The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
MJ, now this is a good thread. Hopefully it'll be your first GAD.
Drinking it.
My brother's home made beer.
Well at least I think it's beer.
My brother's home made beer.
Well at least I think it's beer.
Hmmm, one of my passwords in moonshine!
Ding dong - a bit of both is required.
A mix of the old and the new; the traditional and the inventive.
Games creators should never throw out the baby with the bathwater.
An old format with an original twist - get the gist?
Familiarity co-mingled with daring is the way forward.
(Excuse my gibberish, but I've been slurping the home brew all day, hic).
A mix of the old and the new; the traditional and the inventive.
Games creators should never throw out the baby with the bathwater.
An old format with an original twist - get the gist?
Familiarity co-mingled with daring is the way forward.
(Excuse my gibberish, but I've been slurping the home brew all day, hic).
POPAROONI!
Come on everyone, don't let my first good thread in ages die straight away.
(;o|
Come on everyone, don't let my first good thread in ages die straight away.
(;o|
If this sounds bossy....its because it is :P. No, I was wondering if you could keep the conversation swaying towards the main topic please?
(;o|
(;o|
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Yes, of course, the deposit is £300,000, an empty building,
> and about twenty PCs... :0)
Sounds like my nearest net cafe.... It shut down soon after opening. I do not know but the PCs might still be inside. It is fairly empty. And if you could just scrape up £300, 000 then excellent.
> Yes, of course, the deposit is £300,000, an empty building,
> and about twenty PCs... :0)
Sounds like my nearest net cafe.... It shut down soon after opening. I do not know but the PCs might still be inside. It is fairly empty. And if you could just scrape up £300, 000 then excellent.
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?
Yes it diddly-doodley was the first.
> 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?
Yes it diddly-doodley was the first.
That doesn't sound right to me Grix, it may be true, but if it is I am very surprised. Surely some PC FPSs used the sniper rifles zoom function before Goldeneye.
Actually now I think about it, it probably was. I think this because Goldeneye was the first Missions based FPS. For the first time a FPS wasn't corridor based with a storyline something like "Kill everything or die".
Goldeneye had more depth than that, so thats probably why Rare gave you the option to use the sniper rifle properly.
(;o|
Actually now I think about it, it probably was. I think this because Goldeneye was the first Missions based FPS. For the first time a FPS wasn't corridor based with a storyline something like "Kill everything or die".
Goldeneye had more depth than that, so thats probably why Rare gave you the option to use the sniper rifle properly.
(;o|
Page: