The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I was reading different magasines and I have visited various websites plus many of my friends have talked about the point I am making today.
Many people say that sequels to successful and not-so-successful games are not what they want to see on the PS2. They say that the machine now needs loads of original stuff as it is progressing into the future. People say that Tomb Rauder games are not appealing anymore because of the number of sequels the original game has.
People nowadays are not as enthusiastic about sequels as they were before. Ok there are exceptions like MGS2 or Final Fantasy games but they never fail to impress. What I mean is while people love playing original games, most of them are a bit sceptical about the fortcoming sequels.They believe that the sequels may not match the appeal and the fun of the original game. But there are others that believe that sequels are in most cases fun, entertaining and sometimes even better than originals.
And I am one of those people. While some people complain about the lack of decent games on a PS2, my question to you is: What would people do without sequels this year? The launch line-up was the best on any console but it still lacked the games that would "sell" the PS2. But without games like FIFA 2001, QuakeIII Revolution or GT3 people would hardly have anything to play.
My point here is that people should stop moaning about the number of sequels out there and consider that most of them are essential games and deserve their place in any gamer's library.
Many people may disagree with me, but don't get me wrong-I would love to see more original games out there but I would also love the developers making good, playable sequels that will keep us glued to our screens for more and more hours.
Sequels in no way can harm the machine's reputation (exception-Army Men) and companies should not let their attention slip wholly to making new original games . I personally think it should be 50:50/
Anyway plz tell me what you lot think about what I said here.
Thanx for listening!!!!
Many people say that sequels to successful and not-so-successful games are not what they want to see on the PS2. They say that the machine now needs loads of original stuff as it is progressing into the future. People say that Tomb Rauder games are not appealing anymore because of the number of sequels the original game has.
People nowadays are not as enthusiastic about sequels as they were before. Ok there are exceptions like MGS2 or Final Fantasy games but they never fail to impress. What I mean is while people love playing original games, most of them are a bit sceptical about the fortcoming sequels.They believe that the sequels may not match the appeal and the fun of the original game. But there are others that believe that sequels are in most cases fun, entertaining and sometimes even better than originals.
And I am one of those people. While some people complain about the lack of decent games on a PS2, my question to you is: What would people do without sequels this year? The launch line-up was the best on any console but it still lacked the games that would "sell" the PS2. But without games like FIFA 2001, QuakeIII Revolution or GT3 people would hardly have anything to play.
My point here is that people should stop moaning about the number of sequels out there and consider that most of them are essential games and deserve their place in any gamer's library.
Many people may disagree with me, but don't get me wrong-I would love to see more original games out there but I would also love the developers making good, playable sequels that will keep us glued to our screens for more and more hours.
Sequels in no way can harm the machine's reputation (exception-Army Men) and companies should not let their attention slip wholly to making new original games . I personally think it should be 50:50/
Anyway plz tell me what you lot think about what I said here.
Thanx for listening!!!!
I was reading different magasines and I have visited various websites plus many of my friends have talked about the point I am making today.
Many people say that sequels to successful and not-so-successful games are not what they want to see on the PS2. They say that the machine now needs loads of original stuff as it is progressing into the future. People say that Tomb Rauder games are not appealing anymore because of the number of sequels the original game has.
People nowadays are not as enthusiastic about sequels as they were before. Ok there are exceptions like MGS2 or Final Fantasy games but they never fail to impress. What I mean is while people love playing original games, most of them are a bit sceptical about the fortcoming sequels.They believe that the sequels may not match the appeal and the fun of the original game. But there are others that believe that sequels are in most cases fun, entertaining and sometimes even better than originals.
And I am one of those people. While some people complain about the lack of decent games on a PS2, my question to you is: What would people do without sequels this year? The launch line-up was the best on any console but it still lacked the games that would "sell" the PS2. But without games like FIFA 2001, QuakeIII Revolution or GT3 people would hardly have anything to play.
My point here is that people should stop moaning about the number of sequels out there and consider that most of them are essential games and deserve their place in any gamer's library.
Many people may disagree with me, but don't get me wrong-I would love to see more original games out there but I would also love the developers making good, playable sequels that will keep us glued to our screens for more and more hours.
Sequels in no way can harm the machine's reputation (exception-Army Men) and companies should not let their attention slip wholly to making new original games . I personally think it should be 50:50/
Anyway plz tell me what you lot think about what I said here.
Thanx for listening!!!!
Many people say that sequels to successful and not-so-successful games are not what they want to see on the PS2. They say that the machine now needs loads of original stuff as it is progressing into the future. People say that Tomb Rauder games are not appealing anymore because of the number of sequels the original game has.
People nowadays are not as enthusiastic about sequels as they were before. Ok there are exceptions like MGS2 or Final Fantasy games but they never fail to impress. What I mean is while people love playing original games, most of them are a bit sceptical about the fortcoming sequels.They believe that the sequels may not match the appeal and the fun of the original game. But there are others that believe that sequels are in most cases fun, entertaining and sometimes even better than originals.
And I am one of those people. While some people complain about the lack of decent games on a PS2, my question to you is: What would people do without sequels this year? The launch line-up was the best on any console but it still lacked the games that would "sell" the PS2. But without games like FIFA 2001, QuakeIII Revolution or GT3 people would hardly have anything to play.
My point here is that people should stop moaning about the number of sequels out there and consider that most of them are essential games and deserve their place in any gamer's library.
Many people may disagree with me, but don't get me wrong-I would love to see more original games out there but I would also love the developers making good, playable sequels that will keep us glued to our screens for more and more hours.
Sequels in no way can harm the machine's reputation (exception-Army Men) and companies should not let their attention slip wholly to making new original games . I personally think it should be 50:50/
Anyway plz tell me what you lot think about what I said here.
Thanx for listening!!!!