The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When people used to say that Playstation games were more mature than Nintendo ones, I thought that they were idiots.
Not only did the N64 have a fair selection of red certificate games, but Zelda and Mario were just as mature in gameplay as any Playstaiotn game.
Ofcourse, I made a slight mistake.
When people say "mature games" they don't mean "adult" games like Perfect Dark and Resident Evil.
They mean "mature" games like Microsoft Flight Simulators, and Gran Tourismo.
Think of it in Gameplay terms.
I'd say that MS Flight Sim would be the most mature game around, with Mario Party being one of the more immature ones. They're the extremes of their range.
Microsoft flight sim is slow, complex and sensible.
No real action, it's using your skill and techniques to fly a plane and landing it.
Pretty complex, very slow, takes time to master and you need lots of patience.
Anyone not "mature" enough to play it will just find it boring.
Mario Party - the epitimy of simplicity.
Games so simple that a five year old can beat a 30 year old.
Plenty of skill involved, although it's more spontanious than learnt techniques from more "mature" games.
Ofcourse, "mature" gamers will find it stupidly childish.
So are you a spod/anorak or a five year old?
Well, I think most people here are in between.
Some games, like Mario Tennis, are far into the "immature" side, while more sensible games like GT3 will be in the "mature" range.
So which side is best?
Well it depends on your style, but a develloper would do best to aim for the middle. The only game I can think of which is smack bang in the middle is Goldeneye.
You can see why it was popular.
I think that most Nintendo fans will agree that Goldeneye is probably the biggest hit of all time. Playstation owners would have too if it had been released on their machine.
It was perfect.
If was fairly serious so that "mature" gamers wouldn't be put off by fun graphics, and it was also incredibly fun and playable so that "immature" players loved it too.
So where do other games fit in on this scale?
I'd say tha Mario 64 is half way between Mario Party and Goldeneye and that Zelda is half way between them.
Resident Evil (with it's slower more puzzle based gameplay) will be in between Goldeneye and MS Flight sim.
MGS will be between Goldeneye and Resident Evil while GT3 is between Flight Sim and Resident Evil.
So you get a sort of scale.
I think that the Zelda to Resident Evil range is to all players taste (other than the extremists on either side).
I've always wondered why people slated cartoony games as chldish.
I bet many PS2 owners can't believe that I've slated GT3 as boring and dull.
I guess that it's all down to "maturity".
Ofcourse, when I say "mature", I mean mature people.
I think that trully mature gamers will strike a fair balance between both sides and like game so long as it's good. That's the stage that most magazines are at.
Not only did the N64 have a fair selection of red certificate games, but Zelda and Mario were just as mature in gameplay as any Playstaiotn game.
Ofcourse, I made a slight mistake.
When people say "mature games" they don't mean "adult" games like Perfect Dark and Resident Evil.
They mean "mature" games like Microsoft Flight Simulators, and Gran Tourismo.
Think of it in Gameplay terms.
I'd say that MS Flight Sim would be the most mature game around, with Mario Party being one of the more immature ones. They're the extremes of their range.
Microsoft flight sim is slow, complex and sensible.
No real action, it's using your skill and techniques to fly a plane and landing it.
Pretty complex, very slow, takes time to master and you need lots of patience.
Anyone not "mature" enough to play it will just find it boring.
Mario Party - the epitimy of simplicity.
Games so simple that a five year old can beat a 30 year old.
Plenty of skill involved, although it's more spontanious than learnt techniques from more "mature" games.
Ofcourse, "mature" gamers will find it stupidly childish.
So are you a spod/anorak or a five year old?
Well, I think most people here are in between.
Some games, like Mario Tennis, are far into the "immature" side, while more sensible games like GT3 will be in the "mature" range.
So which side is best?
Well it depends on your style, but a develloper would do best to aim for the middle. The only game I can think of which is smack bang in the middle is Goldeneye.
You can see why it was popular.
I think that most Nintendo fans will agree that Goldeneye is probably the biggest hit of all time. Playstation owners would have too if it had been released on their machine.
It was perfect.
If was fairly serious so that "mature" gamers wouldn't be put off by fun graphics, and it was also incredibly fun and playable so that "immature" players loved it too.
So where do other games fit in on this scale?
I'd say tha Mario 64 is half way between Mario Party and Goldeneye and that Zelda is half way between them.
Resident Evil (with it's slower more puzzle based gameplay) will be in between Goldeneye and MS Flight sim.
MGS will be between Goldeneye and Resident Evil while GT3 is between Flight Sim and Resident Evil.
So you get a sort of scale.
I think that the Zelda to Resident Evil range is to all players taste (other than the extremists on either side).
I've always wondered why people slated cartoony games as chldish.
I bet many PS2 owners can't believe that I've slated GT3 as boring and dull.
I guess that it's all down to "maturity".
Ofcourse, when I say "mature", I mean mature people.
I think that trully mature gamers will strike a fair balance between both sides and like game so long as it's good. That's the stage that most magazines are at.
Page:
Just because a game is violent, that doesn't make it mature.
Personally, I find seriously mature games dull and boring.
They are usually for spods and anoraks.
Then again, there's many that class the more "exciting" games as childish.
Generally speaking, the more "immature" games tend to be a lot more playable.
Personally, I find seriously mature games dull and boring.
They are usually for spods and anoraks.
Then again, there's many that class the more "exciting" games as childish.
Generally speaking, the more "immature" games tend to be a lot more playable.
Alot of games get an 18 certificate because it involves unsuitable material for young eyes, Some games have mature written on them because adults will probably get more out of it.
When people used to say that Playstation games were more mature than Nintendo ones, I thought that they were idiots.
Not only did the N64 have a fair selection of red certificate games, but Zelda and Mario were just as mature in gameplay as any Playstaiotn game.
Ofcourse, I made a slight mistake.
When people say "mature games" they don't mean "adult" games like Perfect Dark and Resident Evil.
They mean "mature" games like Microsoft Flight Simulators, and Gran Tourismo.
Think of it in Gameplay terms.
I'd say that MS Flight Sim would be the most mature game around, with Mario Party being one of the more immature ones. They're the extremes of their range.
Microsoft flight sim is slow, complex and sensible.
No real action, it's using your skill and techniques to fly a plane and landing it.
Pretty complex, very slow, takes time to master and you need lots of patience.
Anyone not "mature" enough to play it will just find it boring.
Mario Party - the epitimy of simplicity.
Games so simple that a five year old can beat a 30 year old.
Plenty of skill involved, although it's more spontanious than learnt techniques from more "mature" games.
Ofcourse, "mature" gamers will find it stupidly childish.
So are you a spod/anorak or a five year old?
Well, I think most people here are in between.
Some games, like Mario Tennis, are far into the "immature" side, while more sensible games like GT3 will be in the "mature" range.
So which side is best?
Well it depends on your style, but a develloper would do best to aim for the middle. The only game I can think of which is smack bang in the middle is Goldeneye.
You can see why it was popular.
I think that most Nintendo fans will agree that Goldeneye is probably the biggest hit of all time. Playstation owners would have too if it had been released on their machine.
It was perfect.
If was fairly serious so that "mature" gamers wouldn't be put off by fun graphics, and it was also incredibly fun and playable so that "immature" players loved it too.
So where do other games fit in on this scale?
I'd say tha Mario 64 is half way between Mario Party and Goldeneye and that Zelda is half way between them.
Resident Evil (with it's slower more puzzle based gameplay) will be in between Goldeneye and MS Flight sim.
MGS will be between Goldeneye and Resident Evil while GT3 is between Flight Sim and Resident Evil.
So you get a sort of scale.
I think that the Zelda to Resident Evil range is to all players taste (other than the extremists on either side).
I've always wondered why people slated cartoony games as chldish.
I bet many PS2 owners can't believe that I've slated GT3 as boring and dull.
I guess that it's all down to "maturity".
Ofcourse, when I say "mature", I mean mature people.
I think that trully mature gamers will strike a fair balance between both sides and like game so long as it's good. That's the stage that most magazines are at.
Not only did the N64 have a fair selection of red certificate games, but Zelda and Mario were just as mature in gameplay as any Playstaiotn game.
Ofcourse, I made a slight mistake.
When people say "mature games" they don't mean "adult" games like Perfect Dark and Resident Evil.
They mean "mature" games like Microsoft Flight Simulators, and Gran Tourismo.
Think of it in Gameplay terms.
I'd say that MS Flight Sim would be the most mature game around, with Mario Party being one of the more immature ones. They're the extremes of their range.
Microsoft flight sim is slow, complex and sensible.
No real action, it's using your skill and techniques to fly a plane and landing it.
Pretty complex, very slow, takes time to master and you need lots of patience.
Anyone not "mature" enough to play it will just find it boring.
Mario Party - the epitimy of simplicity.
Games so simple that a five year old can beat a 30 year old.
Plenty of skill involved, although it's more spontanious than learnt techniques from more "mature" games.
Ofcourse, "mature" gamers will find it stupidly childish.
So are you a spod/anorak or a five year old?
Well, I think most people here are in between.
Some games, like Mario Tennis, are far into the "immature" side, while more sensible games like GT3 will be in the "mature" range.
So which side is best?
Well it depends on your style, but a develloper would do best to aim for the middle. The only game I can think of which is smack bang in the middle is Goldeneye.
You can see why it was popular.
I think that most Nintendo fans will agree that Goldeneye is probably the biggest hit of all time. Playstation owners would have too if it had been released on their machine.
It was perfect.
If was fairly serious so that "mature" gamers wouldn't be put off by fun graphics, and it was also incredibly fun and playable so that "immature" players loved it too.
So where do other games fit in on this scale?
I'd say tha Mario 64 is half way between Mario Party and Goldeneye and that Zelda is half way between them.
Resident Evil (with it's slower more puzzle based gameplay) will be in between Goldeneye and MS Flight sim.
MGS will be between Goldeneye and Resident Evil while GT3 is between Flight Sim and Resident Evil.
So you get a sort of scale.
I think that the Zelda to Resident Evil range is to all players taste (other than the extremists on either side).
I've always wondered why people slated cartoony games as chldish.
I bet many PS2 owners can't believe that I've slated GT3 as boring and dull.
I guess that it's all down to "maturity".
Ofcourse, when I say "mature", I mean mature people.
I think that trully mature gamers will strike a fair balance between both sides and like game so long as it's good. That's the stage that most magazines are at.
Page: