The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why is it, that we seem to always crave for something new?! Despite just getting 'Soul Calibur' for my Dreamcast, already I want something more, something bigger, something new...
Maybe it is the genre...fighting games have never really had the same one-player significance that we have through platformers and RPG's like Banjo and Skies of Arcadia...But on the other hand...Soul Calibur is regarded as one of the best and most innovative fighting games of all time with almost limitless modes including a one-player 'Mission Battle' mode where you can indulge in numerous stories revolving around your character and other tales about certain locations.
I can't seem to come to a conclusion...even non-fighting games like Banjo-Tooie have taken second places to the Pokémon games my brother plays...I just don't understand...
Maybe classics aren't 'classics' anymore....long gone are the days of the 2D mario that brought so much pleasure to gamers hearts....young and old alike...the gameplay could be fast and furious or slow...and peaceful...the balance between all the aspects of the games was, dare I say it, perfect....It wasn't just Mario, Sonic was the same...F Zero, Secret Of Mana...a very large number of old games...could provide hours upon hours upon hours of seemingly limitless, quality gameplay. Now graphics seem to have taken centre-stage.
I think that the main reason why we crave for so much more is because games nowadays aren't as satisfying as they were 'then'. Our demands as gamers have changed...we don't want another 'save the princess - defeat the evil dragon' fairytale...we want blood, horror and drama...action, adventure and suspense. It is a good job Nintendo jumped ship when they did...if they have blitzed E3 with Mario 128 some may have been amazed BUT the vast amount of casual gamers would have looked to Sony for the next Resident Evil...or the next Metal Gear... Customer demands are changing...in a world of Shenmue and Halo, there is no room for games that don't excite...and that is why I think we always crave for something new....
And hey, it isn't just software...look at the Game Boy Advance...It is about the same price as the Dreamcast yet....Shock Horror, I bet Nintendo sell about 4 times as many GBA's as Sega do Dreamcasts...if not more...the GBA games will be about the same price as a DC title...any 'man' in their right state of mind would pick Sonic 2 over Rayman Advance....but the chances are...people will be trading in their Dreamcasts to get a GBA half price...it is sad I know....but it's thr truth...public image means more now that it ever has...most children must have craved for an N64 but if Gazza, Bazza and Fred sneered at it and jumped for a Playstation why would little Johnny be any different....?!
With production of games taking much longer(on average taking into account the X-Box, Gamecube and PS2) developers will struggle to keep up...It can take 3 years to develop a games that can be completed in 3 days....a friend of mine completed Shenmue in 9 hours!
We all wan't csomething new...if we are all honest about it NONE of us would turn away a free PS2...maybe because we'd look cool by having one....maybe because it'd save us all about £400 to get a decent set-up...but overall, I think it is because we wan't something new...the PS2 is the newest console out...the games, although not yet revolutionary in all areas will be soon and the title numbers are on the increase.....
Think about it...what would you buy for £130? A Dreamcast with Sonic Adventure 1&2, Chu Chu Rocket and a pad...
...or...
...a GBA with Tony Hawks and a free battery pack...
Most of us would say the latter...the GBA is a new, revoulutionary masterpiece with a good future, the Dreamcast?...I dying 'should have been' about to go out with a bang?!
We'll always want newer stuff....our generation seems to have rebuked the necessities that are history, heritage and tradition and ran for the glitzy packaging...I'd be very surprised if there was a GBA game at release that could compare to the 'brilliance' of Mario Bros 3...I really would...
Graphics are ALWAYS the first thing gamers look at....just as looks are the first thing a lad looks at when on the prowl for a lady-friend...
It's just the way things are...the future may look bright from where you're standing but if we continually want more games with new genres at a quicker rate surely this says something about the quality of the games...
Surely....
Maybe it is the genre...fighting games have never really had the same one-player significance that we have through platformers and RPG's like Banjo and Skies of Arcadia...But on the other hand...Soul Calibur is regarded as one of the best and most innovative fighting games of all time with almost limitless modes including a one-player 'Mission Battle' mode where you can indulge in numerous stories revolving around your character and other tales about certain locations.
I can't seem to come to a conclusion...even non-fighting games like Banjo-Tooie have taken second places to the Pokémon games my brother plays...I just don't understand...
Maybe classics aren't 'classics' anymore....long gone are the days of the 2D mario that brought so much pleasure to gamers hearts....young and old alike...the gameplay could be fast and furious or slow...and peaceful...the balance between all the aspects of the games was, dare I say it, perfect....It wasn't just Mario, Sonic was the same...F Zero, Secret Of Mana...a very large number of old games...could provide hours upon hours upon hours of seemingly limitless, quality gameplay. Now graphics seem to have taken centre-stage.
I think that the main reason why we crave for so much more is because games nowadays aren't as satisfying as they were 'then'. Our demands as gamers have changed...we don't want another 'save the princess - defeat the evil dragon' fairytale...we want blood, horror and drama...action, adventure and suspense. It is a good job Nintendo jumped ship when they did...if they have blitzed E3 with Mario 128 some may have been amazed BUT the vast amount of casual gamers would have looked to Sony for the next Resident Evil...or the next Metal Gear... Customer demands are changing...in a world of Shenmue and Halo, there is no room for games that don't excite...and that is why I think we always crave for something new....
And hey, it isn't just software...look at the Game Boy Advance...It is about the same price as the Dreamcast yet....Shock Horror, I bet Nintendo sell about 4 times as many GBA's as Sega do Dreamcasts...if not more...the GBA games will be about the same price as a DC title...any 'man' in their right state of mind would pick Sonic 2 over Rayman Advance....but the chances are...people will be trading in their Dreamcasts to get a GBA half price...it is sad I know....but it's thr truth...public image means more now that it ever has...most children must have craved for an N64 but if Gazza, Bazza and Fred sneered at it and jumped for a Playstation why would little Johnny be any different....?!
With production of games taking much longer(on average taking into account the X-Box, Gamecube and PS2) developers will struggle to keep up...It can take 3 years to develop a games that can be completed in 3 days....a friend of mine completed Shenmue in 9 hours!
We all wan't csomething new...if we are all honest about it NONE of us would turn away a free PS2...maybe because we'd look cool by having one....maybe because it'd save us all about £400 to get a decent set-up...but overall, I think it is because we wan't something new...the PS2 is the newest console out...the games, although not yet revolutionary in all areas will be soon and the title numbers are on the increase.....
Think about it...what would you buy for £130? A Dreamcast with Sonic Adventure 1&2, Chu Chu Rocket and a pad...
...or...
...a GBA with Tony Hawks and a free battery pack...
Most of us would say the latter...the GBA is a new, revoulutionary masterpiece with a good future, the Dreamcast?...I dying 'should have been' about to go out with a bang?!
We'll always want newer stuff....our generation seems to have rebuked the necessities that are history, heritage and tradition and ran for the glitzy packaging...I'd be very surprised if there was a GBA game at release that could compare to the 'brilliance' of Mario Bros 3...I really would...
Graphics are ALWAYS the first thing gamers look at....just as looks are the first thing a lad looks at when on the prowl for a lady-friend...
It's just the way things are...the future may look bright from where you're standing but if we continually want more games with new genres at a quicker rate surely this says something about the quality of the games...
Surely....
Page:
Good point Piero but then you look at Superman 64, which a DREADFUL game. The graphcis were good but it got nothing but terrible reviews. Then in next months chart it was in at number 4!!! What the hell?!
The Game wrote:
> PieroGas wrote:
I don't think you're
> right here....you would only 'enquire' about the girl if you like
> the look of her...otherwise you would be 'reading reviews' for every
> bird at college/school!
I assume by this that you are still at college/school. This is one of the points I didn't include earlier. It can be an age thing - younger people go for the looks, older ones (like me) prefer to look a bit deeper - maybe trying before buying.
> PieroGas wrote:
I don't think you're
> right here....you would only 'enquire' about the girl if you like
> the look of her...otherwise you would be 'reading reviews' for every
> bird at college/school!
I assume by this that you are still at college/school. This is one of the points I didn't include earlier. It can be an age thing - younger people go for the looks, older ones (like me) prefer to look a bit deeper - maybe trying before buying.
Although I see where you're coming from...
But I still believe that games aren't lasting as long...and you have to remember there were 600 strong games for the SNES but people were content with only about 5-6 good games that made them happy!
I have 25 N64 games and the only ones I play are Mario Golf, Banjo Tooie and Conker...
Out of loads of good games like:
PD
GOLDENEYE
Mario Tennis
No Mercy 0 Mind you I play that now and again...
But there are some games I haven't touched for over a year!
However, I still find time to play my emulated Mario Bros. 3 - There is something about it, you can almost feel the effort put into the Gameplay...
"Graphics Smaphics...You can't beat the classics!" - Game
But I still believe that games aren't lasting as long...and you have to remember there were 600 strong games for the SNES but people were content with only about 5-6 good games that made them happy!
I have 25 N64 games and the only ones I play are Mario Golf, Banjo Tooie and Conker...
Out of loads of good games like:
PD
GOLDENEYE
Mario Tennis
No Mercy 0 Mind you I play that now and again...
But there are some games I haven't touched for over a year!
However, I still find time to play my emulated Mario Bros. 3 - There is something about it, you can almost feel the effort put into the Gameplay...
"Graphics Smaphics...You can't beat the classics!" - Game
Only following your comparison.
Seriously though, no-one in their right mind buys a game without seeing a review first. Graphics don't pull you towards a game - the reviews do - otherwise Tetris wouldn't have sold a copy. The hype can get people thinking about a game, but it won't sell without the good review.
Seriously though, no-one in their right mind buys a game without seeing a review first. Graphics don't pull you towards a game - the reviews do - otherwise Tetris wouldn't have sold a copy. The hype can get people thinking about a game, but it won't sell without the good review.
PieroGas wrote:
I would also disagree with the point
> about graphics being the first thing people look for, although I
> liked the comparison to women. Many don't just go for graphics (her
> looks). Some prefer to wait for reviews (what your mates think about
> her/or her reputation), ease of control (her size), bonuses and
> secrets (breasts), gameplay (her experience & personality) and
> ease of completion (use your imagination).
***********************
I don't think you're right here....you would only 'enquire' about the girl if you like the look of her...otherwise you would be 'reading reviews' for every bird at college/school!
I would also disagree with the point
> about graphics being the first thing people look for, although I
> liked the comparison to women. Many don't just go for graphics (her
> looks). Some prefer to wait for reviews (what your mates think about
> her/or her reputation), ease of control (her size), bonuses and
> secrets (breasts), gameplay (her experience & personality) and
> ease of completion (use your imagination).
***********************
I don't think you're right here....you would only 'enquire' about the girl if you like the look of her...otherwise you would be 'reading reviews' for every bird at college/school!
A good starting post for a discussion, and some good points on 'classics'.
So far many have been in agreement, but I'd like to disagree on some points.
Because there are so many people wanting to buy games these days, software companies can afford the costs in developing more and more games to satisfy the ever demanding tastes of the buying public.
I agree that in their day, the Mario games could be deemed 'classics'. Back then the public were happy to take whatever games were thrown at them. As the years have gone by, people have developed much more refined tastes and tend to know what type of game will appeal to them. Each month you will see at least 1 or 2 games rated at 90% plus in magazines (with good ratings in all areas - not just graphics). Each of these could be regarded as a 'classic', but not in everyone's minds. In Mario days the variety was not there, so it was a classic that people had no alternatives to.
I don't think that people will always go for the latest machine. Look at the 3DO, Atari Jaguar and Dreamcast - all capable of far more than what was on the market at their time of release, but never really made it despite their hype on release. I agree that the GBA will be on a lot of shopping lists, but not just because it is the latest machine, but because it is a great bit of handheld kit - far superior to the GBC and without much competition. It can't really be compared to the Dreamcast for this reason. People already have home consoles (e.g. PS2) or are waiting for the market to develop before choosing (X-box, GC). Many are happy to wait before rushing out to buy.
I would also disagree with the point about graphics being the first thing people look for, although I liked the comparison to women. Many don't just go for graphics (her looks). Some prefer to wait for reviews (what your mates think about her/or her reputation), ease of control (her size), bonuses and secrets (breasts), gameplay (her experience & personality) and ease of completion (use your imagination).
I think that the only real advancements that can be made are in the graphical department - we will continue to demand newer, better games until the hardware is capable of TV/film quality graphics. When that happens we will only seek the equivalent standard in gameplay and variety to suit all tastes.
Just offering a different point of view.
So far many have been in agreement, but I'd like to disagree on some points.
Because there are so many people wanting to buy games these days, software companies can afford the costs in developing more and more games to satisfy the ever demanding tastes of the buying public.
I agree that in their day, the Mario games could be deemed 'classics'. Back then the public were happy to take whatever games were thrown at them. As the years have gone by, people have developed much more refined tastes and tend to know what type of game will appeal to them. Each month you will see at least 1 or 2 games rated at 90% plus in magazines (with good ratings in all areas - not just graphics). Each of these could be regarded as a 'classic', but not in everyone's minds. In Mario days the variety was not there, so it was a classic that people had no alternatives to.
I don't think that people will always go for the latest machine. Look at the 3DO, Atari Jaguar and Dreamcast - all capable of far more than what was on the market at their time of release, but never really made it despite their hype on release. I agree that the GBA will be on a lot of shopping lists, but not just because it is the latest machine, but because it is a great bit of handheld kit - far superior to the GBC and without much competition. It can't really be compared to the Dreamcast for this reason. People already have home consoles (e.g. PS2) or are waiting for the market to develop before choosing (X-box, GC). Many are happy to wait before rushing out to buy.
I would also disagree with the point about graphics being the first thing people look for, although I liked the comparison to women. Many don't just go for graphics (her looks). Some prefer to wait for reviews (what your mates think about her/or her reputation), ease of control (her size), bonuses and secrets (breasts), gameplay (her experience & personality) and ease of completion (use your imagination).
I think that the only real advancements that can be made are in the graphical department - we will continue to demand newer, better games until the hardware is capable of TV/film quality graphics. When that happens we will only seek the equivalent standard in gameplay and variety to suit all tastes.
Just offering a different point of view.
er-no wrote:
> RBS, what did Gronti post?
Does he only come on once/twice a week
> to try and win??
He posted a reply on "Are RPG's (Role playing games) obselete?".
> RBS, what did Gronti post?
Does he only come on once/twice a week
> to try and win??
He posted a reply on "Are RPG's (Role playing games) obselete?".
I never look at graphics. Beauty is not only skin deep.
Thats the best topic in days, well done.
I spy a game for you.
I spy a game for you.
Page: