The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Most games can never hope to live up to their hype. All the ‘previews’ and ‘sneak-peaks’ lead us into a false sense of security. The gamble of buying a game and wasting 40 quid is becoming increasingly dangerous.
Take 007 Racing back on the PS1 for example. I remember reading a preview in Official Playstation Magazine, which made the game sound like a must-have. I was excited and eager to buy; when the game finally arrived it was extremely poor. This disappointment was not personal, as many reviews expressed the same feelings. I fear that this may be the same case for some today’s anticipated titles. I don’t want to start taking sides here, but look at Killzone for instance, we’re all very excited about Killzone, but if we take the time to look at the facts rather than just enjoy the ‘Halo-beating’ screenshots then we can see that it’s not exactly the next-generation fps that it has been made to resemble. Its physics engine is very ‘last year’, with no interactivity between the player and ingame objects and no rag-doll physics on the bodies. Halo however, has both. So how can the game be a ‘Halo-beater’ when it’s already lacking?
What other games could fall into this trap? DRIV3R? Star Wars: Battlefront? Gran Turismo 4? These games are all so popular because of their names. No one outside the industry has actually played them; we’re just convinced they’ll be good because ‘its Star Wars’ or ‘the first 2 Driver games were good’. What garauntee do we, the public, have that our next-generation games will live up to their hype?
- don rocco
Take 007 Racing back on the PS1 for example. I remember reading a preview in Official Playstation Magazine, which made the game sound like a must-have. I was excited and eager to buy; when the game finally arrived it was extremely poor. This disappointment was not personal, as many reviews expressed the same feelings. I fear that this may be the same case for some today’s anticipated titles. I don’t want to start taking sides here, but look at Killzone for instance, we’re all very excited about Killzone, but if we take the time to look at the facts rather than just enjoy the ‘Halo-beating’ screenshots then we can see that it’s not exactly the next-generation fps that it has been made to resemble. Its physics engine is very ‘last year’, with no interactivity between the player and ingame objects and no rag-doll physics on the bodies. Halo however, has both. So how can the game be a ‘Halo-beater’ when it’s already lacking?
What other games could fall into this trap? DRIV3R? Star Wars: Battlefront? Gran Turismo 4? These games are all so popular because of their names. No one outside the industry has actually played them; we’re just convinced they’ll be good because ‘its Star Wars’ or ‘the first 2 Driver games were good’. What garauntee do we, the public, have that our next-generation games will live up to their hype?
- don rocco
Page:
I reckon you've got a good point here. I personally was very disappointed when I played Vice City and The Getaway. I think, however, hype can only be truly established on a personal level, when you yourself are excited about a game. You can prevent disappointment by taking things a bit more casually, having a "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude.
Though, I don't think the fact that not having ragdoll physics is a bad point about killzone. Techniques like this (bullet time being another example) have been done to death in the industry. It will be interesting to see something new.
Though, I don't think the fact that not having ragdoll physics is a bad point about killzone. Techniques like this (bullet time being another example) have been done to death in the industry. It will be interesting to see something new.
Most games can never hope to live up to their hype. All the ‘previews’ and ‘sneak-peaks’ lead us into a false sense of security. The gamble of buying a game and wasting 40 quid is becoming increasingly dangerous.
Take 007 Racing back on the PS1 for example. I remember reading a preview in Official Playstation Magazine, which made the game sound like a must-have. I was excited and eager to buy; when the game finally arrived it was extremely poor. This disappointment was not personal, as many reviews expressed the same feelings. I fear that this may be the same case for some today’s anticipated titles. I don’t want to start taking sides here, but look at Killzone for instance, we’re all very excited about Killzone, but if we take the time to look at the facts rather than just enjoy the ‘Halo-beating’ screenshots then we can see that it’s not exactly the next-generation fps that it has been made to resemble. Its physics engine is very ‘last year’, with no interactivity between the player and ingame objects and no rag-doll physics on the bodies. Halo however, has both. So how can the game be a ‘Halo-beater’ when it’s already lacking?
What other games could fall into this trap? DRIV3R? Star Wars: Battlefront? Gran Turismo 4? These games are all so popular because of their names. No one outside the industry has actually played them; we’re just convinced they’ll be good because ‘its Star Wars’ or ‘the first 2 Driver games were good’. What garauntee do we, the public, have that our next-generation games will live up to their hype?
- don rocco
Take 007 Racing back on the PS1 for example. I remember reading a preview in Official Playstation Magazine, which made the game sound like a must-have. I was excited and eager to buy; when the game finally arrived it was extremely poor. This disappointment was not personal, as many reviews expressed the same feelings. I fear that this may be the same case for some today’s anticipated titles. I don’t want to start taking sides here, but look at Killzone for instance, we’re all very excited about Killzone, but if we take the time to look at the facts rather than just enjoy the ‘Halo-beating’ screenshots then we can see that it’s not exactly the next-generation fps that it has been made to resemble. Its physics engine is very ‘last year’, with no interactivity between the player and ingame objects and no rag-doll physics on the bodies. Halo however, has both. So how can the game be a ‘Halo-beater’ when it’s already lacking?
What other games could fall into this trap? DRIV3R? Star Wars: Battlefront? Gran Turismo 4? These games are all so popular because of their names. No one outside the industry has actually played them; we’re just convinced they’ll be good because ‘its Star Wars’ or ‘the first 2 Driver games were good’. What garauntee do we, the public, have that our next-generation games will live up to their hype?
- don rocco
Page: