The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 when I look at the forthcoming releases on the PS2, and existing games, the majority of them are sequels?
After much excitement Gran Turismo 3 arrives. Not only is it very similar to GT2, it actually has LESS features. Well, maybe not less, but some of the better options from previous incarnations of the game are missing. After the game was delayed for so long, you can't help but feel disappointed.
What else is to come? Metal Gear Solid 2. Likely to be huge, and from the demo, it does seem to offer quite an improvement over the previous game. So at least there's a game here to really look forward too, but the question is how much longer will the wait be?
On with the sequels, Final Fantasy X is on the way. Hooray! But will Square finally abandon the out-dated menu-driven, turn based fighting? I doubt it. Square have developed decent real-time battles before, in games such as Secret of Mana, but it still had the tactical element, of using magic, and powing up the weapons to different levels before attacking.
I fear that FF X, could just be like the previous games, but with better looking cut scenes, and tremendous graphics in battles, without adding to the game at all.
They could use the FF name to do something innovative, knowing that it would sell, but no, not Square.
Other popular games on the way include SSX DVD Edition, apparently released on DVD, but will it be worth buying if you have the original?
The Resident Evil series is to continue, and hopefully it will take some serious steps away from the previous versions that simply required walking away from zombies! If they can make it look good, and have the fright factor turned right up, so you don't expect to be jumped when you are, it may well be a fun experience.
Okay, moving on. What does the XBOX offer?
Project Gotham - A sequel to Metro Street Racer.
Jet Set Radio 2
One of those Oddworld games Abes?
Again hardly an inspirational set of games.
Whats coming on the Nintendo front then?
Well there's Super Smash Bros: Melee. The return of the most original fighter ever to grace the N64. It will have dozens of new features, and is something to truely look forward to.
Wave Race: Blue Storm - Offers highly realistic water effects, and even more stunts than in the original!
Phantasy Star Online 2 - Sequel to the first console RPG to take us online. A fantastic hacking experience!
Donkey Kong Racing - Not exactly a sequel to Diddy Kong Racing, this game involves training animals, and racingthem through jungle tracks!
Then at some point you've got the awesome Zelda game to come, which looks to continue Links fight against Ganondorf in Hyrule, and you can bet that all of the Mario crew will appear in loads of top games too! Not to mention next generation Pokemon games!
I know where I'll turn for original games!
After much excitement Gran Turismo 3 arrives. Not only is it very similar to GT2, it actually has LESS features. Well, maybe not less, but some of the better options from previous incarnations of the game are missing. After the game was delayed for so long, you can't help but feel disappointed.
What else is to come? Metal Gear Solid 2. Likely to be huge, and from the demo, it does seem to offer quite an improvement over the previous game. So at least there's a game here to really look forward too, but the question is how much longer will the wait be?
On with the sequels, Final Fantasy X is on the way. Hooray! But will Square finally abandon the out-dated menu-driven, turn based fighting? I doubt it. Square have developed decent real-time battles before, in games such as Secret of Mana, but it still had the tactical element, of using magic, and powing up the weapons to different levels before attacking.
I fear that FF X, could just be like the previous games, but with better looking cut scenes, and tremendous graphics in battles, without adding to the game at all.
They could use the FF name to do something innovative, knowing that it would sell, but no, not Square.
Other popular games on the way include SSX DVD Edition, apparently released on DVD, but will it be worth buying if you have the original?
The Resident Evil series is to continue, and hopefully it will take some serious steps away from the previous versions that simply required walking away from zombies! If they can make it look good, and have the fright factor turned right up, so you don't expect to be jumped when you are, it may well be a fun experience.
Okay, moving on. What does the XBOX offer?
Project Gotham - A sequel to Metro Street Racer.
Jet Set Radio 2
One of those Oddworld games Abes?
Again hardly an inspirational set of games.
Whats coming on the Nintendo front then?
Well there's Super Smash Bros: Melee. The return of the most original fighter ever to grace the N64. It will have dozens of new features, and is something to truely look forward to.
Wave Race: Blue Storm - Offers highly realistic water effects, and even more stunts than in the original!
Phantasy Star Online 2 - Sequel to the first console RPG to take us online. A fantastic hacking experience!
Donkey Kong Racing - Not exactly a sequel to Diddy Kong Racing, this game involves training animals, and racingthem through jungle tracks!
Then at some point you've got the awesome Zelda game to come, which looks to continue Links fight against Ganondorf in Hyrule, and you can bet that all of the Mario crew will appear in loads of top games too! Not to mention next generation Pokemon games!
I know where I'll turn for original games!
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
I know, it's weird. I tried to explain it in my
> first reply to this thread......
aye... actually... I think that was the post I was replying to???
Sorry Wonderboy, missed yours out there!?!
:)
I know, it's weird. I tried to explain it in my
> first reply to this thread......
aye... actually... I think that was the post I was replying to???
Sorry Wonderboy, missed yours out there!?!
:)
Armitage Shanks wrote:
It wasnt until 1990/91 that they
> designed for the PC...
I'm wrong you know...
Ultima 6 was released in 90/91 ... which was the first (and only) Ultima designed for the Amiga...
Ultima 7-9 were designed for PC play ... Which must have been 92/93+
With all previous Ultimas 0-5 being written for the Apple and C64...
I think thats about right.
It wasnt until 1990/91 that they
> designed for the PC...
I'm wrong you know...
Ultima 6 was released in 90/91 ... which was the first (and only) Ultima designed for the Amiga...
Ultima 7-9 were designed for PC play ... Which must have been 92/93+
With all previous Ultimas 0-5 being written for the Apple and C64...
I think thats about right.
You buy a game, you like it.
They make a sequel
You buy the game, you like it.
Wheres the harm?
They make a sequel
You buy the game, you like it.
Wheres the harm?
"On with the sequels, Final Fantasy X is on the way. Hooray! But will Square finally abandon the out-dated menu-driven, turn based fighting? I doubt it"
Why should they, gamers obviously like it so why fix something that ain't broke?
"I fear that FF X, could just be like the previous games, but with better looking cut scenes, and tremendous graphics in battles, without adding to the game at all.
They could use the FF name to do something innovative, knowing that it would sell, but no, not Square"
Or anyone else for that matter. The majority of sequels that we actually care about have had great predecessors. They don't need major overhauls as the original was often excellent.
Why should they, gamers obviously like it so why fix something that ain't broke?
"I fear that FF X, could just be like the previous games, but with better looking cut scenes, and tremendous graphics in battles, without adding to the game at all.
They could use the FF name to do something innovative, knowing that it would sell, but no, not Square"
Or anyone else for that matter. The majority of sequels that we actually care about have had great predecessors. They don't need major overhauls as the original was often excellent.
Armitage Shanks wrote:
and why people
> seem to have problems with the PS2's 'supposed' sequals and not the
> GC MArio and Zelda titles???
I know, it's weird. I tried to explain it in my first reply to this thread......
and why people
> seem to have problems with the PS2's 'supposed' sequals and not the
> GC MArio and Zelda titles???
I know, it's weird. I tried to explain it in my first reply to this thread......
Your Honour wrote:
BUT, each time they did this, the PC hardware had moved
> on a step, so they were maybe able to utilise more power than
> previous games, so create a bigger gaming world better graphics
> etc?
The original Ultima games were written for the Apple and C64...
It wasnt until 1990/91 that they designed for the PC...
Although, the point here was more to try and explain my ideas of sequals and re-writes...
and why people seem to have problems with the PS2's 'supposed' sequals and not the GC MArio and Zelda titles???
BUT, each time they did this, the PC hardware had moved
> on a step, so they were maybe able to utilise more power than
> previous games, so create a bigger gaming world better graphics
> etc?
The original Ultima games were written for the Apple and C64...
It wasnt until 1990/91 that they designed for the PC...
Although, the point here was more to try and explain my ideas of sequals and re-writes...
and why people seem to have problems with the PS2's 'supposed' sequals and not the GC MArio and Zelda titles???
Armitage Shanks wrote:
Origin, however, when writing a
> new Ultima title, started everything from scrtrach.
They kept
> only the game world map (though usually expanding it somehow) and
> the main characters, but changed pretty much everything
> else.
Redesigning how the game played, how the game looked,
> direction of the title, morality, style, freedom of play, etc...
> everything was a new attempt to build on what they learnt from the
> last game, to create something new and better.
BUT, each time they did this, the PC hardware had moved on a step, so they were maybe able to utilise more power than previous games, so create a bigger gaming world better graphics etc?
Origin, however, when writing a
> new Ultima title, started everything from scrtrach.
They kept
> only the game world map (though usually expanding it somehow) and
> the main characters, but changed pretty much everything
> else.
Redesigning how the game played, how the game looked,
> direction of the title, morality, style, freedom of play, etc...
> everything was a new attempt to build on what they learnt from the
> last game, to create something new and better.
BUT, each time they did this, the PC hardware had moved on a step, so they were maybe able to utilise more power than previous games, so create a bigger gaming world better graphics etc?
Wonderboy wrote:
> Where did I say that Nintendos games were not sequels?
They
> are.
The last comment "I know where I'll turn for original
> games" was merely there to provoke a response in the way of a
> typical console wars thread.
And it worked.
Thanks ;-)
1)I didn't say nintendo games weren't sequels
2)It hasn't provoked a console wars response
> Where did I say that Nintendos games were not sequels?
They
> are.
The last comment "I know where I'll turn for original
> games" was merely there to provoke a response in the way of a
> typical console wars thread.
And it worked.
Thanks ;-)
1)I didn't say nintendo games weren't sequels
2)It hasn't provoked a console wars response
I think the problem here is the difference btween sequals and rewrights...
Now, I've not played any of the PS2 sequals, so dont think I'm classing any of these into the sequal class, as far as I know, they may all be re-rights...
However...
There used to be the Ultima series of RPG's...
Which managed to produce 9 games (excluding underground series, lost worlds, martian dreams, and the odd expansion pack)
Now, the big thing about the Ultima series, (apart from them being largly considered the best computer RPG's ever written)... was that every new game was a completly new vision.
This is going to be quite tough to explain...
Now... most game sequals are pretty much more of the same thing.
A rally racing sequal, for example, will again allow the player drive around tracks, though this time the graphics may be updated, their may be a larger variety tuning techniques, etc...
Actually, before I get too confusing, Its probably best if I use the Fifa titles as an example, so you know where I'm comming from. About sequals which add and enhance, without actually changing the game.
In short, Pretty much the same game, revisited...
Origin, however, when writing a new Ultima title, started everything from scrtrach.
They kept only the game world map (though usually expanding it somehow) and the main characters, but changed pretty much everything else.
Redesigning how the game played, how the game looked, direction of the title, morality, style, freedom of play, etc... everything was a new attempt to build on what they learnt from the last game, to create something new and better.
Another example would be the difference between the SNES Zelda and the N64... (although, I'm not really a big Zelda fan)
---
The point is I think a 'sequal' is seen as a 'another' of the same... 'another' Tomb Raider, or 'another' Fifa title, etc......
Whereas a re-write is when a completely new look is taken of the game...
Making the game based on the idea and storyline, not from the previous attempt...
--
Like I say, Ive not played any of the PS2's stuff, so I'm not saying this is how it is... but I get the impression most people see the PS2 software as sequals...
And is why PS2 titles get so much stick...
I dunno though?
Now, I've not played any of the PS2 sequals, so dont think I'm classing any of these into the sequal class, as far as I know, they may all be re-rights...
However...
There used to be the Ultima series of RPG's...
Which managed to produce 9 games (excluding underground series, lost worlds, martian dreams, and the odd expansion pack)
Now, the big thing about the Ultima series, (apart from them being largly considered the best computer RPG's ever written)... was that every new game was a completly new vision.
This is going to be quite tough to explain...
Now... most game sequals are pretty much more of the same thing.
A rally racing sequal, for example, will again allow the player drive around tracks, though this time the graphics may be updated, their may be a larger variety tuning techniques, etc...
Actually, before I get too confusing, Its probably best if I use the Fifa titles as an example, so you know where I'm comming from. About sequals which add and enhance, without actually changing the game.
In short, Pretty much the same game, revisited...
Origin, however, when writing a new Ultima title, started everything from scrtrach.
They kept only the game world map (though usually expanding it somehow) and the main characters, but changed pretty much everything else.
Redesigning how the game played, how the game looked, direction of the title, morality, style, freedom of play, etc... everything was a new attempt to build on what they learnt from the last game, to create something new and better.
Another example would be the difference between the SNES Zelda and the N64... (although, I'm not really a big Zelda fan)
---
The point is I think a 'sequal' is seen as a 'another' of the same... 'another' Tomb Raider, or 'another' Fifa title, etc......
Whereas a re-write is when a completely new look is taken of the game...
Making the game based on the idea and storyline, not from the previous attempt...
--
Like I say, Ive not played any of the PS2's stuff, so I'm not saying this is how it is... but I get the impression most people see the PS2 software as sequals...
And is why PS2 titles get so much stick...
I dunno though?
Page: