The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Time goes by and every year a game will be realesed that takes our breathe away, it is utterlly amazing and gives us everything we've wanted. The chance to be someone else, the ability to capture your imagination and plunge you into this paradise.
But hasn't anyone noticed something awfully wrong with this? To start with why are we alwaus the good guy? Why is everything so perfect? Have you ever seen Solid Snake miss a punch or slip over when going to kick someone? Have you ever seen the baddie get away at the end, unless there is a sequel already in plan? And most important of all have you ever been able to play the bad guy?
Think about it for a second, forget everything you know about Metal Gear Solid, you are no longer Solid Snake, but Liquid Snake. Now wouldn't that have been all that more enjoyable? Breaking into a facility to destroy rather then prevent, being able to give the commands to the guards, plant the devices and basically anything you wanted.
Or maybe do it then same way but your a bad guy breaking into the facility to take it over. I think without a doubt it was the best game ever made and it's complex and compleling storyline made it just unforgetable, grabbing the attention of the gaming press and the world entire. But no game is perfect.
How can you improve a game? Well that's easy, you'll find a person being beyond disappointed and annoyed if they found out the next Half Life wasn't playable on the net, and what if Resident Evil didn't have two characters, what if it didn't have any characters apart from the one you control?
Multi-player, extra options, complition of games options, and depending on the type of game, memorbale storyline, shocks and surprises and of course the action must be thick and fast.
But my question to you is, how can you make a bad game?
What could possibly make the designers produce something as awful as 'The Crow' for the playstation, a perfectly good film ruined, what went wrong with this fallouts? The losers of the gaming underworld? Did they not have enough time? Were they incapable and unexperienced or quite simply were the games testers totally useless?
Opposites in gaming would be an advantage, every game given you a second option, playing Nemesis in Resident Evil 3 or controling the bad guys in Commandos positioning them ready for war. You get the basic idea anyways, so let's hear your opinions on this and please excuse the spelling.
Thanks for reading, if you did.
But hasn't anyone noticed something awfully wrong with this? To start with why are we alwaus the good guy? Why is everything so perfect? Have you ever seen Solid Snake miss a punch or slip over when going to kick someone? Have you ever seen the baddie get away at the end, unless there is a sequel already in plan? And most important of all have you ever been able to play the bad guy?
Think about it for a second, forget everything you know about Metal Gear Solid, you are no longer Solid Snake, but Liquid Snake. Now wouldn't that have been all that more enjoyable? Breaking into a facility to destroy rather then prevent, being able to give the commands to the guards, plant the devices and basically anything you wanted.
Or maybe do it then same way but your a bad guy breaking into the facility to take it over. I think without a doubt it was the best game ever made and it's complex and compleling storyline made it just unforgetable, grabbing the attention of the gaming press and the world entire. But no game is perfect.
How can you improve a game? Well that's easy, you'll find a person being beyond disappointed and annoyed if they found out the next Half Life wasn't playable on the net, and what if Resident Evil didn't have two characters, what if it didn't have any characters apart from the one you control?
Multi-player, extra options, complition of games options, and depending on the type of game, memorbale storyline, shocks and surprises and of course the action must be thick and fast.
But my question to you is, how can you make a bad game?
What could possibly make the designers produce something as awful as 'The Crow' for the playstation, a perfectly good film ruined, what went wrong with this fallouts? The losers of the gaming underworld? Did they not have enough time? Were they incapable and unexperienced or quite simply were the games testers totally useless?
Opposites in gaming would be an advantage, every game given you a second option, playing Nemesis in Resident Evil 3 or controling the bad guys in Commandos positioning them ready for war. You get the basic idea anyways, so let's hear your opinions on this and please excuse the spelling.
Thanks for reading, if you did.
Page:
arent most games like metal gear solid or james bond the point is trying to save the world so i f u were the bad guy would there be 2 endings with 2 FMV sequences so at the last level u would be killed he or she wins the day on the other hand u win u dominate the world become emperor...
also if u where the bad guy u wouldnt do much because all they really do is either sit in there strong hold planning and plotting against the good guy now and then battleing the good guy doesent make much sense really,it would be better to be trying to save the world and being in lots of action or would u rather be in your castle or watever thinking of different ways to rule the world??
also if u where the bad guy u wouldnt do much because all they really do is either sit in there strong hold planning and plotting against the good guy now and then battleing the good guy doesent make much sense really,it would be better to be trying to save the world and being in lots of action or would u rather be in your castle or watever thinking of different ways to rule the world??
shaneo wrote:
That would rule! GTA 3 gives you that kind of feeling.
What's this? Is that even out yet, cos it does look perticularly amazing and atlast it's in 3D, but I think PS2 will beat it with there game, whatever it's called that games look amazing and is set in three real cities in the UK, even though I don't have a PS2 I think Metal Gear Solid 2 and that game are the main reasons I'd get one.
Does anyone know the name of it?
That would rule! GTA 3 gives you that kind of feeling.
What's this? Is that even out yet, cos it does look perticularly amazing and atlast it's in 3D, but I think PS2 will beat it with there game, whatever it's called that games look amazing and is set in three real cities in the UK, even though I don't have a PS2 I think Metal Gear Solid 2 and that game are the main reasons I'd get one.
Does anyone know the name of it?
Gaming Boy wrote:
> I would love to have at least one game where I play the bad guy.
Preferably
> playing as Mr Blonde or Trent in Perfect Dark 2 on the GC.
That would rule! GTA 3 gives you that kind of feeling.
> I would love to have at least one game where I play the bad guy.
Preferably
> playing as Mr Blonde or Trent in Perfect Dark 2 on the GC.
That would rule! GTA 3 gives you that kind of feeling.
I would love to have at least one game where I play the bad guy.
Preferably playing as Mr Blonde or Trent in Perfect Dark 2 on the GC.
Preferably playing as Mr Blonde or Trent in Perfect Dark 2 on the GC.
Another excellent post MNG, jeez, don't overdo it, or we'll have to flush you again!
Time goes by and every year a game will be realesed that takes our breathe away, it is utterlly amazing and gives us everything we've wanted. The chance to be someone else, the ability to capture your imagination and plunge you into this paradise.
But hasn't anyone noticed something awfully wrong with this? To start with why are we alwaus the good guy? Why is everything so perfect? Have you ever seen Solid Snake miss a punch or slip over when going to kick someone? Have you ever seen the baddie get away at the end, unless there is a sequel already in plan? And most important of all have you ever been able to play the bad guy?
Think about it for a second, forget everything you know about Metal Gear Solid, you are no longer Solid Snake, but Liquid Snake. Now wouldn't that have been all that more enjoyable? Breaking into a facility to destroy rather then prevent, being able to give the commands to the guards, plant the devices and basically anything you wanted.
Or maybe do it then same way but your a bad guy breaking into the facility to take it over. I think without a doubt it was the best game ever made and it's complex and compleling storyline made it just unforgetable, grabbing the attention of the gaming press and the world entire. But no game is perfect.
How can you improve a game? Well that's easy, you'll find a person being beyond disappointed and annoyed if they found out the next Half Life wasn't playable on the net, and what if Resident Evil didn't have two characters, what if it didn't have any characters apart from the one you control?
Multi-player, extra options, complition of games options, and depending on the type of game, memorbale storyline, shocks and surprises and of course the action must be thick and fast.
But my question to you is, how can you make a bad game?
What could possibly make the designers produce something as awful as 'The Crow' for the playstation, a perfectly good film ruined, what went wrong with this fallouts? The losers of the gaming underworld? Did they not have enough time? Were they incapable and unexperienced or quite simply were the games testers totally useless?
Opposites in gaming would be an advantage, every game given you a second option, playing Nemesis in Resident Evil 3 or controling the bad guys in Commandos positioning them ready for war. You get the basic idea anyways, so let's hear your opinions on this and please excuse the spelling.
Thanks for reading, if you did.
But hasn't anyone noticed something awfully wrong with this? To start with why are we alwaus the good guy? Why is everything so perfect? Have you ever seen Solid Snake miss a punch or slip over when going to kick someone? Have you ever seen the baddie get away at the end, unless there is a sequel already in plan? And most important of all have you ever been able to play the bad guy?
Think about it for a second, forget everything you know about Metal Gear Solid, you are no longer Solid Snake, but Liquid Snake. Now wouldn't that have been all that more enjoyable? Breaking into a facility to destroy rather then prevent, being able to give the commands to the guards, plant the devices and basically anything you wanted.
Or maybe do it then same way but your a bad guy breaking into the facility to take it over. I think without a doubt it was the best game ever made and it's complex and compleling storyline made it just unforgetable, grabbing the attention of the gaming press and the world entire. But no game is perfect.
How can you improve a game? Well that's easy, you'll find a person being beyond disappointed and annoyed if they found out the next Half Life wasn't playable on the net, and what if Resident Evil didn't have two characters, what if it didn't have any characters apart from the one you control?
Multi-player, extra options, complition of games options, and depending on the type of game, memorbale storyline, shocks and surprises and of course the action must be thick and fast.
But my question to you is, how can you make a bad game?
What could possibly make the designers produce something as awful as 'The Crow' for the playstation, a perfectly good film ruined, what went wrong with this fallouts? The losers of the gaming underworld? Did they not have enough time? Were they incapable and unexperienced or quite simply were the games testers totally useless?
Opposites in gaming would be an advantage, every game given you a second option, playing Nemesis in Resident Evil 3 or controling the bad guys in Commandos positioning them ready for war. You get the basic idea anyways, so let's hear your opinions on this and please excuse the spelling.
Thanks for reading, if you did.
Page: