The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Can you remember when video games first started to be worth buying? Old VGA graphic DOS run games back in the 80’s. Games like Space Quest, and the original Leisure Suite Larry.
I reckon that games like this should never be forgotten. After turning on my old PC again since about a year ago, and DOS booted up, I reminded myself what was on the hard drive. I found my old Space Quest I & II games and had a go at getting them to work again. They did. All the blocky graphics came rushing back into my mind.
I spent my next week playing this addictive game, until the end. I hadn’t complained about the graphics one bit. The game play just overtook.
Quite a few of the games made today are just all muscle and no brain. Sure they look great, but they are actually quite boring, and don’t want you to play them again. The older games aren’t like this. Because they didn’t have to spend so much time perfecting that last pixel, and making that last scene look just right, companies could spend more time improving how the game performed.
People don’t favour oldies over newies, because, in the long run, the newies are better aren’t they? Wrong! A game is nothing without its playability, and this is what can make older games just as strong as the newer more powerful ones.
Of course in all respect not all old games are better than new ones, games such as little ole' Frogger. Im just saying that some older games do have the ability to be as good as new ones because of how they play.
Remember, don’t forget about the past. If what happened back then didn’t happen, then what’s happening now in the gaming industry wouldn’t happen either.
I reckon that games like this should never be forgotten. After turning on my old PC again since about a year ago, and DOS booted up, I reminded myself what was on the hard drive. I found my old Space Quest I & II games and had a go at getting them to work again. They did. All the blocky graphics came rushing back into my mind.
I spent my next week playing this addictive game, until the end. I hadn’t complained about the graphics one bit. The game play just overtook.
Quite a few of the games made today are just all muscle and no brain. Sure they look great, but they are actually quite boring, and don’t want you to play them again. The older games aren’t like this. Because they didn’t have to spend so much time perfecting that last pixel, and making that last scene look just right, companies could spend more time improving how the game performed.
People don’t favour oldies over newies, because, in the long run, the newies are better aren’t they? Wrong! A game is nothing without its playability, and this is what can make older games just as strong as the newer more powerful ones.
Of course in all respect not all old games are better than new ones, games such as little ole' Frogger. Im just saying that some older games do have the ability to be as good as new ones because of how they play.
Remember, don’t forget about the past. If what happened back then didn’t happen, then what’s happening now in the gaming industry wouldn’t happen either.
You said it Grix. Other games like Monkey Island (which I must say is a darn good game. Both I and II which were produced quite a time ago.) and Sam & Max - Or more specifically, LucasArt’s games. Those games always were worth playing.
Although I have seen in the back of this month SR Mag a review for a game called ‘Gilbert Goodmate and the Mushroom of Phungoria’!! This looks just like some of the Lucasarts classics such as S & M and M I. Offering ‘Tongue in cheek’ humour, the similar 2d graphics and a funny, yet interesting plot, this may be a game worth checking out.
Although I have seen in the back of this month SR Mag a review for a game called ‘Gilbert Goodmate and the Mushroom of Phungoria’!! This looks just like some of the Lucasarts classics such as S & M and M I. Offering ‘Tongue in cheek’ humour, the similar 2d graphics and a funny, yet interesting plot, this may be a game worth checking out.
There HAS been a lack of decent PC games... hasn't there?
Just rehashs of FPS's, and more and more C&C clones...
The game I'm really looking forward to this year, which you might find ironic after that last sentence, is Warcraft 3. I was a big fan of the original 2, the second especially... still stands as one of the best RTS's even today.
Adventure games... damn you Lucasarts. Escape from Monkey Island is not enough. I want my Sam and Max sequel, I want my Grim Fandango, and my Maniac Mansion sequel.
I wouldn't mind another X-Wing sequel, as you're at it.
Deus Ex has been one of the best games in years... Black and White so very nearly could have been... but it was destroyed by bugs.
The Sims was fun, for five minutes... and genre's haven't been as varied. Only clones of decent games.
Clones are just rehashs of someone elses idea... Dune 2, being the daddy of the RTS, was cloned many times. Some were much more sucessful than others... because they added a new view to the game. C&C, is a good example. Beasts and Bumpkins isn't a good example.
Then, you take a winning formula, and improve on it. Plots can be expanded on... not left to rot. But clones are a good thing, when they add actually do make the game better... just not as a money making exercise.
Sequels are more likely to be better than the first game. Firstly, but not that importantly, the graphics will be updated. But also, a great gameplay can be expanded. Adding more to the game, and improving the complaints in the first one. Franchaises are great too... in X-Wing, people complained that you were the good guy. So Tie Fighter was made. Then they complained that there wasn't any multiplayer. X-Wing VS. Tie Fighter was made. Then they wanted to see more single player missions, as X-Wing V Tie was too heavily based on multiplayer missions... so X-Wing Alliance was made...
The difference between clones and sequels is that exactly. Sequels are improvements, clones are usually rehashs of someone elses idea...
Oh yeah, what was this topic about again? :D
Just rehashs of FPS's, and more and more C&C clones...
The game I'm really looking forward to this year, which you might find ironic after that last sentence, is Warcraft 3. I was a big fan of the original 2, the second especially... still stands as one of the best RTS's even today.
Adventure games... damn you Lucasarts. Escape from Monkey Island is not enough. I want my Sam and Max sequel, I want my Grim Fandango, and my Maniac Mansion sequel.
I wouldn't mind another X-Wing sequel, as you're at it.
Deus Ex has been one of the best games in years... Black and White so very nearly could have been... but it was destroyed by bugs.
The Sims was fun, for five minutes... and genre's haven't been as varied. Only clones of decent games.
Clones are just rehashs of someone elses idea... Dune 2, being the daddy of the RTS, was cloned many times. Some were much more sucessful than others... because they added a new view to the game. C&C, is a good example. Beasts and Bumpkins isn't a good example.
Then, you take a winning formula, and improve on it. Plots can be expanded on... not left to rot. But clones are a good thing, when they add actually do make the game better... just not as a money making exercise.
Sequels are more likely to be better than the first game. Firstly, but not that importantly, the graphics will be updated. But also, a great gameplay can be expanded. Adding more to the game, and improving the complaints in the first one. Franchaises are great too... in X-Wing, people complained that you were the good guy. So Tie Fighter was made. Then they complained that there wasn't any multiplayer. X-Wing VS. Tie Fighter was made. Then they wanted to see more single player missions, as X-Wing V Tie was too heavily based on multiplayer missions... so X-Wing Alliance was made...
The difference between clones and sequels is that exactly. Sequels are improvements, clones are usually rehashs of someone elses idea...
Oh yeah, what was this topic about again? :D
Can you remember when video games first started to be worth buying? Old VGA graphic DOS run games back in the 80’s. Games like Space Quest, and the original Leisure Suite Larry.
I reckon that games like this should never be forgotten. After turning on my old PC again since about a year ago, and DOS booted up, I reminded myself what was on the hard drive. I found my old Space Quest I & II games and had a go at getting them to work again. They did. All the blocky graphics came rushing back into my mind.
I spent my next week playing this addictive game, until the end. I hadn’t complained about the graphics one bit. The game play just overtook.
Quite a few of the games made today are just all muscle and no brain. Sure they look great, but they are actually quite boring, and don’t want you to play them again. The older games aren’t like this. Because they didn’t have to spend so much time perfecting that last pixel, and making that last scene look just right, companies could spend more time improving how the game performed.
People don’t favour oldies over newies, because, in the long run, the newies are better aren’t they? Wrong! A game is nothing without its playability, and this is what can make older games just as strong as the newer more powerful ones.
Of course in all respect not all old games are better than new ones, games such as little ole' Frogger. Im just saying that some older games do have the ability to be as good as new ones because of how they play.
Remember, don’t forget about the past. If what happened back then didn’t happen, then what’s happening now in the gaming industry wouldn’t happen either.
I reckon that games like this should never be forgotten. After turning on my old PC again since about a year ago, and DOS booted up, I reminded myself what was on the hard drive. I found my old Space Quest I & II games and had a go at getting them to work again. They did. All the blocky graphics came rushing back into my mind.
I spent my next week playing this addictive game, until the end. I hadn’t complained about the graphics one bit. The game play just overtook.
Quite a few of the games made today are just all muscle and no brain. Sure they look great, but they are actually quite boring, and don’t want you to play them again. The older games aren’t like this. Because they didn’t have to spend so much time perfecting that last pixel, and making that last scene look just right, companies could spend more time improving how the game performed.
People don’t favour oldies over newies, because, in the long run, the newies are better aren’t they? Wrong! A game is nothing without its playability, and this is what can make older games just as strong as the newer more powerful ones.
Of course in all respect not all old games are better than new ones, games such as little ole' Frogger. Im just saying that some older games do have the ability to be as good as new ones because of how they play.
Remember, don’t forget about the past. If what happened back then didn’t happen, then what’s happening now in the gaming industry wouldn’t happen either.