The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This post may seem as though it's having a go at Sony and the PS2, but it's not. Sony are in business to make money, to be succesful, and they have achieved that, so all credit to them. This post is about my annoyance with people who complain about the lack of originality in the games market today, yet then confess to owning a PS2. Excuse me?! How can you say that?
If you like the sort of games available for the PS2, fine, no problem, but why do some people who do that then complain about the lack or originality? I'm not getting at specific people here, just the populace in general. And I'm not just throwing wild accusations around because of my dislike for Sony and the PS2. I grudgingly respect the both of them. What I'm complaining about lies in fact, and can bu summed up by this simple statement:
The PS2 has the largest number of least original titles EVER.
Simple. I don't mean sequels either, all platforms have sequels. I'm talking about genre defining games. All platforms have those as well, except the PS2. The PC probably has most, simply due to the nature of the system. Let's have a look at a few "acknowledged classics" of recent times, shall we?
Black and White (PC), Deus Ex (PC), Jet Set Radio (DC), Goldeneye (N64), Zelda (N64), Tony Hawks (PSX), Half Life (PC), M:SR (DC), this list goes on and on. Yet none of these titles appeared initially on the PS2. Why not? I know that the PS2 is still young as a console, but there are games scheduled for both the XBox and 'Cube that will push genres to their limits, maybe even begin new genres. Please, don't throw the old "What about GT3?" at me either. The game that Sony is using to sell their next-gen console is a re-hash of a 3 year old game, but with better graphics. 'Nuff said.
Is Sony's position a reflection the the state of the industry at the moment? At a time when more people are involved in emulation than with online games (emulation fans number in their millions, as opposed to the mere tens of thousands who play online), it seems that we are aching to get back to the roots of gaming, rather than embrace new things. Maybe Sony have it right?
Maybe it is because the money men have taken over the industry. No longer can someone program a game in their bedroom, take it to the local computer shop for people to try out, and it get turned into a multiplatform, multi-title, million dollar franchise, which is what happened with Worms. That just won't happen any more. Games companies are run by business men, not programmers.
The sole purpose of a games company is to make money, and if they have a product that will sell to the masses, how-ever boring or rubbish it is, they will make it. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire anyone? Countless TombRaider clones? Countless The Sims add-ons. But can you really blame them for not wanting to try anything different? Look at MS Train Sim, how many jokes, how much ridicule was there about that game, just because it was trying to be different?
Luckily, some developers do have the money, the inspiration and the name to pull something new out of the bag. Games like Max Payne, B&W, Jet Set Radio etc, the ones I mentioned earlier. All either new genres, or pushing an exisitng genre to it's limits. It seems though, that you need to be an established name in the industry, before you get to go your own way. Peter Molyneux (B&W) and Warren Spector (Deus Ex) both started out in the gaming industry, when you could just get a couple of people together and make a classic. It is harder now for new people/companies to do that.
I just hope that with (hopefully) all the new gamers that are brought into our fantastic gaming world by the new consoles, the developers will pay attention, and gives us the original titles we need. Also, next time you complain about the lack of originality, just check to make sure you're not actually contributing to the amount of dross we have to put up with at the moment.
If you like the sort of games available for the PS2, fine, no problem, but why do some people who do that then complain about the lack or originality? I'm not getting at specific people here, just the populace in general. And I'm not just throwing wild accusations around because of my dislike for Sony and the PS2. I grudgingly respect the both of them. What I'm complaining about lies in fact, and can bu summed up by this simple statement:
The PS2 has the largest number of least original titles EVER.
Simple. I don't mean sequels either, all platforms have sequels. I'm talking about genre defining games. All platforms have those as well, except the PS2. The PC probably has most, simply due to the nature of the system. Let's have a look at a few "acknowledged classics" of recent times, shall we?
Black and White (PC), Deus Ex (PC), Jet Set Radio (DC), Goldeneye (N64), Zelda (N64), Tony Hawks (PSX), Half Life (PC), M:SR (DC), this list goes on and on. Yet none of these titles appeared initially on the PS2. Why not? I know that the PS2 is still young as a console, but there are games scheduled for both the XBox and 'Cube that will push genres to their limits, maybe even begin new genres. Please, don't throw the old "What about GT3?" at me either. The game that Sony is using to sell their next-gen console is a re-hash of a 3 year old game, but with better graphics. 'Nuff said.
Is Sony's position a reflection the the state of the industry at the moment? At a time when more people are involved in emulation than with online games (emulation fans number in their millions, as opposed to the mere tens of thousands who play online), it seems that we are aching to get back to the roots of gaming, rather than embrace new things. Maybe Sony have it right?
Maybe it is because the money men have taken over the industry. No longer can someone program a game in their bedroom, take it to the local computer shop for people to try out, and it get turned into a multiplatform, multi-title, million dollar franchise, which is what happened with Worms. That just won't happen any more. Games companies are run by business men, not programmers.
The sole purpose of a games company is to make money, and if they have a product that will sell to the masses, how-ever boring or rubbish it is, they will make it. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire anyone? Countless TombRaider clones? Countless The Sims add-ons. But can you really blame them for not wanting to try anything different? Look at MS Train Sim, how many jokes, how much ridicule was there about that game, just because it was trying to be different?
Luckily, some developers do have the money, the inspiration and the name to pull something new out of the bag. Games like Max Payne, B&W, Jet Set Radio etc, the ones I mentioned earlier. All either new genres, or pushing an exisitng genre to it's limits. It seems though, that you need to be an established name in the industry, before you get to go your own way. Peter Molyneux (B&W) and Warren Spector (Deus Ex) both started out in the gaming industry, when you could just get a couple of people together and make a classic. It is harder now for new people/companies to do that.
I just hope that with (hopefully) all the new gamers that are brought into our fantastic gaming world by the new consoles, the developers will pay attention, and gives us the original titles we need. Also, next time you complain about the lack of originality, just check to make sure you're not actually contributing to the amount of dross we have to put up with at the moment.
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
> Maybe that tells you a little about Sega's
> opinion of PS2 owners? That they don't want originality, they want
> same old.
On the other hand, it could be considered a 'crap filter'.
If a new game bombs, it won't get a PS2 release. If it's a success, it'll get a port...
> Maybe that tells you a little about Sega's
> opinion of PS2 owners? That they don't want originality, they want
> same old.
On the other hand, it could be considered a 'crap filter'.
If a new game bombs, it won't get a PS2 release. If it's a success, it'll get a port...
Goldeneye was a FPS, like Doom, Dark Forces and Quake before it.
It added a whole bunch of new ideas.
It wasn't simply A-B in a pre set path.
You had to explore the level in order to find the objectives and complete them. Simply rush to the end shooting everything that moves fails the mission.
Shooting innocent people also fails you.
Accuracy is awarded as enemies went down easier if you shot them in the head or limped if you shot them in the leg rather than just not reacting.
Stealth like Silenced weapons and Sniper rifles were made famous. It was cinematic and followed the film without needing a proper cut scene.
The levels were colourful, detailed and well designed.
It introduced FPS four player splitscreen deathmatch.
It re defined it's genre.
On the PC they ask if it's as good as Half Life.
On consoles they ask if it's as good as Goldeneye.
And it's not the only game to bring a genre to a new level.
It added a whole bunch of new ideas.
It wasn't simply A-B in a pre set path.
You had to explore the level in order to find the objectives and complete them. Simply rush to the end shooting everything that moves fails the mission.
Shooting innocent people also fails you.
Accuracy is awarded as enemies went down easier if you shot them in the head or limped if you shot them in the leg rather than just not reacting.
Stealth like Silenced weapons and Sniper rifles were made famous. It was cinematic and followed the film without needing a proper cut scene.
The levels were colourful, detailed and well designed.
It introduced FPS four player splitscreen deathmatch.
It re defined it's genre.
On the PC they ask if it's as good as Half Life.
On consoles they ask if it's as good as Goldeneye.
And it's not the only game to bring a genre to a new level.
DeltaJava wrote:
> The thing with the lack of originality these days is that most
> gaming genres have already been invented, so it's getting more and
> more difficult for new ones to be created. During the dawn of
> gaming, the reason to why there was s o many "original"
> titles was because there wasn't anything to compare it wioth
> previously.
Yes, but to get a classic game, you don't have to invent a new genre, just push and exisiting one to it's limits.
Look at Half Life, B&W, M:SR, all exisiting genres, but all games that push the genre to new limits and set new standards.
> The thing with the lack of originality these days is that most
> gaming genres have already been invented, so it's getting more and
> more difficult for new ones to be created. During the dawn of
> gaming, the reason to why there was s o many "original"
> titles was because there wasn't anything to compare it wioth
> previously.
Yes, but to get a classic game, you don't have to invent a new genre, just push and exisiting one to it's limits.
Look at Half Life, B&W, M:SR, all exisiting genres, but all games that push the genre to new limits and set new standards.
I refuse to reply to this, because I just can't be arsed to have this huge argument at this time of night.
The thing with the lack of originality these days is that most gaming genres have already been invented, so it's getting more and more difficult for new ones to be created. During the dawn of gaming, the reason to why there was s o many "original" titles was because there wasn't anything to compare it wioth previously.
Ant wrote:
The good thing with Red
> Faction was the ability to destroy the whole environment-that made
> it original.
True, but not genre defining. When a new FPS is released, people don't say "is it better than Ref Faction?" They say "Is it better then Half Life". Half Life is the benchmark game for FPS's.
All I'm saying is, the PS2 has less benchmark titles than any other system. Developers don't seem to want to take the risk.
Even Sega aren't releasing any wierd games for the PS2. Titles like MonkeyBall are out on the 'Cube instead.
Maybe that tells you a little about Sega's opinion of PS2 owners? That they don't want originality, they want same old.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with some titles that are they same old. I like a good FPS as much as the next man, you know what you're getting, it's standard stuff. But the PS2 seems to be ONLY these sort of games.
As I siad initially, the PS2 is still young, and some people like those sort of games, "If it ain't broke.." etc. So I can see why some people did buy a PS2. It's when these people then complain about the lack of originality that it irks me.
People scorned the console with possbily the most number of original titles: The DreamCast.
Why!?
The good thing with Red
> Faction was the ability to destroy the whole environment-that made
> it original.
True, but not genre defining. When a new FPS is released, people don't say "is it better than Ref Faction?" They say "Is it better then Half Life". Half Life is the benchmark game for FPS's.
All I'm saying is, the PS2 has less benchmark titles than any other system. Developers don't seem to want to take the risk.
Even Sega aren't releasing any wierd games for the PS2. Titles like MonkeyBall are out on the 'Cube instead.
Maybe that tells you a little about Sega's opinion of PS2 owners? That they don't want originality, they want same old.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with some titles that are they same old. I like a good FPS as much as the next man, you know what you're getting, it's standard stuff. But the PS2 seems to be ONLY these sort of games.
As I siad initially, the PS2 is still young, and some people like those sort of games, "If it ain't broke.." etc. So I can see why some people did buy a PS2. It's when these people then complain about the lack of originality that it irks me.
People scorned the console with possbily the most number of original titles: The DreamCast.
Why!?
But the problem is, every idea seems to be used! Yeah okay, you can come up with a new FPS with new plot and characters, but the basic gameplay's the same as any other FPS.
The good thing with Red Faction was the ability to destroy the whole environment-that made it original.
The good thing with Red Faction was the ability to destroy the whole environment-that made it original.
Shocktrooper, are you suggesting I import one from Australia?
Would that not be slightly expenisve, with importation fees (if any?). I don't really know about importing stuff as I have never done it before.
Any tips/advice?
Would that not be slightly expenisve, with importation fees (if any?). I don't really know about importing stuff as I have never done it before.
Any tips/advice?
PS2's are most definitely boring. Especially if you don't have a game or two to play with it.
If I could get good money for my PS2 I would sell it. And it is boring. That is why I am especially looking forward to the X-box. It is new completely, and it at the moment does not have any exclusive, long running series. The GC is new but it will have the latest installments of some series which I like. Also the GC is not going to make its November 5th release date in the US. And X-box is on time. Good. Which shows so far that Microsoft can manage to run a console. And it is them that may be the saviour of gaming in the long run. They have tried something new and different with the Train Simulator. The PS2 is a good system with good hardware. But SO FAR it has pretty much been sequels and un-original games that have been released for it. Not that some of them are not good, some are but they still do not advance gaming in any notable way. Maybe one day game makers will finally pay attention to what we want and have a renaissance. Until then we just have to get the most enjoyment out of what games are around and the occasional gems that are released from time to time.
Page: