The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well, for starters they're much more absorbing:
There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen.
Whether it be the 'Will Nancy pick Fred or Oscar to go with her to the prom?' setup, or the more unnerving 'Who will the big monster eat next?!' scenario, the viewer, in either case, has no say in the outcome.
Films also don't have any trouble with graphics. They automatically take into account the fact that shadows blur as the non-transparent barrier blocking the light moves closer to the light source.
I thought about that while I was playing golf today. I was on the 14th at the local municipal... and I noticed that the cut-grass clearly distinguished the bottom of my driver which was touching the ground, but the shaft which was, in effect, closer to the sun, if only by inches, actually left blurred edges around the shadow... 'Interesting, that.' I thought... and as I chipped a lovely 9-iron onto the green. Then it hit me....
Even the top developers don't take these little details into account... it wasn't the case in CBFD or even in the later or more advanced games like MGS2 or SA2. That's 3 top developers, on the top console of each of the best hardware companies - at the time.
Then I thought, 'How can movies falter in the graphics department...?' Answer? - they can't! What the camera sees is what we see. (Except for Special Effects!) And even without them it's better than the 'gaming graphics'.
Okay, so you lose the whole 'Interaction' idea when you put down the controller, but in a time where FMV is taking over some of the best franchises anyway, have we really lost much?! Controlling a character around a screen is all well and good, but maybe it's better to let him take the lead. Going back to the very first point:
"There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen." ~ Game
You see, no matter how good gaming graphics get, they will never be the imperceptible substitute that so many people believe they'll be! Movies, on the other hand, can easily deceive... the people look like real people, the cars and trees look like real cars... and trees. I'm not talking about FMV's or those parts in games that ARE mini-MOVIES, but in-game graphics.
Of course it isn't all about graphics, it's about entertainment, and if you ask any decent person on this site, they'll openly tell you that there is just as much if not more entertainment provided by films as in games.
I'm not 'knocking', 'dissin'' or 'mocking' games, because I love them, but I’m just saying, movies are better than games, they're more eclectic, some even last longer, and although they're very 'samey', especially when you watch the same movie twice, they don't fall short in any areas they're not supposed to... or do they?
Some movies are crap... and I know for sure that I'd much rather destroy my brethren at Goldeneye that watch Wild Wild West ever again. And, as was the case with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace the special effects, and therefore graphics, can fall short of the acceptable level, otherwise known as the consumers expectation.
The sound can be recorded too low and the actors can be second rate, should-be extras, that have no place in a multi-multi-multi-million pound movie!
BUT... I think you'll find, that with regards to graphics, sound, customer satisfaction and interest, and overall play, movies put on a much better show than games. There are no gaming cinemas where you can play Super Smash Brothers on a 15' by 9' screen against strangers, there aren't really any big-time gaming awards - at least not on the same scale as 'The Oscars' or 'The Golden Globe'. And everybody watches movies..., playing games, according to some is still geeky!
So, gaming, although going very strong, still has quite a way to go before it conquers the entertainment world! And, movies are still better... they provide music AND sound, they're visually attractive, just as involving as games and a lot cheaper to own!
(Maybe we should blame the Yanks... we like what they like and they'd much rather have their hands full of a food in a cinema rather than their hands on a controller!)
Thanks for reading (or scrolling to the end in fear of being bored by another one of my fancy rants!)
Game
There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen.
Whether it be the 'Will Nancy pick Fred or Oscar to go with her to the prom?' setup, or the more unnerving 'Who will the big monster eat next?!' scenario, the viewer, in either case, has no say in the outcome.
Films also don't have any trouble with graphics. They automatically take into account the fact that shadows blur as the non-transparent barrier blocking the light moves closer to the light source.
I thought about that while I was playing golf today. I was on the 14th at the local municipal... and I noticed that the cut-grass clearly distinguished the bottom of my driver which was touching the ground, but the shaft which was, in effect, closer to the sun, if only by inches, actually left blurred edges around the shadow... 'Interesting, that.' I thought... and as I chipped a lovely 9-iron onto the green. Then it hit me....
Even the top developers don't take these little details into account... it wasn't the case in CBFD or even in the later or more advanced games like MGS2 or SA2. That's 3 top developers, on the top console of each of the best hardware companies - at the time.
Then I thought, 'How can movies falter in the graphics department...?' Answer? - they can't! What the camera sees is what we see. (Except for Special Effects!) And even without them it's better than the 'gaming graphics'.
Okay, so you lose the whole 'Interaction' idea when you put down the controller, but in a time where FMV is taking over some of the best franchises anyway, have we really lost much?! Controlling a character around a screen is all well and good, but maybe it's better to let him take the lead. Going back to the very first point:
"There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen." ~ Game
You see, no matter how good gaming graphics get, they will never be the imperceptible substitute that so many people believe they'll be! Movies, on the other hand, can easily deceive... the people look like real people, the cars and trees look like real cars... and trees. I'm not talking about FMV's or those parts in games that ARE mini-MOVIES, but in-game graphics.
Of course it isn't all about graphics, it's about entertainment, and if you ask any decent person on this site, they'll openly tell you that there is just as much if not more entertainment provided by films as in games.
I'm not 'knocking', 'dissin'' or 'mocking' games, because I love them, but I’m just saying, movies are better than games, they're more eclectic, some even last longer, and although they're very 'samey', especially when you watch the same movie twice, they don't fall short in any areas they're not supposed to... or do they?
Some movies are crap... and I know for sure that I'd much rather destroy my brethren at Goldeneye that watch Wild Wild West ever again. And, as was the case with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace the special effects, and therefore graphics, can fall short of the acceptable level, otherwise known as the consumers expectation.
The sound can be recorded too low and the actors can be second rate, should-be extras, that have no place in a multi-multi-multi-million pound movie!
BUT... I think you'll find, that with regards to graphics, sound, customer satisfaction and interest, and overall play, movies put on a much better show than games. There are no gaming cinemas where you can play Super Smash Brothers on a 15' by 9' screen against strangers, there aren't really any big-time gaming awards - at least not on the same scale as 'The Oscars' or 'The Golden Globe'. And everybody watches movies..., playing games, according to some is still geeky!
So, gaming, although going very strong, still has quite a way to go before it conquers the entertainment world! And, movies are still better... they provide music AND sound, they're visually attractive, just as involving as games and a lot cheaper to own!
(Maybe we should blame the Yanks... we like what they like and they'd much rather have their hands full of a food in a cinema rather than their hands on a controller!)
Thanks for reading (or scrolling to the end in fear of being bored by another one of my fancy rants!)
Game
Hmmmm.... I suppose you have a point. But then again, not everybody was happy with the 8-20 hours of Gameplay that Conker provided. The shortness of the game was the reason so many people didn't buy it - Meka for one.
I wouldn't make games more like movies length-wise, but I would include some of the highs and low of the characters attitude etc - The settings, the atmospheres... there is very rarely any sort of atmosphere in games other than in PRG's and Survival Horrors. Sports Games and Racing Games don't have much atmosphere to them at all, but I believe if more movie ideas and production methods were integrated into game development some of the not so hot games might have more of a backbone.
I wouldn't make games more like movies length-wise, but I would include some of the highs and low of the characters attitude etc - The settings, the atmospheres... there is very rarely any sort of atmosphere in games other than in PRG's and Survival Horrors. Sports Games and Racing Games don't have much atmosphere to them at all, but I believe if more movie ideas and production methods were integrated into game development some of the not so hot games might have more of a backbone.
I would. I would prefer it. Short'n'sweet. The producers of games could direct all there energy and expertise into making masterpieces, instead of wishy-washy mediocrity - as most games are.
I often think games should be 'more' like films.
One to two hours of action-packed thrills and spills; a deep and interesting storyline; a powerful soundtrack; and then it's over. The End. Finis.
No boring puzzles and contrived drawn-out gameplay, just a riveting one and a half hour intense ride.
One to two hours of action-packed thrills and spills; a deep and interesting storyline; a powerful soundtrack; and then it's over. The End. Finis.
No boring puzzles and contrived drawn-out gameplay, just a riveting one and a half hour intense ride.
Well, for starters they're much more absorbing:
There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen.
Whether it be the 'Will Nancy pick Fred or Oscar to go with her to the prom?' setup, or the more unnerving 'Who will the big monster eat next?!' scenario, the viewer, in either case, has no say in the outcome.
Films also don't have any trouble with graphics. They automatically take into account the fact that shadows blur as the non-transparent barrier blocking the light moves closer to the light source.
I thought about that while I was playing golf today. I was on the 14th at the local municipal... and I noticed that the cut-grass clearly distinguished the bottom of my driver which was touching the ground, but the shaft which was, in effect, closer to the sun, if only by inches, actually left blurred edges around the shadow... 'Interesting, that.' I thought... and as I chipped a lovely 9-iron onto the green. Then it hit me....
Even the top developers don't take these little details into account... it wasn't the case in CBFD or even in the later or more advanced games like MGS2 or SA2. That's 3 top developers, on the top console of each of the best hardware companies - at the time.
Then I thought, 'How can movies falter in the graphics department...?' Answer? - they can't! What the camera sees is what we see. (Except for Special Effects!) And even without them it's better than the 'gaming graphics'.
Okay, so you lose the whole 'Interaction' idea when you put down the controller, but in a time where FMV is taking over some of the best franchises anyway, have we really lost much?! Controlling a character around a screen is all well and good, but maybe it's better to let him take the lead. Going back to the very first point:
"There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen." ~ Game
You see, no matter how good gaming graphics get, they will never be the imperceptible substitute that so many people believe they'll be! Movies, on the other hand, can easily deceive... the people look like real people, the cars and trees look like real cars... and trees. I'm not talking about FMV's or those parts in games that ARE mini-MOVIES, but in-game graphics.
Of course it isn't all about graphics, it's about entertainment, and if you ask any decent person on this site, they'll openly tell you that there is just as much if not more entertainment provided by films as in games.
I'm not 'knocking', 'dissin'' or 'mocking' games, because I love them, but I’m just saying, movies are better than games, they're more eclectic, some even last longer, and although they're very 'samey', especially when you watch the same movie twice, they don't fall short in any areas they're not supposed to... or do they?
Some movies are crap... and I know for sure that I'd much rather destroy my brethren at Goldeneye that watch Wild Wild West ever again. And, as was the case with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace the special effects, and therefore graphics, can fall short of the acceptable level, otherwise known as the consumers expectation.
The sound can be recorded too low and the actors can be second rate, should-be extras, that have no place in a multi-multi-multi-million pound movie!
BUT... I think you'll find, that with regards to graphics, sound, customer satisfaction and interest, and overall play, movies put on a much better show than games. There are no gaming cinemas where you can play Super Smash Brothers on a 15' by 9' screen against strangers, there aren't really any big-time gaming awards - at least not on the same scale as 'The Oscars' or 'The Golden Globe'. And everybody watches movies..., playing games, according to some is still geeky!
So, gaming, although going very strong, still has quite a way to go before it conquers the entertainment world! And, movies are still better... they provide music AND sound, they're visually attractive, just as involving as games and a lot cheaper to own!
(Maybe we should blame the Yanks... we like what they like and they'd much rather have their hands full of a food in a cinema rather than their hands on a controller!)
Thanks for reading (or scrolling to the end in fear of being bored by another one of my fancy rants!)
Game
There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen.
Whether it be the 'Will Nancy pick Fred or Oscar to go with her to the prom?' setup, or the more unnerving 'Who will the big monster eat next?!' scenario, the viewer, in either case, has no say in the outcome.
Films also don't have any trouble with graphics. They automatically take into account the fact that shadows blur as the non-transparent barrier blocking the light moves closer to the light source.
I thought about that while I was playing golf today. I was on the 14th at the local municipal... and I noticed that the cut-grass clearly distinguished the bottom of my driver which was touching the ground, but the shaft which was, in effect, closer to the sun, if only by inches, actually left blurred edges around the shadow... 'Interesting, that.' I thought... and as I chipped a lovely 9-iron onto the green. Then it hit me....
Even the top developers don't take these little details into account... it wasn't the case in CBFD or even in the later or more advanced games like MGS2 or SA2. That's 3 top developers, on the top console of each of the best hardware companies - at the time.
Then I thought, 'How can movies falter in the graphics department...?' Answer? - they can't! What the camera sees is what we see. (Except for Special Effects!) And even without them it's better than the 'gaming graphics'.
Okay, so you lose the whole 'Interaction' idea when you put down the controller, but in a time where FMV is taking over some of the best franchises anyway, have we really lost much?! Controlling a character around a screen is all well and good, but maybe it's better to let him take the lead. Going back to the very first point:
"There is something about having no control what-so-ever over the nerve-wrecking path that films or characters take as they near the end of their time on screen." ~ Game
You see, no matter how good gaming graphics get, they will never be the imperceptible substitute that so many people believe they'll be! Movies, on the other hand, can easily deceive... the people look like real people, the cars and trees look like real cars... and trees. I'm not talking about FMV's or those parts in games that ARE mini-MOVIES, but in-game graphics.
Of course it isn't all about graphics, it's about entertainment, and if you ask any decent person on this site, they'll openly tell you that there is just as much if not more entertainment provided by films as in games.
I'm not 'knocking', 'dissin'' or 'mocking' games, because I love them, but I’m just saying, movies are better than games, they're more eclectic, some even last longer, and although they're very 'samey', especially when you watch the same movie twice, they don't fall short in any areas they're not supposed to... or do they?
Some movies are crap... and I know for sure that I'd much rather destroy my brethren at Goldeneye that watch Wild Wild West ever again. And, as was the case with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace the special effects, and therefore graphics, can fall short of the acceptable level, otherwise known as the consumers expectation.
The sound can be recorded too low and the actors can be second rate, should-be extras, that have no place in a multi-multi-multi-million pound movie!
BUT... I think you'll find, that with regards to graphics, sound, customer satisfaction and interest, and overall play, movies put on a much better show than games. There are no gaming cinemas where you can play Super Smash Brothers on a 15' by 9' screen against strangers, there aren't really any big-time gaming awards - at least not on the same scale as 'The Oscars' or 'The Golden Globe'. And everybody watches movies..., playing games, according to some is still geeky!
So, gaming, although going very strong, still has quite a way to go before it conquers the entertainment world! And, movies are still better... they provide music AND sound, they're visually attractive, just as involving as games and a lot cheaper to own!
(Maybe we should blame the Yanks... we like what they like and they'd much rather have their hands full of a food in a cinema rather than their hands on a controller!)
Thanks for reading (or scrolling to the end in fear of being bored by another one of my fancy rants!)
Game