The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 bother??? Why BOTHER?!?!?!? Why do you think? Originality is on of the main things that draws me towards games. It shows me that the developers have put some thought into their game and not just copied all of the best bits from other game of the same genre.
The thing is, when can originality go too far? Another question is, is it acttually possible for a game to be too original? In my view it is.
Take for example a developer decides to throw all of the FPS rules out of the window, such as having health, limited ammo and all of the other things that make a FPS. Would this be taking originality too far? Or would it be a way to breath new life into a tried and tested formula?
The developers have got to learn that although their game needs to be original, their has to be a line drawn at some point to stop it being stupid. Too much orignality, bad, too little originaltiy, bad, just enough originality, very, very good.
A good example of this is Duke Nukem:LOTB. Here we see the develpoers giving the tried and tested formula of 3rd person shooters a little bit of originality. Well what did they do then? Well what they did was got rid of the health side of things and replaced it with an ego meter.
Now instead of dying when you have run out of health, yuou now die when Dukes ego is at rock bottom. Save a babe and see it soar and so on. This game had one new original thing and too me it helped it, it may just be a gimmick, but a good one anyway.
Now, onto a game with too much originality. For me Iggys recking balls pushed the boundaries of originality a bit too far to be refreshing. They turned a racing game on its head and threw in some strange ideas.
In the game you weren't in a car as such, what you were, was a little head, as this head you had to roll around the ascending tracks using a "grappling hook" to get up to the higher levels of the track. I thought that it could be cool when I first saw it, but once I played it I realised they had changed the racing game formula a bit too much.
A game with too little originality now, not going to be hard to think of really. The game in mention is Fifa 2001. Okay, while it is a good football simulation it is blatently not original. Like the many updates before it, it only had one or two new features, mainly just up to date graphics and prettier graphics.
So is that type of a change enough to warrant another spending of your hard earned money??? Hello, no it isn't. Unless you haven't got any of the previous installments, no EA sprts game is worth spending out on. Even if you love the game. There just isn't enough different ideas in it to persuade you to dish out another 35 or so pound.
So now you have read this, I ask you, is there such thing as a game being too original? Or is that not possible?
(;o|
Thanks for reading, MJ
The thing is, when can originality go too far? Another question is, is it acttually possible for a game to be too original? In my view it is.
Take for example a developer decides to throw all of the FPS rules out of the window, such as having health, limited ammo and all of the other things that make a FPS. Would this be taking originality too far? Or would it be a way to breath new life into a tried and tested formula?
The developers have got to learn that although their game needs to be original, their has to be a line drawn at some point to stop it being stupid. Too much orignality, bad, too little originaltiy, bad, just enough originality, very, very good.
A good example of this is Duke Nukem:LOTB. Here we see the develpoers giving the tried and tested formula of 3rd person shooters a little bit of originality. Well what did they do then? Well what they did was got rid of the health side of things and replaced it with an ego meter.
Now instead of dying when you have run out of health, yuou now die when Dukes ego is at rock bottom. Save a babe and see it soar and so on. This game had one new original thing and too me it helped it, it may just be a gimmick, but a good one anyway.
Now, onto a game with too much originality. For me Iggys recking balls pushed the boundaries of originality a bit too far to be refreshing. They turned a racing game on its head and threw in some strange ideas.
In the game you weren't in a car as such, what you were, was a little head, as this head you had to roll around the ascending tracks using a "grappling hook" to get up to the higher levels of the track. I thought that it could be cool when I first saw it, but once I played it I realised they had changed the racing game formula a bit too much.
A game with too little originality now, not going to be hard to think of really. The game in mention is Fifa 2001. Okay, while it is a good football simulation it is blatently not original. Like the many updates before it, it only had one or two new features, mainly just up to date graphics and prettier graphics.
So is that type of a change enough to warrant another spending of your hard earned money??? Hello, no it isn't. Unless you haven't got any of the previous installments, no EA sprts game is worth spending out on. Even if you love the game. There just isn't enough different ideas in it to persuade you to dish out another 35 or so pound.
So now you have read this, I ask you, is there such thing as a game being too original? Or is that not possible?
(;o|
Thanks for reading, MJ
Page:
nintendo's new game animal forest is original. with some people it will be popular but i think others will find it boring and childish.
HA! I'm right, and FantasyMeister is wrong. Thanks Meka, proofed what I knew.
No, Goldeneye was launched late '97.
It was re-released as a Players Choice title later, probably in Jan 99
It was re-released as a Players Choice title later, probably in Jan 99
Wrong, wrong, wrong! I don't mean to question you oh great gold coloured named one, but Goldeneye was released in October/November of 1997 in England so in Japan it would have been earlier. Just accept it.
GoldenEye was released 1st Jan 1999
Perfect Dark was released 23rd May 2000
Source: Rival site to SR, but informative nonetheless.
That's over 14 months between the two, which is why you were waiting more than a year between releases.
These are 'initial' release dates by the way, not UK launch release dates.
Perfect Dark was released 23rd May 2000
Source: Rival site to SR, but informative nonetheless.
That's over 14 months between the two, which is why you were waiting more than a year between releases.
These are 'initial' release dates by the way, not UK launch release dates.
Sort it out FM, Goldeneye couldn't have been released in 1999, Perfect Dark wasn't released until 2000 and I can assure you I was waiting longer than a year for it to be released.
M16, JINX!!!
:-)
:-)
DeltaJava wrote:
> MJ, now this is a good thread. Hopefully it'll be your first GAD.
I doubt it, he's just been banned.
> MJ, now this is a good thread. Hopefully it'll be your first GAD.
I doubt it, he's just been banned.
DeltaJava wrote:
> MJ, now this is a good thread. Hopefully it'll be your first GAD.
It's not a thread, it's a topic. He wont win GAD because he has been banned from this site.
> MJ, now this is a good thread. Hopefully it'll be your first GAD.
It's not a thread, it's a topic. He wont win GAD because he has been banned from this site.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Something I read the other day in PC Gamer was that Goldeneye was
> the first game to use a sniper rifle... at least the zoom function,
> anyway. Anybody know any different?
MDK on the PSX (Murder Death Kill) Released 13/11/1997.
GoldenEye on the N64 Released 1/1/1999.
:P
> Something I read the other day in PC Gamer was that Goldeneye was
> the first game to use a sniper rifle... at least the zoom function,
> anyway. Anybody know any different?
MDK on the PSX (Murder Death Kill) Released 13/11/1997.
GoldenEye on the N64 Released 1/1/1999.
:P
Page: