The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The standard of games these days is going up and up and the choice of great games we have to buy and play is quite alot, but there are still a few titles that fail to meet todays standards.
If you look through magazines or articles on the web you can find out information on alot of up-comming titles, some promise so much like MGS2, some are there with no hype yet just they just look great. Take burn out for the PS2 (shiny red car or shiny red racer were its working titles) it hasn't had much hype but at E3 it impressed alot of people.
alot of hype for games can be good but it can also be bad. So whats the good points, well it can help sell loads as most of the time the hype is true and the game is good. it can show you the good games worth buying and stop you from wasting your money on poor games. But hype can also be a bad thing in some cases. Anyone remember the bouncer, a game that promised so much and then disapointed lots. The graphics were great but the gameplay suffered alot from this. Turned out to be a not so great game.
So what is this post really getting at then? Well with todays technology surely developers should be able to make good if not great games that aren't flawed in some way. If you think about it the better game they make the more copies they should sell. I own a PS2 and buy a few magazines and I see quite a few games that get awarded less than 40/100. Ok I know the PS2 is fairly new and it will take a while to work out the best techniques to make games on it.
It is a developers job to make games, making poor games surely is't good work. Surely if they don't feel the game is as best as they can make it then they hold back on release and improve it as best they can. Fair enough if people don't like the game then they don't have to buy it but what about those unfortunate enough to know nothing about it and just buy it from what the box says. Take Army men for example, not what I would call a good game, its sequels are as bad, so why do they bother releasing them? Surely they don't make much money of them, if any? Wouldn't it be better just to think on something else and try their luck with that.
Maybe there should a certain standard that all games have to meet before release, if they don't meet it then they don't get released until they are able to meet todays standards. As a gamer I would like to see more quality games released, there are quite a few comming out for the PS2 that I can't wait to get my hands on but I can't help wonder that maybe I will be let down when they are finally released just like the bouncer did.
But who knows maybe these poor games are useful for some things. They make the good ones look alot better and may appeal to someone somewhere. They are also good if a friend buys them as you can make fun of them for buying it then invite him/her round and show them some of your great games. The price of poor games goes down quite quickly so If you like collecting games then these are cheap buys. Also make cheap presents for your friends. Although they may not call you friend if they hate the game.
So what about the rest of you. Do you think all games should have to meet a certain standard before they are released? Are you happy with the way things are just now? By todays standards of technology do you think all games released should be good anyway?
If you look through magazines or articles on the web you can find out information on alot of up-comming titles, some promise so much like MGS2, some are there with no hype yet just they just look great. Take burn out for the PS2 (shiny red car or shiny red racer were its working titles) it hasn't had much hype but at E3 it impressed alot of people.
alot of hype for games can be good but it can also be bad. So whats the good points, well it can help sell loads as most of the time the hype is true and the game is good. it can show you the good games worth buying and stop you from wasting your money on poor games. But hype can also be a bad thing in some cases. Anyone remember the bouncer, a game that promised so much and then disapointed lots. The graphics were great but the gameplay suffered alot from this. Turned out to be a not so great game.
So what is this post really getting at then? Well with todays technology surely developers should be able to make good if not great games that aren't flawed in some way. If you think about it the better game they make the more copies they should sell. I own a PS2 and buy a few magazines and I see quite a few games that get awarded less than 40/100. Ok I know the PS2 is fairly new and it will take a while to work out the best techniques to make games on it.
It is a developers job to make games, making poor games surely is't good work. Surely if they don't feel the game is as best as they can make it then they hold back on release and improve it as best they can. Fair enough if people don't like the game then they don't have to buy it but what about those unfortunate enough to know nothing about it and just buy it from what the box says. Take Army men for example, not what I would call a good game, its sequels are as bad, so why do they bother releasing them? Surely they don't make much money of them, if any? Wouldn't it be better just to think on something else and try their luck with that.
Maybe there should a certain standard that all games have to meet before release, if they don't meet it then they don't get released until they are able to meet todays standards. As a gamer I would like to see more quality games released, there are quite a few comming out for the PS2 that I can't wait to get my hands on but I can't help wonder that maybe I will be let down when they are finally released just like the bouncer did.
But who knows maybe these poor games are useful for some things. They make the good ones look alot better and may appeal to someone somewhere. They are also good if a friend buys them as you can make fun of them for buying it then invite him/her round and show them some of your great games. The price of poor games goes down quite quickly so If you like collecting games then these are cheap buys. Also make cheap presents for your friends. Although they may not call you friend if they hate the game.
So what about the rest of you. Do you think all games should have to meet a certain standard before they are released? Are you happy with the way things are just now? By todays standards of technology do you think all games released should be good anyway?
I actually bought 442. (There's a sucker born every minute!)
It was without doubt the worst game ever released. Shocking.
It was without doubt the worst game ever released. Shocking.
And even the name of the game sounds poo! :-)
A game named "4-4-2 Soccer" was released on PlayStation a few years ago.
It was one of the worst games ever to be released. The graphics were so bad that half the pitch seemed to be a few metres wider than the other, the gameplay was extremely poor, with hardly any options/modes and poor controls and it got 1/10 from the Official UK Playstation Magazine.
It just shows that any game will get released, whether it's utter rubbish or not. So yes, games do need a standard to live up to.
It was one of the worst games ever to be released. The graphics were so bad that half the pitch seemed to be a few metres wider than the other, the gameplay was extremely poor, with hardly any options/modes and poor controls and it got 1/10 from the Official UK Playstation Magazine.
It just shows that any game will get released, whether it's utter rubbish or not. So yes, games do need a standard to live up to.
The standard of games these days is going up and up and the choice of great games we have to buy and play is quite alot, but there are still a few titles that fail to meet todays standards.
If you look through magazines or articles on the web you can find out information on alot of up-comming titles, some promise so much like MGS2, some are there with no hype yet just they just look great. Take burn out for the PS2 (shiny red car or shiny red racer were its working titles) it hasn't had much hype but at E3 it impressed alot of people.
alot of hype for games can be good but it can also be bad. So whats the good points, well it can help sell loads as most of the time the hype is true and the game is good. it can show you the good games worth buying and stop you from wasting your money on poor games. But hype can also be a bad thing in some cases. Anyone remember the bouncer, a game that promised so much and then disapointed lots. The graphics were great but the gameplay suffered alot from this. Turned out to be a not so great game.
So what is this post really getting at then? Well with todays technology surely developers should be able to make good if not great games that aren't flawed in some way. If you think about it the better game they make the more copies they should sell. I own a PS2 and buy a few magazines and I see quite a few games that get awarded less than 40/100. Ok I know the PS2 is fairly new and it will take a while to work out the best techniques to make games on it.
It is a developers job to make games, making poor games surely is't good work. Surely if they don't feel the game is as best as they can make it then they hold back on release and improve it as best they can. Fair enough if people don't like the game then they don't have to buy it but what about those unfortunate enough to know nothing about it and just buy it from what the box says. Take Army men for example, not what I would call a good game, its sequels are as bad, so why do they bother releasing them? Surely they don't make much money of them, if any? Wouldn't it be better just to think on something else and try their luck with that.
Maybe there should a certain standard that all games have to meet before release, if they don't meet it then they don't get released until they are able to meet todays standards. As a gamer I would like to see more quality games released, there are quite a few comming out for the PS2 that I can't wait to get my hands on but I can't help wonder that maybe I will be let down when they are finally released just like the bouncer did.
But who knows maybe these poor games are useful for some things. They make the good ones look alot better and may appeal to someone somewhere. They are also good if a friend buys them as you can make fun of them for buying it then invite him/her round and show them some of your great games. The price of poor games goes down quite quickly so If you like collecting games then these are cheap buys. Also make cheap presents for your friends. Although they may not call you friend if they hate the game.
So what about the rest of you. Do you think all games should have to meet a certain standard before they are released? Are you happy with the way things are just now? By todays standards of technology do you think all games released should be good anyway?
If you look through magazines or articles on the web you can find out information on alot of up-comming titles, some promise so much like MGS2, some are there with no hype yet just they just look great. Take burn out for the PS2 (shiny red car or shiny red racer were its working titles) it hasn't had much hype but at E3 it impressed alot of people.
alot of hype for games can be good but it can also be bad. So whats the good points, well it can help sell loads as most of the time the hype is true and the game is good. it can show you the good games worth buying and stop you from wasting your money on poor games. But hype can also be a bad thing in some cases. Anyone remember the bouncer, a game that promised so much and then disapointed lots. The graphics were great but the gameplay suffered alot from this. Turned out to be a not so great game.
So what is this post really getting at then? Well with todays technology surely developers should be able to make good if not great games that aren't flawed in some way. If you think about it the better game they make the more copies they should sell. I own a PS2 and buy a few magazines and I see quite a few games that get awarded less than 40/100. Ok I know the PS2 is fairly new and it will take a while to work out the best techniques to make games on it.
It is a developers job to make games, making poor games surely is't good work. Surely if they don't feel the game is as best as they can make it then they hold back on release and improve it as best they can. Fair enough if people don't like the game then they don't have to buy it but what about those unfortunate enough to know nothing about it and just buy it from what the box says. Take Army men for example, not what I would call a good game, its sequels are as bad, so why do they bother releasing them? Surely they don't make much money of them, if any? Wouldn't it be better just to think on something else and try their luck with that.
Maybe there should a certain standard that all games have to meet before release, if they don't meet it then they don't get released until they are able to meet todays standards. As a gamer I would like to see more quality games released, there are quite a few comming out for the PS2 that I can't wait to get my hands on but I can't help wonder that maybe I will be let down when they are finally released just like the bouncer did.
But who knows maybe these poor games are useful for some things. They make the good ones look alot better and may appeal to someone somewhere. They are also good if a friend buys them as you can make fun of them for buying it then invite him/her round and show them some of your great games. The price of poor games goes down quite quickly so If you like collecting games then these are cheap buys. Also make cheap presents for your friends. Although they may not call you friend if they hate the game.
So what about the rest of you. Do you think all games should have to meet a certain standard before they are released? Are you happy with the way things are just now? By todays standards of technology do you think all games released should be good anyway?