The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Take off your Rose Tinted Spectacles. Now. Finding it too diffcult? Hmmmm, maybe i can help.
Why do some people say that graphics don't count, that gameplay is all that matters? Ok, maybe 'count' is the wrong word, maybe 'matter' would be better. Let's try again. Why do some people say that graphics don't matter, that gameplay is all that matters. Slightly better, but either way, i will try and explain my point.
I think graphics do matter, to an extent. To everyone that says "Graphics don't matter, i'm going off to play my SNES." I would say "Take off you Rose Tinted Spectacles." Ah, that is where we came in.
The thing is, we look back now to the days of the SNES and the MegaDrive and think the graphics are rubbish, that we were taken in by the gameplay alone. To this, i say bollards. Weren't you imprssed when you saw DK Country on the SNES, with all the richly detailed backgrounds, appearing as if it was in 3D? Did you not gasp in astonishment when you saw for the first time? I think most of you did, and thats my point.
Would the SNES MarioKart have been the same if the graphics were wireframe with no textures and you couldn't make out who the characters were supposed to be? No. You needed to be able to relate to the game and the settings of the levels to get the most out of the game.
People need to have good graphics in their games. Wouldn't you feel slightly cheated if Mario Kart on the 'Cube looked only slightly better than the N64 version? Wouldn't you think something like "Yeah, it's ok, but i think my N64 could run this." You've just spent £150 for the machine, which is a reasonable amount of money, and yet the games aren't pushing the machine to it's limits. It's the same with the PS2. If MGS2 looks like an N64 could push the old polyogns around, was it really worth you spending £300 on the hardware?
This brings me back to the first point. In 10 years time, when we are all playing on our XBox 3 or GameCube 4's or whatever, there will be people having a chat, and they'll say things like, "It was better before, i know when we played Shenmue and GT3 we had to use a television to watch what was going on," "but it didn't matter, it's the gameplay that counts." Whereas at the moment we are all gobsmacked by the graphics of those two games. See what i mean?
Another thing people always yada on about is that games were always more original before. OF COURSE THEY WERE!! Games hadn't been around long when the SNES and the MegaDrives came out so each new evolution of hardware allowed more variations of gameplay. When something is new, there are always loads of original ideas. Look at films. When they first started being made nothing had been done before, so each new variation practically started off a new genre. Now most of the variations have been made, so we get similar stuff all the time.
Gaming has been around a while now so there are less and less original ideas. The most original game i've seen in the last 18 months or so is Mr Driller. Ok, you could say that Deus Ex is original, but it's not really, it's just mixing 2 existing genres to try and get something original. If games like Doom and Ultima hadn't been made, we may not have seen Deus Ex, so it's not original.
All games can do at the moment is try and push the boudaries of existing genres until 'the next big leap'. B&W, Deus Ex and the Thief games are good examples. Thief relied heavily on sound, so you had to wait until 3D soundcards were widely available before you could release the game, otherwise it would have been rubbish as what the game was leaning heavily on, sound, couldn't have been represented adequately. B&W couldn't have been released 18 months ago as most people wouldn't have had PC's fast enough to play the game.
No doubt someone will say "But what about Shenmue and MGS2? They're original." But, wait for it, they're not. Shenmue is an RPG, not matter how detailed or free-form it is, it's still an RPG, MGS2 is, when you get right down to it, a Doom clone with a few new ideas thrown in.
What i'm trying to get at here is that just because games aren't original, doesn't mean they are less fun to play, and surely thats what gaming is all about, fun. MarioKart is fun, so i play it every now and again, but i also like playing M:SR, B&W, PSO etc. Just because a game is old, doesn't make it any better or worse than a new game. In the same way, a new game is not necessarily just a clone of existing games. The three games i just mentioned all bring something new to the genre, extend the limits for that type of game.
So take of those specs and appriciate that there are good games coming out all the time.
Why do some people say that graphics don't count, that gameplay is all that matters? Ok, maybe 'count' is the wrong word, maybe 'matter' would be better. Let's try again. Why do some people say that graphics don't matter, that gameplay is all that matters. Slightly better, but either way, i will try and explain my point.
I think graphics do matter, to an extent. To everyone that says "Graphics don't matter, i'm going off to play my SNES." I would say "Take off you Rose Tinted Spectacles." Ah, that is where we came in.
The thing is, we look back now to the days of the SNES and the MegaDrive and think the graphics are rubbish, that we were taken in by the gameplay alone. To this, i say bollards. Weren't you imprssed when you saw DK Country on the SNES, with all the richly detailed backgrounds, appearing as if it was in 3D? Did you not gasp in astonishment when you saw
Would the SNES MarioKart have been the same if the graphics were wireframe with no textures and you couldn't make out who the characters were supposed to be? No. You needed to be able to relate to the game and the settings of the levels to get the most out of the game.
People need to have good graphics in their games. Wouldn't you feel slightly cheated if Mario Kart on the 'Cube looked only slightly better than the N64 version? Wouldn't you think something like "Yeah, it's ok, but i think my N64 could run this." You've just spent £150 for the machine, which is a reasonable amount of money, and yet the games aren't pushing the machine to it's limits. It's the same with the PS2. If MGS2 looks like an N64 could push the old polyogns around, was it really worth you spending £300 on the hardware?
This brings me back to the first point. In 10 years time, when we are all playing on our XBox 3 or GameCube 4's or whatever, there will be people having a chat, and they'll say things like, "It was better before, i know when we played Shenmue and GT3 we had to use a television to watch what was going on,"
Another thing people always yada on about is that games were always more original before. OF COURSE THEY WERE!! Games hadn't been around long when the SNES and the MegaDrives came out so each new evolution of hardware allowed more variations of gameplay. When something is new, there are always loads of original ideas. Look at films. When they first started being made nothing had been done before, so each new variation practically started off a new genre. Now most of the variations have been made, so we get similar stuff all the time.
Gaming has been around a while now so there are less and less original ideas. The most original game i've seen in the last 18 months or so is Mr Driller. Ok, you could say that Deus Ex is original, but it's not really, it's just mixing 2 existing genres to try and get something original. If games like Doom and Ultima hadn't been made, we may not have seen Deus Ex, so it's not original.
All games can do at the moment is try and push the boudaries of existing genres until 'the next big leap'. B&W, Deus Ex and the Thief games are good examples. Thief relied heavily on sound, so you had to wait until 3D soundcards were widely available before you could release the game, otherwise it would have been rubbish as what the game was leaning heavily on, sound, couldn't have been represented adequately. B&W couldn't have been released 18 months ago as most people wouldn't have had PC's fast enough to play the game.
No doubt someone will say "But what about Shenmue and MGS2? They're original." But, wait for it, they're not. Shenmue is an RPG, not matter how detailed or free-form it is, it's still an RPG, MGS2 is, when you get right down to it, a Doom clone with a few new ideas thrown in.
What i'm trying to get at here is that just because games aren't original, doesn't mean they are less fun to play, and surely thats what gaming is all about, fun. MarioKart is fun, so i play it every now and again, but i also like playing M:SR, B&W, PSO etc. Just because a game is old, doesn't make it any better or worse than a new game. In the same way, a new game is not necessarily just a clone of existing games. The three games i just mentioned all bring something new to the genre, extend the limits for that type of game.
So take of those specs and appriciate that there are good games coming out all the time.
Page:
Well, this is almost exactly what I said in my topic "Immersion" but anyway.
By the way, MGS2 is not original as there has been loads of Metal Gears before on various platforms.
By the way, MGS2 is not original as there has been loads of Metal Gears before on various platforms.
VenomByte wrote:
I don't know about you, but I DO want someting new
> - otherwise I'm just playing the same games over and over again, and
> what happens? I get bored of them.
Ok, fair point. But what i was meaning, and perhaps i didn't make this quite clear, was that for the moment there will be no new genres of games. They will all take bits from various existing types and try and get something new, Deus Ex as a prime example.
I agree, i don't like to play the same game over and over, but that doesn't put me off driving games. It could be said that driving games are all the same, get a car, go around a track quicker than everyone else, open up more tracks, repeat until finish.
However, games are coming along that push existing barriers, M:SR, Shenmue, B&W etc. They take ideas, change them, make them better and release them to the gaming world and sell amazingly well.
In my original topic i wasn't trying to say that all old games are bad. What i am trying to say is that people, after a while, only remember the better things. Percentage wise, there were just as many crap games back then as we have to put with today.
However, as i said, back then there was more scope for new ideas as many of the more popular genres hadn't begun then. Each different idea really was different as it simply hadn't been done before. As the hardware improved the possibilites for new genres grew. I may be wrong on this, but there were no FPS shooters on the SNES or MegaDrive as they were'nt capable of them.
As the hardware increased and 3D became possible, the FPS genre was born. Games like Thief and MGS rely heavily on sound, so we couldn't have games like them until the processing power for the sound had developed enough. Now 3D soundcards are pretty much standard gaming kit.
At the moment we are waiting for the next 'big thing' to come along so we can move on to new genres once again. This could possibly be the internet, but that is a whole ne topic all together. At the moment, as i've already said, we are getting mixed-genre games like Deus Ex.
Er-no's argument was that his older games, Mario etc, lasted longer. Does that mean that ou think todays games are too short? Or is it because you feel you can replay Mario without getting bored, but you can't with newer games? If so, why is this?
I don't know about you, but I DO want someting new
> - otherwise I'm just playing the same games over and over again, and
> what happens? I get bored of them.
Ok, fair point. But what i was meaning, and perhaps i didn't make this quite clear, was that for the moment there will be no new genres of games. They will all take bits from various existing types and try and get something new, Deus Ex as a prime example.
I agree, i don't like to play the same game over and over, but that doesn't put me off driving games. It could be said that driving games are all the same, get a car, go around a track quicker than everyone else, open up more tracks, repeat until finish.
However, games are coming along that push existing barriers, M:SR, Shenmue, B&W etc. They take ideas, change them, make them better and release them to the gaming world and sell amazingly well.
In my original topic i wasn't trying to say that all old games are bad. What i am trying to say is that people, after a while, only remember the better things. Percentage wise, there were just as many crap games back then as we have to put with today.
However, as i said, back then there was more scope for new ideas as many of the more popular genres hadn't begun then. Each different idea really was different as it simply hadn't been done before. As the hardware improved the possibilites for new genres grew. I may be wrong on this, but there were no FPS shooters on the SNES or MegaDrive as they were'nt capable of them.
As the hardware increased and 3D became possible, the FPS genre was born. Games like Thief and MGS rely heavily on sound, so we couldn't have games like them until the processing power for the sound had developed enough. Now 3D soundcards are pretty much standard gaming kit.
At the moment we are waiting for the next 'big thing' to come along so we can move on to new genres once again. This could possibly be the internet, but that is a whole ne topic all together. At the moment, as i've already said, we are getting mixed-genre games like Deus Ex.
Er-no's argument was that his older games, Mario etc, lasted longer. Does that mean that ou think todays games are too short? Or is it because you feel you can replay Mario without getting bored, but you can't with newer games? If so, why is this?
In answer to the question 'What is Gameplay?'
Gameplay is everything that isn't graphics or sound.
That's that sorted. Back to the topic.
I don't know about you, but I DO want someting new - otherwise I'm just playing the same games over and over again, and what happens? I get bored of them.
I'm bored of RTS games, they're all the same. It's just learning the new units. There aren't really any new tactics.
I'm bored of racing games. Sega Rally 2, Gran Turismo 2, Need for speed 5, whatever. Played them all before. I want something different.
I'm bored of FPS games. Health, armour, ammo, and the same old weapons, with new names. Seen it all before. I'm bored of that, too.
The list goes on. If a game doesn't do anything new, it's an experience I've already had. If this is the case, there's a reason I stopped playing it - I got bored.
The graphics are changing, but the games aren't. The reason I appreciate the older games more than the newer ones, is not because I have rose tinted spectacles, but because they were the ones that first introduced something new to me. I'm not impressed when I see the same thing again, a year or so later.
Gameplay is everything that isn't graphics or sound.
That's that sorted. Back to the topic.
I don't know about you, but I DO want someting new - otherwise I'm just playing the same games over and over again, and what happens? I get bored of them.
I'm bored of RTS games, they're all the same. It's just learning the new units. There aren't really any new tactics.
I'm bored of racing games. Sega Rally 2, Gran Turismo 2, Need for speed 5, whatever. Played them all before. I want something different.
I'm bored of FPS games. Health, armour, ammo, and the same old weapons, with new names. Seen it all before. I'm bored of that, too.
The list goes on. If a game doesn't do anything new, it's an experience I've already had. If this is the case, there's a reason I stopped playing it - I got bored.
The graphics are changing, but the games aren't. The reason I appreciate the older games more than the newer ones, is not because I have rose tinted spectacles, but because they were the ones that first introduced something new to me. I'm not impressed when I see the same thing again, a year or so later.
after I had finished reading it (sorry needing to get some tea, I'm making all kinds of typos just now)
Totally agree with you, I think you've one yourself another GAD.
However, I think that origninality in games is a little more down to game companies sticking to what they know as making games don't come cheap. It is a lot harder to make original games but if more was invested in research by games companies a new gaming genre could be spawned. (This is of course a fairy tale and games will, as you said, mix genres and pinch cool features from other games, in general).
One more point that I'd like to make is, what is gameplay?
My definition of gameplay is making a game playable (by that I mean enough "things" to do to stimulate my mind and keep my amused for longer than 5minutes).
Everyone always goes on about gameplay being the main attribute a game needs but is it THAT important? Don't get me wrong I believe gameplay is good but I think it has to be backed-up with other good features. For example good controls, graphics + sound (as you mentioned) among many other things.
*L*, I have just said all the things you have said (well pretty much) but just differently....oh well maybe I shouldn't of replied right after I had finished *L*
However, I think that origninality in games is a little more down to game companies sticking to what they know as making games don't come cheap. It is a lot harder to make original games but if more was invested in research by games companies a new gaming genre could be spawned. (This is of course a fairy tale and games will, as you said, mix genres and pinch cool features from other games, in general).
One more point that I'd like to make is, what is gameplay?
My definition of gameplay is making a game playable (by that I mean enough "things" to do to stimulate my mind and keep my amused for longer than 5minutes).
Everyone always goes on about gameplay being the main attribute a game needs but is it THAT important? Don't get me wrong I believe gameplay is good but I think it has to be backed-up with other good features. For example good controls, graphics + sound (as you mentioned) among many other things.
*L*, I have just said all the things you have said (well pretty much) but just differently....oh well maybe I shouldn't of replied right after I had finished *L*
Graphics do matter, in this age of gaming graphics matter more for the success of the game then the gameplay matters!
The visual element of a game is important to its success, many times within this forum I have heard the phrase 'did you see those screenshots' or 'look at the graphics'.
This is the direction of gaming, the future of gaming is going to be a fight for every game to visually gobsmack the gamer and make it look different from anything else.
Yes I still play Killer Instinct on the SNES, yes I still play Mario World on the SNES but then again I play these games not because of the gameplay not because of the graphics, but because of the lastibility that is has to offer, ten years later I still find myself playing the games that got me hooked on gaming, ten years from now I reckon I will still go back and play my SNES and NES, why? because of the lastibility, a game has to have a sense of this to become a classic ten years after release..
Your reasons are great, many people still rate gameplay over graphics, and true the graphics are more important for a game to be successful, but is the game going to be any good? I think not. A game with superb graphics and bad gameplay will probably sell with the right promotion but without the gameplay gamers will simply and quickly go off the game and have wasted the money they originally spent.
To say that Mario Kart would not have been the same without the graphics is a strange comment, surely Mario Kart without that music, control or gameplay would not have been the same thing, the elements of any game have to be balanced and great for a game to be like that of Mario Kart on the SNES.
'Take off those Tinted Specs....' No, why should I, I am enjoying the SNES games just as much as when I first purchased them, not solely because of the graphics and gameplay, but because the elements from all the five gaming categories (gameplay, graphics, lastibility, sound, control) were perfect. My spectacles are on, and will continue to remain over my eyes for a long time, because games aren't just about the graphics, games are about the elements that make it overall a fun and enjoyable experience.
Its just that the majority of modern games are trying too hard to be something different from the rest and they are only trying this is the form of graphics and visual elements.
Thanks
er-yes
The visual element of a game is important to its success, many times within this forum I have heard the phrase 'did you see those screenshots' or 'look at the graphics'.
This is the direction of gaming, the future of gaming is going to be a fight for every game to visually gobsmack the gamer and make it look different from anything else.
Yes I still play Killer Instinct on the SNES, yes I still play Mario World on the SNES but then again I play these games not because of the gameplay not because of the graphics, but because of the lastibility that is has to offer, ten years later I still find myself playing the games that got me hooked on gaming, ten years from now I reckon I will still go back and play my SNES and NES, why? because of the lastibility, a game has to have a sense of this to become a classic ten years after release..
Your reasons are great, many people still rate gameplay over graphics, and true the graphics are more important for a game to be successful, but is the game going to be any good? I think not. A game with superb graphics and bad gameplay will probably sell with the right promotion but without the gameplay gamers will simply and quickly go off the game and have wasted the money they originally spent.
To say that Mario Kart would not have been the same without the graphics is a strange comment, surely Mario Kart without that music, control or gameplay would not have been the same thing, the elements of any game have to be balanced and great for a game to be like that of Mario Kart on the SNES.
'Take off those Tinted Specs....' No, why should I, I am enjoying the SNES games just as much as when I first purchased them, not solely because of the graphics and gameplay, but because the elements from all the five gaming categories (gameplay, graphics, lastibility, sound, control) were perfect. My spectacles are on, and will continue to remain over my eyes for a long time, because games aren't just about the graphics, games are about the elements that make it overall a fun and enjoyable experience.
Its just that the majority of modern games are trying too hard to be something different from the rest and they are only trying this is the form of graphics and visual elements.
Thanks
er-yes
Take off your Rose Tinted Spectacles. Now. Finding it too diffcult? Hmmmm, maybe i can help.
Why do some people say that graphics don't count, that gameplay is all that matters? Ok, maybe 'count' is the wrong word, maybe 'matter' would be better. Let's try again. Why do some people say that graphics don't matter, that gameplay is all that matters. Slightly better, but either way, i will try and explain my point.
I think graphics do matter, to an extent. To everyone that says "Graphics don't matter, i'm going off to play my SNES." I would say "Take off you Rose Tinted Spectacles." Ah, that is where we came in.
The thing is, we look back now to the days of the SNES and the MegaDrive and think the graphics are rubbish, that we were taken in by the gameplay alone. To this, i say bollards. Weren't you imprssed when you saw DK Country on the SNES, with all the richly detailed backgrounds, appearing as if it was in 3D? Did you not gasp in astonishment when you saw for the first time? I think most of you did, and thats my point.
Would the SNES MarioKart have been the same if the graphics were wireframe with no textures and you couldn't make out who the characters were supposed to be? No. You needed to be able to relate to the game and the settings of the levels to get the most out of the game.
People need to have good graphics in their games. Wouldn't you feel slightly cheated if Mario Kart on the 'Cube looked only slightly better than the N64 version? Wouldn't you think something like "Yeah, it's ok, but i think my N64 could run this." You've just spent £150 for the machine, which is a reasonable amount of money, and yet the games aren't pushing the machine to it's limits. It's the same with the PS2. If MGS2 looks like an N64 could push the old polyogns around, was it really worth you spending £300 on the hardware?
This brings me back to the first point. In 10 years time, when we are all playing on our XBox 3 or GameCube 4's or whatever, there will be people having a chat, and they'll say things like, "It was better before, i know when we played Shenmue and GT3 we had to use a television to watch what was going on," "but it didn't matter, it's the gameplay that counts." Whereas at the moment we are all gobsmacked by the graphics of those two games. See what i mean?
Another thing people always yada on about is that games were always more original before. OF COURSE THEY WERE!! Games hadn't been around long when the SNES and the MegaDrives came out so each new evolution of hardware allowed more variations of gameplay. When something is new, there are always loads of original ideas. Look at films. When they first started being made nothing had been done before, so each new variation practically started off a new genre. Now most of the variations have been made, so we get similar stuff all the time.
Gaming has been around a while now so there are less and less original ideas. The most original game i've seen in the last 18 months or so is Mr Driller. Ok, you could say that Deus Ex is original, but it's not really, it's just mixing 2 existing genres to try and get something original. If games like Doom and Ultima hadn't been made, we may not have seen Deus Ex, so it's not original.
All games can do at the moment is try and push the boudaries of existing genres until 'the next big leap'. B&W, Deus Ex and the Thief games are good examples. Thief relied heavily on sound, so you had to wait until 3D soundcards were widely available before you could release the game, otherwise it would have been rubbish as what the game was leaning heavily on, sound, couldn't have been represented adequately. B&W couldn't have been released 18 months ago as most people wouldn't have had PC's fast enough to play the game.
No doubt someone will say "But what about Shenmue and MGS2? They're original." But, wait for it, they're not. Shenmue is an RPG, not matter how detailed or free-form it is, it's still an RPG, MGS2 is, when you get right down to it, a Doom clone with a few new ideas thrown in.
What i'm trying to get at here is that just because games aren't original, doesn't mean they are less fun to play, and surely thats what gaming is all about, fun. MarioKart is fun, so i play it every now and again, but i also like playing M:SR, B&W, PSO etc. Just because a game is old, doesn't make it any better or worse than a new game. In the same way, a new game is not necessarily just a clone of existing games. The three games i just mentioned all bring something new to the genre, extend the limits for that type of game.
So take of those specs and appriciate that there are good games coming out all the time.
Why do some people say that graphics don't count, that gameplay is all that matters? Ok, maybe 'count' is the wrong word, maybe 'matter' would be better. Let's try again. Why do some people say that graphics don't matter, that gameplay is all that matters. Slightly better, but either way, i will try and explain my point.
I think graphics do matter, to an extent. To everyone that says "Graphics don't matter, i'm going off to play my SNES." I would say "Take off you Rose Tinted Spectacles." Ah, that is where we came in.
The thing is, we look back now to the days of the SNES and the MegaDrive and think the graphics are rubbish, that we were taken in by the gameplay alone. To this, i say bollards. Weren't you imprssed when you saw DK Country on the SNES, with all the richly detailed backgrounds, appearing as if it was in 3D? Did you not gasp in astonishment when you saw
Would the SNES MarioKart have been the same if the graphics were wireframe with no textures and you couldn't make out who the characters were supposed to be? No. You needed to be able to relate to the game and the settings of the levels to get the most out of the game.
People need to have good graphics in their games. Wouldn't you feel slightly cheated if Mario Kart on the 'Cube looked only slightly better than the N64 version? Wouldn't you think something like "Yeah, it's ok, but i think my N64 could run this." You've just spent £150 for the machine, which is a reasonable amount of money, and yet the games aren't pushing the machine to it's limits. It's the same with the PS2. If MGS2 looks like an N64 could push the old polyogns around, was it really worth you spending £300 on the hardware?
This brings me back to the first point. In 10 years time, when we are all playing on our XBox 3 or GameCube 4's or whatever, there will be people having a chat, and they'll say things like, "It was better before, i know when we played Shenmue and GT3 we had to use a television to watch what was going on,"
Another thing people always yada on about is that games were always more original before. OF COURSE THEY WERE!! Games hadn't been around long when the SNES and the MegaDrives came out so each new evolution of hardware allowed more variations of gameplay. When something is new, there are always loads of original ideas. Look at films. When they first started being made nothing had been done before, so each new variation practically started off a new genre. Now most of the variations have been made, so we get similar stuff all the time.
Gaming has been around a while now so there are less and less original ideas. The most original game i've seen in the last 18 months or so is Mr Driller. Ok, you could say that Deus Ex is original, but it's not really, it's just mixing 2 existing genres to try and get something original. If games like Doom and Ultima hadn't been made, we may not have seen Deus Ex, so it's not original.
All games can do at the moment is try and push the boudaries of existing genres until 'the next big leap'. B&W, Deus Ex and the Thief games are good examples. Thief relied heavily on sound, so you had to wait until 3D soundcards were widely available before you could release the game, otherwise it would have been rubbish as what the game was leaning heavily on, sound, couldn't have been represented adequately. B&W couldn't have been released 18 months ago as most people wouldn't have had PC's fast enough to play the game.
No doubt someone will say "But what about Shenmue and MGS2? They're original." But, wait for it, they're not. Shenmue is an RPG, not matter how detailed or free-form it is, it's still an RPG, MGS2 is, when you get right down to it, a Doom clone with a few new ideas thrown in.
What i'm trying to get at here is that just because games aren't original, doesn't mean they are less fun to play, and surely thats what gaming is all about, fun. MarioKart is fun, so i play it every now and again, but i also like playing M:SR, B&W, PSO etc. Just because a game is old, doesn't make it any better or worse than a new game. In the same way, a new game is not necessarily just a clone of existing games. The three games i just mentioned all bring something new to the genre, extend the limits for that type of game.
So take of those specs and appriciate that there are good games coming out all the time.
Page: