The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Haven't touched my PS2 for a game in about 3 months now.
I played GT3 when a mate brough it over for a while, and we revisited Smackdown 2 for a laugh - But that's the 1st time in a long time I've used it for anything other than movies.
I do play PC games quite a bit, but have found them less and less interesting.
I don't know why that is. Same old games?
Max Payne is top, something radically new and exciting.
Completed it in 2 days.
Operation Flashpoint is good fun, but I only play that multi-player online with my boys, can't be bothered with the single-player campaign missions.
Train Simulator - At least it was different. I made fun of it, but it was like nothing else out there. Worth a laugh.
So I went back and revisted some old PC games I haven't touched in over a year.
System Shock 2 is ok, but just "run around ship, find key, use key, get out".
Even tried Counterstrike online but got bored with watching Clan Clowns win over and over and over again.
Why is this? Why am I growing weary with computer games?
There are some titles coming out that I will buy, Silent Hill 2, MGS2 and they should be good.
I played a demo of Red Faction on the PC, tutorial was awesome, but within 5 minutes of playing the 1st level, I was just running through mines shooting people.
*sigh*
I want something new, I want something to come along and completely blow me away, surprise and shock me.
MGS2 will be good, but again it's much of a muchness. Run here, hide and shoot.
There have been gaming moments that have made me smile with the freshness of them. Metal Gear Solid, hunting high and low for the frequency to contact someone, only to discover the code is on the back of the box.
THAT is what I want more of, developers using their ingenuity instead of just pumping more polygons in and upping the pixels.
Played Serious Sam on the PC.
That was a brilliant game, just run about shooting things.
No brain to it, no plot, no puzzles to solve, just pure shooting and running.
That was such a nice break from the "new gameplay" that is being rammed down my throat.
Black and White - when that was released, I was genuinely pleased with it. Seemed to be new and startingly innovative.
But it's not.
You train your creature for a bit, it learns and does it by itself.
That game is taking over villages, that's it.
Cast miracle, plant houses, take over village.
The end.
Is it that hard to come up with something original instead of just repeating old successes?
PC Gamer reports that since the release of Max Payne, other developers have been stealing the ideas of bullet-time etc and implementing them in their own games.
Hello?
Did it not occur to these people that the reason Max Payne has taken the gaming world by storm is that is has things never seen before?
In a few months, every game will have these little tricks, but we'll have seen them and be bored by them.
Where's the fun? Where are the new ideas? Where's the thing that will make me go "Jesus, that's stunning!"
I loved Metal Gear Solid, the hiding and stealth.
MSG2 will have nice graphics etc, but the idea is old now.
I trust Hideao has more little ideas like the code on the CD box, just a little something, a spark of originality.
Maybe that's why I'm not excited by The Gamecube.
Mario Worlds
Zelda's something-or-other
I'm sure they're good games, but I've played them before somewhere else.
I thought the PS2 would offer something stunning, but it hasn't done yet. There hasn't been a title (for me) that has made me sit-up and thank the lord that I paid £300 for a DVD player. I've played my original PSX games more than PS2 on that.
PC is used for multi-player mainly, because with real people, you can still be surprised by the events.
I just look around at video-games and see very little that is breaking new ground and amazing me.
Maybe that will change, maybe it won't, but I'll hang on in just in case.
He said that it's Mario this, Zelda this, Donkey Kong this...
And he's right, but he's also wrong.
Apart from one or two exceptions (Like Majora's mask), despite the same characters being the the games, the gameplay changes substantially.
Mario 64 changed from the previous Mario's run from A-B and make your way through a country to go in a castle, and search for power stars to let you fight Bowser.
Zelda. The N64 game was like no other Zelda before it. Apart from the obvious 3D graphics, the puzzels were different, each boss had a unique way of being killed.
There was different things to do during night and day.
All sort of changes.
Now there's Luigi's Mansion which isn't even platforming. It's ghostbusting (which I know has been done back on a spectrum 20 years ago but I'm sure that even the dimmest of you can tell the difference in gameplay!), something that hasn't been done like this before.
Pikmin - It's not a simple real time strategy and it's not mission based. You explore an alien world assisted by flower creatures you command.
Buy a Gamecube and you'll be fulfilled. Even better, buy it with Dinosaur Planet (You always did love the Starfox team ;-D)
A 3D Platform game comes into your possession. Do you,
A:Throw it out as another platformer or
B:Play it and see that the story, puzzles and various features are original and have not actually been done before in millions of other platform games?
There may well be another option but the important thing is that you have to see that a game of a particular genre will not automatically be a clone of previous games of the same genre. Deus Ex was an FPS, but it brought so much more than shooting in the first person. It was of a reasonable length and there were many choices that could be made, including three seperate endings. It also had so many other features, such as character development, to offer. So was it just another FPS, or was it something original that had something to offer?
Is single player becoming obsolete then? It is true that a game without multiplayer has very little chance of survival in the gaming world but does this mean that single player is gone? If you've ever played a good RPG then you will know that it is possible to have good single player gameplay that lasts a very long time. Baldur's Gate allowed you to create a whole variety of characters and the many quests and sub quests in the game all had multiple ways to be completed. Baldur's Gate II multiplied this by many times and added new classes, challenges, monsters and even made class have a larger effect on the quests directly. What's more both these games have multiplayer but they don't really need it to be brilliant games, all this does is make them even better. Fallout and Fallout 2 were RPGs that had no multiplayer but they also didn't need it, bringing a totally original style of RPGing and having a high amount of freedom of things to do. Deus Ex was another game without multiplayer (originally) and it was a big success for it's single player alone. It's games like these that show how single player is not gone and that it is a vital part of the gaming industry.
With many new games bringing newer and better ideas to the gaming community, it is a matter of seeing and being grateful for the originality rather than being caught up on what has not changed.
I really only play when my mates come over or online.
I started an Operation Flashpoint Clan precisely because I just wanted to play and have fun.
Not do my best to always win, but have a laugh.
We have our own forums and web-site,meet up a couple of times a week to play together.
5-10 people doing their level best to run each over in tractors or steal the flag.
And we're organising a field-trip to Amsterdamn when one of us gets married later this year.
That is why I still play online, a nice sense of hanging out with mates and enjoying the game because it's people.
I tried the single player mission and kept dying, thought "Why am I even bothering with this?" and turned it off.
Batistuta was talking about Championship Manager, now I loathe football and the idea of playing that makes me shiver - but I can see the appeal for those that do like it.
Constantly changing and evolving gameplay.
More than just "Get to end of level, start new one"
GT3 was impressive, but I've played the other two. Come 1st, buy new car, come 1st etc etc.
I know I slated Train Sim over and over, but full credit to them for doing something different. At least it was more than finish the level and shoot the big-boss.
I like strategy games, Age of Empires, Cossacks etc and I'll play them to death that 1st couple of weeks then find myself thinking "I can't be bothered with doing that now" and invariably go online.
Like I said, I have faith in Metal Gear Solid 2 because of the new things in the 1st game. The code on the box, the torture thing where you had to pump the buttons - little touches that made it stand out.
Silent Hill 2 will be awesome, because that was something new.
No jumpy moments, but an unrelenting horror and nervousness.
Maybe we do expect too much, but I just don't want a shinier faster version of something I already have.
Multiplayer games.
There doesn't seem to be anything new that single player games can offer me, but multiplayer games never grow old. It never stagnates, your style always evolves and adapts to counteract your opponent - unless it's a racing game, as they're just plain dull.
The best single player games might keep me interested a week (unlikely, but possible), but the best multiplayer games I just don't tire of. I've been playing Soul Calibur since it was released, the same goes for Timesplitters and Tekken tag.
Is it the game I enjoy, or the socialising that comes with it?
I've just given up to be honest. I'm pretty sure all that will change when the GameCube comes but until then...