, they need to retain the tried and tested directional pad and buttons, because that's what people are familiar with.
That said, the DS touchscreen does seem to be enticing a lot of people to use it. My example is when I took mine into 6th form and everyone wanted to use the touchscreen, and everyone picked up the controls of the Mario Minigames within seconds. The interesting thing though, was that when playing Mario, people automatically reverted to using the D-Pad, because they were familiar with it. My point here is that new features such as a touchscreen are really good, and they work very well for games that are designed around them. The problem lies when you try and stuff other games into the touchscreen, by making it into a mock analog stick or whatever. With Revolution, whatever new control methods Nintendo have, they need to retain the tried and tested directional pad and buttons, because that's what people are familiar with.
gerrid wrote:
But
> the way I see it, games evolve on their own, you can't force it by
> changing the control style. You can't use the analog stick on the 64
> as an exmple of this, because it's just a more precise version of the
> d-pad, it's not really a new method of control.
It's strange. I loved the stick on the N64 controller. It was perfect for use in Goldeneye and Zelda, etc.
However, I do not like using the analogue sticks on the PS2 controller, instead favoring by far the d-pad. This however limits me for games like TS2.
> Nintendo seem to want to simplify games, but thre are 4 year old that
> can complete Halo, so why exactly do they need simplifying?
Can't say I've heard of a 4 year old doing it.
:S
:D
Simple,
> original concepts are one in a million,
Not quite true. Good ones are, but many people come up with original ideas all the time.
I think there's a fine line between gimic and good.
Personally I'm stumped as to what new gaming ideas would be, because you are restricted by 2 factors:
Reasonably playable and not too many control patterns to remember. An obvious example being Army games, where there are so many controls and it is only the fact that it's a slow tactical game that they work.
Secondly, the limits of imagination and plausibility. Frankly I think that Space-edged games are good, because they defy physics. Otherwise it comes down to pure craziness like SMB, etc.
But
> the way I see it, games evolve on their own, you can't force it by
> changing the control style. You can't use the analog stick on the 64
> as an exmple of this, because it's just a more precise version of the
> d-pad, it's not really a new method of control.
It's strange. I loved the stick on the N64 controller. It was perfect for use in Goldeneye and Zelda, etc.
However, I do not like using the analogue sticks on the PS2 controller, instead favoring by far the d-pad. This however limits me for games like TS2.
> Nintendo seem to want to simplify games, but thre are 4 year old that
> can complete Halo, so why exactly do they need simplifying?
Can't say I've heard of a 4 year old doing it.
:S
:D
Simple,
> original concepts are one in a million,
Not quite true. Good ones are, but many people come up with original ideas all the time.
I think there's a fine line between gimic and good.
Personally I'm stumped as to what new gaming ideas would be, because you are restricted by 2 factors:
Reasonably playable and not too many control patterns to remember. An obvious example being Army games, where there are so many controls and it is only the fact that it's a slow tactical game that they work.
Secondly, the limits of imagination and plausibility. Frankly I think that Space-edged games are good, because they defy physics. Otherwise it comes down to pure craziness like SMB, etc.
Clazon wrote:
> >"N64 is too expensive and not cool".
>
> :'{
>
> I thought it was cool. It's probably 3rd on my list of all time
> consoles.
Why does it matter if it's cool? I thought it was great too, that's just what the general gaming public seemed to think.
> generation it may well be "Revolution doesn't have the
> multiformat games".
>
> You make this sound as if it's a pathetic point and just an excuse
> for other companies to use,
No I don't, if the revolution doesnt have the multiformat games thats just another reason not to buy it. Of course it's a flaw - it means if you want to play 3rd party games you'll have to buy another console, and thusly 2x the price. I'm just saying that the Revolution not having multiformat games would probably be the reason for it's downfall. But it's all speculation, although I am sceptical.
It seems as if Nintendo see the current type of game as antiquated and old, and so they want to take them in a different direction. You can see what they're doing - they see people running out of ideas and just ending up with all the same game with different storylines - better graphics and more power dont usually = new types of games. But the way I see it, games evolve on their own, you can't force it by changing the control style. You can't use the analog stick on the 64 as an exmple of this, because it's just a more precise version of the d-pad, it's not really a new method of control.
It's true that games do need to change in order to become fresh, and I respect what Nintendo are doing, because Sony and Microsoft are too concerned with profits to try it (like EA, they don't venture capital into unsure prospects - you don't see many quirky, offbeat, original games from EA, because they're too much of a risk - Sony and Microsoft are the same). I don't know what Nintendo have planned for the revolution, my suspicion is that it will be purely gimmicky, and that in order to make a successful console they'll have to follow the tradition and dilute their " paradagim shift" to make it palatable to the mass market, and that's a shame.
Many people see the internet as the new revolution in gaming - imagining vast worlds filled with real people instead of AI, but there are inherent problems in this. It's not a way for all games to go, it's just one genre of game, and you can't move the entire industry through one single genre. MMORPGS/FPS, anything would just degenerate, as any online game does, because they rely on real people, and, on the internet, real people turn into idiots.
What we really need is a return to good storytelling and immersive games. The problem is not that the way we control games is limiting them, it's just that profits have become everything. We've been spoiled by the quick evolution of video games, and we expect the evolution and innovation to continue at the same pace, although that's impossible. Look at books, novels - the way you read books hasn't changed since the dawn of script, but they're still being made and written and no one would say that books need innovation. The imagination of people, new stories to tell, new experiences to give the audience keep them coming back for more.
Nintendo seem to want to simplify games, but thre are 4 year old that can complete Halo, so why exactly do they need simplifying? Simple, original concepts are one in a million, and you can't successfully create a console off the back of those odds. I respect what they're doing, and in some ways it needs to be done, but I just don't think it will breed success. Which, in my view, is a good thing for gamers.
> >"N64 is too expensive and not cool".
>
> :'{
>
> I thought it was cool. It's probably 3rd on my list of all time
> consoles.
Why does it matter if it's cool? I thought it was great too, that's just what the general gaming public seemed to think.
> generation it may well be "Revolution doesn't have the
> multiformat games".
>
> You make this sound as if it's a pathetic point and just an excuse
> for other companies to use,
No I don't, if the revolution doesnt have the multiformat games thats just another reason not to buy it. Of course it's a flaw - it means if you want to play 3rd party games you'll have to buy another console, and thusly 2x the price. I'm just saying that the Revolution not having multiformat games would probably be the reason for it's downfall. But it's all speculation, although I am sceptical.
It seems as if Nintendo see the current type of game as antiquated and old, and so they want to take them in a different direction. You can see what they're doing - they see people running out of ideas and just ending up with all the same game with different storylines - better graphics and more power dont usually = new types of games. But the way I see it, games evolve on their own, you can't force it by changing the control style. You can't use the analog stick on the 64 as an exmple of this, because it's just a more precise version of the d-pad, it's not really a new method of control.
It's true that games do need to change in order to become fresh, and I respect what Nintendo are doing, because Sony and Microsoft are too concerned with profits to try it (like EA, they don't venture capital into unsure prospects - you don't see many quirky, offbeat, original games from EA, because they're too much of a risk - Sony and Microsoft are the same). I don't know what Nintendo have planned for the revolution, my suspicion is that it will be purely gimmicky, and that in order to make a successful console they'll have to follow the tradition and dilute their " paradagim shift" to make it palatable to the mass market, and that's a shame.
Many people see the internet as the new revolution in gaming - imagining vast worlds filled with real people instead of AI, but there are inherent problems in this. It's not a way for all games to go, it's just one genre of game, and you can't move the entire industry through one single genre. MMORPGS/FPS, anything would just degenerate, as any online game does, because they rely on real people, and, on the internet, real people turn into idiots.
What we really need is a return to good storytelling and immersive games. The problem is not that the way we control games is limiting them, it's just that profits have become everything. We've been spoiled by the quick evolution of video games, and we expect the evolution and innovation to continue at the same pace, although that's impossible. Look at books, novels - the way you read books hasn't changed since the dawn of script, but they're still being made and written and no one would say that books need innovation. The imagination of people, new stories to tell, new experiences to give the audience keep them coming back for more.
Nintendo seem to want to simplify games, but thre are 4 year old that can complete Halo, so why exactly do they need simplifying? Simple, original concepts are one in a million, and you can't successfully create a console off the back of those odds. I respect what they're doing, and in some ways it needs to be done, but I just don't think it will breed success. Which, in my view, is a good thing for gamers.
1.the legend of zelda
2.timesplitters 3
3.resi evil.
actually i can only mention 3 top games coming out.unless i count mario party 6 then thats 4.but i wont.
2.timesplitters 3
3.resi evil.
actually i can only mention 3 top games coming out.unless i count mario party 6 then thats 4.but i wont.
Hedfix wrote:
> Pure speculation surely?
The prices, of course.
Microsoft or whoever that were quoted in the piece I read did however say something along the lines of:
The 1st series (or whatever they called 1) will have reduced abilities and will probably be very dependant on the market.
I would imagine that this means it could come down to about 100-150.
As for the 3rd series, they pretty much guaranteed that it would cost no less than 500.
> Pure speculation surely?
The prices, of course.
Microsoft or whoever that were quoted in the piece I read did however say something along the lines of:
The 1st series (or whatever they called 1) will have reduced abilities and will probably be very dependant on the market.
I would imagine that this means it could come down to about 100-150.
As for the 3rd series, they pretty much guaranteed that it would cost no less than 500.
Page: