The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Haven't all of you notice how quiet the gaming industry is now?
The N64 is churning out the last few games in it's life, the Dreamcast is suffering from it's near death, it's basically not bringing out very good games at the moment some developers are giving up on the machine and the PS2, well all the fans can say is wait for MGS 2 and GT3 what else is there to wait for this year? I haven't seen that many groundbreaking games since around Christmas time when it first came out.
We all seen the GameCube in E3 but for Europe it's not even a few months away from reality itself.
The main problem is that if we release a lot more games, do you expect all of them to be great?
No you can't, you can't expect all of them to be great you have to have some rubbish games to fill the gap while we wait for the big ones to come out. Somehow they are able to add new characters to the game and improve the graphics bit, we still buy the games don’t we?
The problem with the Gaming industry now is that some developers are having problems thinking of new ideas.
After one revolutionary game such as Goldeneye we get an everlasting number of clones, but that isn’t always a bad thing, Goldeneye made sure that 3D shooters could become the most popular genre around and it has been of course copied again and again, so when will this genre ever run out of steam? It hasn’t of course because this genre is a very popular one amongst mainly the Male gamers, and that is a lot.
Just adding new levels and improved graphics is enough for us gamers to not notice that these games are exactly the same except a few new features!
In most machines these days, all that changes is the specs and we look at that the most, because without specs we wouldn’t have great graphics! Groundbreaking games are released now and then but the quality of the games are pretty low compared to the good old games such as the very first Sonic that came out because games were simply a new thing back then, and technology wasn’t exactly our high point. But today I think that gaming isn’t advancing to new heights like the technology is at the moment, I expect a few more original games that include a bit more imagination in them, I expect many developers know what I’m talking about, eh Shigsy? Anyone seen Animal Forest, it has Nintendo’s childish ‘type’ graphics but Shigsy’s idea is to have the family involved in it! Great! If that isn’t the way to go for designing new and original games what is?
I look forward to the GameCube a lot not because it is very powerful, but I expect some surprising stuff to turn up on that machine. We can still have sequels around in the future but some Deus Ex type games are needed to make the gaming boat a bit more stable because people are losing precious time bringing out clones all the time, of course they make more money out of selling sequel after sequel of a series that begins great and ends up exactly the same game in the sequel, but they know we expect a bit more than improving the graphics of games to make them more realistic. Realism of games is cool, but not all games can be realistic because some of their ideas are crazy! Look at Microsoft’s Malice for the X-Box!
But realism doesn’t mean we don’t buy the games, whether or not it is playable or not we can’t play a game that has been rendered beautifully and you can’t play it for that long.
The whole concept is to enjoy the game, the graphics is an extra piece of the jigsaw that catches our eye all the time, and it’s like the selling point of whole games!
So will we fix the problems with game shortage and more original games? The future will tell when the next console machines are out, not when the next Pentium processor is out!
Keep an open mind on what games you buy! Whether or not you haven’t played the genre before you may be surprised to find it good.
Have a good day
Sniper
The N64 is churning out the last few games in it's life, the Dreamcast is suffering from it's near death, it's basically not bringing out very good games at the moment some developers are giving up on the machine and the PS2, well all the fans can say is wait for MGS 2 and GT3 what else is there to wait for this year? I haven't seen that many groundbreaking games since around Christmas time when it first came out.
We all seen the GameCube in E3 but for Europe it's not even a few months away from reality itself.
The main problem is that if we release a lot more games, do you expect all of them to be great?
No you can't, you can't expect all of them to be great you have to have some rubbish games to fill the gap while we wait for the big ones to come out. Somehow they are able to add new characters to the game and improve the graphics bit, we still buy the games don’t we?
The problem with the Gaming industry now is that some developers are having problems thinking of new ideas.
After one revolutionary game such as Goldeneye we get an everlasting number of clones, but that isn’t always a bad thing, Goldeneye made sure that 3D shooters could become the most popular genre around and it has been of course copied again and again, so when will this genre ever run out of steam? It hasn’t of course because this genre is a very popular one amongst mainly the Male gamers, and that is a lot.
Just adding new levels and improved graphics is enough for us gamers to not notice that these games are exactly the same except a few new features!
In most machines these days, all that changes is the specs and we look at that the most, because without specs we wouldn’t have great graphics! Groundbreaking games are released now and then but the quality of the games are pretty low compared to the good old games such as the very first Sonic that came out because games were simply a new thing back then, and technology wasn’t exactly our high point. But today I think that gaming isn’t advancing to new heights like the technology is at the moment, I expect a few more original games that include a bit more imagination in them, I expect many developers know what I’m talking about, eh Shigsy? Anyone seen Animal Forest, it has Nintendo’s childish ‘type’ graphics but Shigsy’s idea is to have the family involved in it! Great! If that isn’t the way to go for designing new and original games what is?
I look forward to the GameCube a lot not because it is very powerful, but I expect some surprising stuff to turn up on that machine. We can still have sequels around in the future but some Deus Ex type games are needed to make the gaming boat a bit more stable because people are losing precious time bringing out clones all the time, of course they make more money out of selling sequel after sequel of a series that begins great and ends up exactly the same game in the sequel, but they know we expect a bit more than improving the graphics of games to make them more realistic. Realism of games is cool, but not all games can be realistic because some of their ideas are crazy! Look at Microsoft’s Malice for the X-Box!
But realism doesn’t mean we don’t buy the games, whether or not it is playable or not we can’t play a game that has been rendered beautifully and you can’t play it for that long.
The whole concept is to enjoy the game, the graphics is an extra piece of the jigsaw that catches our eye all the time, and it’s like the selling point of whole games!
So will we fix the problems with game shortage and more original games? The future will tell when the next console machines are out, not when the next Pentium processor is out!
Keep an open mind on what games you buy! Whether or not you haven’t played the genre before you may be surprised to find it good.
Have a good day
Sniper
Page:
You may not have noticed, but according to all the experts the games industry, worth £7 billion, is going through a rough patch at the moment. “How can that be?” I hear you cry. “Surely with the PS2 improving, and the GameCube, GameBoy Advance and Xbox on the way, this is a great time for gamers, is it not?” Well, read on and I’ll explain…
The fact is the gaming industry is in a bit of a slump. The big publishers like Eidos and Codemasters have reported falling profits and share prices, and many smaller developers are letting staff go or even going out of business. It’s not that fewer games are being sold – quite the opposite in fact – but it’s to do with profit. Games today are becoming more and more expensive to make. Developers may need to buy many pieces of software for physics, textures, polygons, mip-mapping, etc. because all today’s games (apparently) require top-notch graphics to be a success. Also, many of today’s developers want to make games with an epic, cinematic feel, in contrast with bedroom developers of days gone by, who could create innovative, fun titles for next to nothing.
Anyway, many games are now sold at budget price, therefore the profits fall – obviously high production cost + low selling price = low profits. Video-game piracy also contributes to this. Another reason for the slump is that we are between consoles at the moment – the Dreamcast and N64 are coming to an end of their lives and the PS2 is still finding its feet (amazingly, the PSone and GameBoy continue to sell well, effectively keeping the market afloat). Many ‘casual gamers’ are waiting for the PS2 to drop in price or for big-name titles like Metal Gear Solid 2 to be released.
The slump was inevitable really, after the PlayStation introduced gaming to the masses. You see, Johnny Brand-Name, the casual gamer, will quite happily (and stupidly) buy Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Simpsons Wrestling and every FIFA game, leaving the smaller developers’ more innovative and original titles sitting on the shelf.
There’s nothing to worry about really – the industry should recover whenever the PS2 gets some competition from the GameCube and Xbox, if not sooner. As long as developers can realise that all games don’t have to be like films and cost millions of pounds, we’ll be fine. We may be going through a bit of a lean spell at the moment, but the future is indeed bright for gaming.
And don’t take any notice of Nintendo president, Hiroshi Yamauchi, who said, “If the games industry went away, it’s not like people would keel over and die on the street. You don’t need games to live after all.” Yeah, right!
The fact is the gaming industry is in a bit of a slump. The big publishers like Eidos and Codemasters have reported falling profits and share prices, and many smaller developers are letting staff go or even going out of business. It’s not that fewer games are being sold – quite the opposite in fact – but it’s to do with profit. Games today are becoming more and more expensive to make. Developers may need to buy many pieces of software for physics, textures, polygons, mip-mapping, etc. because all today’s games (apparently) require top-notch graphics to be a success. Also, many of today’s developers want to make games with an epic, cinematic feel, in contrast with bedroom developers of days gone by, who could create innovative, fun titles for next to nothing.
Anyway, many games are now sold at budget price, therefore the profits fall – obviously high production cost + low selling price = low profits. Video-game piracy also contributes to this. Another reason for the slump is that we are between consoles at the moment – the Dreamcast and N64 are coming to an end of their lives and the PS2 is still finding its feet (amazingly, the PSone and GameBoy continue to sell well, effectively keeping the market afloat). Many ‘casual gamers’ are waiting for the PS2 to drop in price or for big-name titles like Metal Gear Solid 2 to be released.
The slump was inevitable really, after the PlayStation introduced gaming to the masses. You see, Johnny Brand-Name, the casual gamer, will quite happily (and stupidly) buy Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Simpsons Wrestling and every FIFA game, leaving the smaller developers’ more innovative and original titles sitting on the shelf.
There’s nothing to worry about really – the industry should recover whenever the PS2 gets some competition from the GameCube and Xbox, if not sooner. As long as developers can realise that all games don’t have to be like films and cost millions of pounds, we’ll be fine. We may be going through a bit of a lean spell at the moment, but the future is indeed bright for gaming.
And don’t take any notice of Nintendo president, Hiroshi Yamauchi, who said, “If the games industry went away, it’s not like people would keel over and die on the street. You don’t need games to live after all.” Yeah, right!
Like.. for example the Bouncer for the PS2 haven't played it, heard it got good graphics but lame playability.
Games should not be rated on graphics or whether it is groundbreaking or not. They should be rated on playability. Some games look good but I wouldn't play them.
Fish-e wrote:
> I thought this deserved to win
shame it never
well what you
> gonna do
I can't do a thing with this stupid judgement they have.
> I thought this deserved to win
shame it never
well what you
> gonna do
I can't do a thing with this stupid judgement they have.
New Jimmy wrote:
In reality its neither, what is limiting games at present
> apart from the amount of time and money that need to be put into
> developing an original game is the peripherals.
Not at all... to make my popint... look at games like the Thief series, System Shock, Giants - Citizen Kabuto, or even the Battle Zone titles... these titels, despite being highly innovative, failed to be purchased by the conservative games buying public, who bought millions of copies of Tomb Raider and the next Westwood C&C clone instead
Look at Sega Bass
> Fishing, original due to the new FishingRod Type Peripheral. The
> same applies to the Sega Maracas, The Dancing Pad (The big flat
> things on the floor you have to dance on) and even the lightgun.
> These peipherals have all offered us completely new gaming
> experiences.
But for every good idea theres ten great ideas lost...
All the things you specified are all gimmicks... not groundbreaking ideas...
They dont present a completly new look on a genre, or create a new genre themselves... How often do you use the dancing pad, maracars, etc for other titles??...
(lightguns have been around sine the mid-eighties... so...)
As for Goldeneye not being grounbreaking, Ild
> disagree with that to. It was the first game that brought
> multiplayer firstpersonshooters to the homes of console gamers
> everywhere. It was also a film license that was decent.
However
> your point is taken, it all depends on whether you take
> "Groundbreaking" as meaning "Genre Defining".
But it provided nothing new... Miltiplayer deathmatch games had already been done many times before on the PC... and had even already been done on a console... it was just a redesign of an already seen idea (
What it did it did well... but it did notthing really new, nothing 'groundbreaking' and since the FPS genre was a long time establish, it wasnt 'Genre defining' either
In reality its neither, what is limiting games at present
> apart from the amount of time and money that need to be put into
> developing an original game is the peripherals.
Not at all... to make my popint... look at games like the Thief series, System Shock, Giants - Citizen Kabuto, or even the Battle Zone titles... these titels, despite being highly innovative, failed to be purchased by the conservative games buying public, who bought millions of copies of Tomb Raider and the next Westwood C&C clone instead
Look at Sega Bass
> Fishing, original due to the new FishingRod Type Peripheral. The
> same applies to the Sega Maracas, The Dancing Pad (The big flat
> things on the floor you have to dance on) and even the lightgun.
> These peipherals have all offered us completely new gaming
> experiences.
But for every good idea theres ten great ideas lost...
All the things you specified are all gimmicks... not groundbreaking ideas...
They dont present a completly new look on a genre, or create a new genre themselves... How often do you use the dancing pad, maracars, etc for other titles??...
(lightguns have been around sine the mid-eighties... so...)
As for Goldeneye not being grounbreaking, Ild
> disagree with that to. It was the first game that brought
> multiplayer firstpersonshooters to the homes of console gamers
> everywhere. It was also a film license that was decent.
However
> your point is taken, it all depends on whether you take
> "Groundbreaking" as meaning "Genre Defining".
But it provided nothing new... Miltiplayer deathmatch games had already been done many times before on the PC... and had even already been done on a console... it was just a redesign of an already seen idea (
What it did it did well... but it did notthing really new, nothing 'groundbreaking' and since the FPS genre was a long time establish, it wasnt 'Genre defining' either
I don't think that Goldeneye is a bad game, it is one of the best FPS games ever, but I refuse to have the game hailed as revolutionary and/or the best FPS ever.
Firstly it was an FPS, which habe been around since the days of Wolfenstein.
Secondly, it followed the storyline of a film (it may be regarded as license defining, as it is one of the few games to do a license justice.)
Thirdly, the only time the targeting system comes into play is due to the lack of a decent control system, set the game up like Turok (c buttons to move, joystick to look, auto aim off) nand the target is only required with the sniper rifle. All it does is hides the inadequacies of playing with a Joypad with only one analogue stick. Timesplitters improves on this, but it still cannot match a keyboard/mouse set up.
Fourth, the multiplayer game wasn't any different from any other multiplayer game, it was just the first on a console where you could sit down and kill your mates and only timesplitters has managed to beat it in this department, but that still doesn't make it revolutionary.
Firstly it was an FPS, which habe been around since the days of Wolfenstein.
Secondly, it followed the storyline of a film (it may be regarded as license defining, as it is one of the few games to do a license justice.)
Thirdly, the only time the targeting system comes into play is due to the lack of a decent control system, set the game up like Turok (c buttons to move, joystick to look, auto aim off) nand the target is only required with the sniper rifle. All it does is hides the inadequacies of playing with a Joypad with only one analogue stick. Timesplitters improves on this, but it still cannot match a keyboard/mouse set up.
Fourth, the multiplayer game wasn't any different from any other multiplayer game, it was just the first on a console where you could sit down and kill your mates and only timesplitters has managed to beat it in this department, but that still doesn't make it revolutionary.
I'ld Disagree with your comment:
"It is the limited imagination of the consumer that is the greatest threat to games originality, not the imagination of the developer."
In Reply:
In reality its neither, what is limiting games at present apart from the amount of time and money that need to be put into developing an original game is the peripherals.
Look at Sega Bass Fishing, original due to the new FishingRod Type Peripheral. The same applies to the Sega Maracas, The Dancing Pad (The big flat things on the floor you have to dance on) and even the lightgun. These peipherals have all offered us completely new gaming experiences.
As for Goldeneye not being grounbreaking, Ild disagree with that to. It was the first game that brought multiplayer firstpersonshooters to the homes of console gamers everywhere. It was also a film license that was decent.
However your point is taken, it all depends on whether you take "Groundbreaking" as meaning "Genre Defining". :-)
"It is the limited imagination of the consumer that is the greatest threat to games originality, not the imagination of the developer."
In Reply:
In reality its neither, what is limiting games at present apart from the amount of time and money that need to be put into developing an original game is the peripherals.
Look at Sega Bass Fishing, original due to the new FishingRod Type Peripheral. The same applies to the Sega Maracas, The Dancing Pad (The big flat things on the floor you have to dance on) and even the lightgun. These peipherals have all offered us completely new gaming experiences.
As for Goldeneye not being grounbreaking, Ild disagree with that to. It was the first game that brought multiplayer firstpersonshooters to the homes of console gamers everywhere. It was also a film license that was decent.
However your point is taken, it all depends on whether you take "Groundbreaking" as meaning "Genre Defining". :-)
I think your overrating the number of 'classic' game releases their are/have been and how frequently they are released...
Looking back, it seems like there used to be at least one new, groundbreaking title released every month...
Although in reality, groundbreaking games have been being released (at least over the past ten years) at about the same rate as they are now.
Where you argue that once a revolutionary title has been released, a slew of, 'same game different graphics' titles come after... This creates the genre...
If after Westwood had created Dune 2 none had made any similar games, there would be no RTS genre. If after Castle Wolfenstein there would be no FPS genre
(I know Castle Wolfenstein is not the first FPS, but I cannot be bothered to find the name of the Wizard one :))
One question, though, your definition of groundbreaking is rather dubious... neither Golden-Eye nor Sonic the Hedgehog were groundbreaking titles... they were both fantastic games... but neither of them really included anything that had not been done before...
Remember both Goldeneye and Sonic the Hedgehog are themselves not original titles... Goldeneye being a FPS clone and Sonic was just a 2D platformer. (Not that they weren’t great games, just not original or groundbreaking)
People have been complaining, since the mid-eighties that there are no new ideas, that all the ideas have been created, and that only minor variations of current genres are left to be seen… Although as time has shown, over the past 15 years this was a very naive and inaccurate statement.
The only threat to originality in software titles comes from the customer. There, over the past year or so been many original software releases, however since the customer seems to weary of purchasing an original, untried idea, spending their 40 quid on a title that they might not like once they get home, and instead purchasing another Tomb Raider, Golden Eye, Mario, etc… clone and hedging their bets.
It is the limited imagination of the consumer that is the greatest threat to games originality, not the imagination of the developer.
Looking back, it seems like there used to be at least one new, groundbreaking title released every month...
Although in reality, groundbreaking games have been being released (at least over the past ten years) at about the same rate as they are now.
Where you argue that once a revolutionary title has been released, a slew of, 'same game different graphics' titles come after... This creates the genre...
If after Westwood had created Dune 2 none had made any similar games, there would be no RTS genre. If after Castle Wolfenstein there would be no FPS genre
(I know Castle Wolfenstein is not the first FPS, but I cannot be bothered to find the name of the Wizard one :))
One question, though, your definition of groundbreaking is rather dubious... neither Golden-Eye nor Sonic the Hedgehog were groundbreaking titles... they were both fantastic games... but neither of them really included anything that had not been done before...
Remember both Goldeneye and Sonic the Hedgehog are themselves not original titles... Goldeneye being a FPS clone and Sonic was just a 2D platformer. (Not that they weren’t great games, just not original or groundbreaking)
People have been complaining, since the mid-eighties that there are no new ideas, that all the ideas have been created, and that only minor variations of current genres are left to be seen… Although as time has shown, over the past 15 years this was a very naive and inaccurate statement.
The only threat to originality in software titles comes from the customer. There, over the past year or so been many original software releases, however since the customer seems to weary of purchasing an original, untried idea, spending their 40 quid on a title that they might not like once they get home, and instead purchasing another Tomb Raider, Golden Eye, Mario, etc… clone and hedging their bets.
It is the limited imagination of the consumer that is the greatest threat to games originality, not the imagination of the developer.
PD wouldn't be good without Goldeneye anyway.
Page: