The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As I lay in bed last night having played Ikaruga some time earlier, I thought about why quality games like that aren’t seen in the all-formats charts. Then I remembered that in general, the games buying public is stupid.
There is no finer an example than Enter the Matrix.
Some say it’s great, some say it’s crap, but no matter your opinion, the game is currently flying off the shelves and will sit proudly atop the charts for some considerable time no doubt.
But the common consensus is that the game is poor (I don’t know about you, but no reviews available before launch smelt pretty fishy to me), so why is it number 1? Hype and the gullibility of blinded mass-market zealots are the number one suspects.
I’m looking forward to Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines as I’m a big fan of the series and of the Austrian Oak himself, but will I buy the game if it looks crap? No, no I won’t. So why so many people are buying a crap game baffles me.
-“But it’s the Matrix, you can do kung fu.” Never heard of Street Fighter or its modern successors?
-“There’s two cool characters whose levels intertwine with the film.” So, two uninteresting characters adding depth to a highly overrated film, big deal.
-“You can do hacking.” So, buy a crummy flat and a load of computer equipment and try the real thing.
-“It’s fun.” So is Zelda: The Wind Waker, so is Ico, so is Rez. They are fun beyond belief, but did they sell shed load of copies? Nope.
-“It’s cool.” The killer line. What does “cool” have to do with the quality of the game? Absolutely nothing, it’s the thing most people are influenced by. It’s definitely *not* cool. In fact, it’s so bad I’d call it uncool.
In the end, the mass buying of a poor product like Enter the Matrix will ruin the games industry. Think of it; you have enough money for one game. You browse the shelves and see two games: Enter the Matrix and SOS: The Final Escape on PS2.
Which do you choose, the hyped up film conversion that relies on the movie to influence geeky zealots, or a highly original, though pretty much unheard of title?
It seems the majority like their healthy dose of mass-market mediocrity and are willing to ignore little gaming gems.
The problem with this is money. Eventually, smaller games companies *will* go out of business because of this sort of ignorant buying. It has already happened with a number of veteran games companies, and will happen more and more when people favour games like Enter the Matrix over better, more original games. Just by the fact that Nintendo, undoubtedly the greatest developer, is struggling proves that the majority of gamers don’t favour great games but mass-market rubbish instead.
The success of Enter the Matrix will also prove that instead of spending time and huge effort in creating an amazing piece of software, games companies can just get a movie license and churn out a poor rushed game to coincide with the film’s release and that will sell due to the name of the movie alone. This will happen more and more leading to plenty more mediocrity instead of well-made titles.
At the end of the day, you’re not just going to ruin the games industry for yourselves, but you’ll ruin it for me too, someone who doesn’t buy into the hype of your Enter the Matrix, FIFA or Lord of the Rings cash-ins, someone who favours SOS: The Final Escape over generic shallow crap pumped out for healthy profit. But that’s the way the games industry will go.
I can just imagine the games industry in 5 years time, with the charts filled up with crap sequels and movie tie-ins, and no Nintendo or other sparks of flair or originality to be seen, still, if that’s the way you want it. In 5 years time when you realise the poor state of the industry, just remember that it was the success of Enter the Matrix that planted the seeds of mediocrity and that whoever was foolish enough to buy it was partly responsible.
*slow hand clap for blinded zealots*
Enjoy playing Enter the Matrix, and enjoy the downward spiral in quality it represents.
There is no finer an example than Enter the Matrix.
Some say it’s great, some say it’s crap, but no matter your opinion, the game is currently flying off the shelves and will sit proudly atop the charts for some considerable time no doubt.
But the common consensus is that the game is poor (I don’t know about you, but no reviews available before launch smelt pretty fishy to me), so why is it number 1? Hype and the gullibility of blinded mass-market zealots are the number one suspects.
I’m looking forward to Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines as I’m a big fan of the series and of the Austrian Oak himself, but will I buy the game if it looks crap? No, no I won’t. So why so many people are buying a crap game baffles me.
-“But it’s the Matrix, you can do kung fu.” Never heard of Street Fighter or its modern successors?
-“There’s two cool characters whose levels intertwine with the film.” So, two uninteresting characters adding depth to a highly overrated film, big deal.
-“You can do hacking.” So, buy a crummy flat and a load of computer equipment and try the real thing.
-“It’s fun.” So is Zelda: The Wind Waker, so is Ico, so is Rez. They are fun beyond belief, but did they sell shed load of copies? Nope.
-“It’s cool.” The killer line. What does “cool” have to do with the quality of the game? Absolutely nothing, it’s the thing most people are influenced by. It’s definitely *not* cool. In fact, it’s so bad I’d call it uncool.
In the end, the mass buying of a poor product like Enter the Matrix will ruin the games industry. Think of it; you have enough money for one game. You browse the shelves and see two games: Enter the Matrix and SOS: The Final Escape on PS2.
Which do you choose, the hyped up film conversion that relies on the movie to influence geeky zealots, or a highly original, though pretty much unheard of title?
It seems the majority like their healthy dose of mass-market mediocrity and are willing to ignore little gaming gems.
The problem with this is money. Eventually, smaller games companies *will* go out of business because of this sort of ignorant buying. It has already happened with a number of veteran games companies, and will happen more and more when people favour games like Enter the Matrix over better, more original games. Just by the fact that Nintendo, undoubtedly the greatest developer, is struggling proves that the majority of gamers don’t favour great games but mass-market rubbish instead.
The success of Enter the Matrix will also prove that instead of spending time and huge effort in creating an amazing piece of software, games companies can just get a movie license and churn out a poor rushed game to coincide with the film’s release and that will sell due to the name of the movie alone. This will happen more and more leading to plenty more mediocrity instead of well-made titles.
At the end of the day, you’re not just going to ruin the games industry for yourselves, but you’ll ruin it for me too, someone who doesn’t buy into the hype of your Enter the Matrix, FIFA or Lord of the Rings cash-ins, someone who favours SOS: The Final Escape over generic shallow crap pumped out for healthy profit. But that’s the way the games industry will go.
I can just imagine the games industry in 5 years time, with the charts filled up with crap sequels and movie tie-ins, and no Nintendo or other sparks of flair or originality to be seen, still, if that’s the way you want it. In 5 years time when you realise the poor state of the industry, just remember that it was the success of Enter the Matrix that planted the seeds of mediocrity and that whoever was foolish enough to buy it was partly responsible.
*slow hand clap for blinded zealots*
Enjoy playing Enter the Matrix, and enjoy the downward spiral in quality it represents.
Page:
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> They don't get the amount of success they really deserve you fool.
Or... maybe they don't deserve a great deal of success because they aren't really that good?
Again it's the apparent complete misunderstanding or oversight of the so-called "hardcore gamer".
"This game appeals to the masses. Therefore it must be crap."
Bull.
Maybe games like Ico, Rez etc. don't "get the recognition" because they aren't actually that good?
Personally, I loved Ico. But I hated Rez. I also didn't like Sony's Fantavision. It doesn't mean they're rubbish, just that they don't appeal to my tastes.
The real difference is, I don't look down my nose at the people who do enjoy them, and blame them for ruining the games industry by supporting what are - in my own personal opinion - sub-standard titles.
The games industry is a business. Business is about money. Therefore, games with limited appeal are unlikely to sell significant copies, and thus deviation from popular themes in future games is less likely.
If a licensed game sells millions, it's because people like what it offers. If you don't like it, it's not because you're "hardcore", and it's not because the millions who bought it are mindless drones who know no better. It's because a company has researched what people want, and given it to them.
Don't kid yourself that Nintendo or anyone else care more about gamers than the other companies out there. All they care about is getting that cash out of your pocket and into theirs.
People moan about games not offering variety, and then they slam a game like GTA3 or Vice City, which offers something from almost every genre in one package, and combines it all seamlessly, with a good, unintrusive story.
"It only sells because of the violence!" Rubbish - it sells because it has something that appeals to the majority of game players.
I find it ironic and amusing that "hardcore" gamers moan about the lack of originality, then lap up - just for example - countless Mario games, where the only real change is the word or number before or after the name 'Mario'... 'Super Mario', 'Mario 64', 'Mario Advance', 'Super Mario Advance', 'Mario Party (1, 2, 3 and 4!), 'Mario Kart', 'Mario Kart 64', 'Super Mario Kart', 'Mario Sunshine', 'Super Mario World: Mario Advance 2' (two Mario's in that one - must be good!)
Originality is great when it works, but in many cases it's over-rated. After all, if you enjoy something, you want to do it again, right?
Enjoy sex? When your boy/girlfriend says "let's make love", do you reply "nah, sorry, been there, done that, want to try something new"? No, of course not. You might want to try a new position, but that doesn't mean you're off sex.
Similarly, if you enjoyed the original Tomb Raider, why would you not want Tomb Raider 2, 3, 4 and so on? You enjoy the type of game, you have new places to explore and new moves to use. It's familiar, still fun, and just as playable. All of the things you liked so much, but with a new twist.
Exactly why Angel of Darkness will sell bucketloads - one of the biggest icons in gaming, in a new game, on a new platform, with all the features that people enjoyed in the original, and a lot more besides.
Nothing wrong with that *at all*. And certainly no worse from a marketing and sales point of view than what Nintendo has been doing with Mario since the days of the NES.
People buy sequels and similar games because they enjoy them, not because they know no better.
On the other hand, the "hardcore gamer" restricts themself to smaller, niche-market games such as Ico and Rez, thinking that it somehow marks them out as being better than those who buy titles like Enter the Matrix.
By all means support original titles buy purchasing them if they appeal to you. The industry needs that.
But don't presume to tell me or anyone else, either directly or by implication, that we're idiots who are having a detrimental effect on the games industry as a whole.
The fact that you dislike games which appeal to the majority of the gaming public certainly does mark you out as 'special' - but not in the way you seem to think it does.
You're not some kind of 'elite' gamer, and you have no better taste in games than someone who buys and enjoys Enter the Matrix. All it means is that you have a far more restricted taste than most, and favour items of limited appeal.
In other areas of life, the term for such people is "eccentric". Like the old lady who lives down the street, owns 50 cats and holds lengthy conversations with dead relatives.
Now to me, a truly "hardcore" gamer would not be one of these people. A truly "hardcore" gamer would be able to enjoy almost any title on any platform; one who samples and enjoys as many different titles as possible.
A best-selling game is not about people running with the crowd or being otherwise percived as "cool". It's about a company successfully identifying what people like in games and acting on it. We didn't all buy GTA3 because we're sheep who have been told what we like; we bought it because Rockstar did their homework and got their product pretty much spot-on. They made it appeal to the largest number of gamers possible, and if that number doesn't include you, the problem is yours, not ours.
At the end of the day, remember this:
It is the mass-market buyer who funds the attempts at your precious wholly-original titles. These games don't earn enough revenue to pay for themselves.
Without the masses pumping millions into Sega's Outrun machines and their other generic racers over the years, how would they have funded the development of Rez or Super Monkey Ball? They certainly didn't get the cash from Dreamcast sales!
One final comment:
If I am wrong, and games for the "hardcore" really does mean being simple, original, addictive, innovative and great fun, then I expect EVERY ONE OF YOU "HARDCORE" GAMERS will be dashing out to buy yourself a PS2 and an EyeToy as soon as possible.
But of course you won't, because there really is no such thing as a "hardcore gamer". It's just a term invented by those with a heavily restricted, minority taste in games; a cover under which they feel safe posting thinly-veiled console wars topics, and/or sneering at other gamers whose tastes are wider-ranging.
I've been playing videogames for 23 years now. I own all three systems and also play games on my PC. It surely doesn't get more "hardcore" than that. But I love my PS2 most of all, and many of its mass-market games. So I can't possibly be a hardcore gamer, can I?
Not that I care in the slightest. I enjoy my gaming, and that's the only thing that matters to me.
Long live casual gamers and all the rubbish we buy. The industry would be far worse off without us.
> They don't get the amount of success they really deserve you fool.
Or... maybe they don't deserve a great deal of success because they aren't really that good?
Again it's the apparent complete misunderstanding or oversight of the so-called "hardcore gamer".
"This game appeals to the masses. Therefore it must be crap."
Bull.
Maybe games like Ico, Rez etc. don't "get the recognition" because they aren't actually that good?
Personally, I loved Ico. But I hated Rez. I also didn't like Sony's Fantavision. It doesn't mean they're rubbish, just that they don't appeal to my tastes.
The real difference is, I don't look down my nose at the people who do enjoy them, and blame them for ruining the games industry by supporting what are - in my own personal opinion - sub-standard titles.
The games industry is a business. Business is about money. Therefore, games with limited appeal are unlikely to sell significant copies, and thus deviation from popular themes in future games is less likely.
If a licensed game sells millions, it's because people like what it offers. If you don't like it, it's not because you're "hardcore", and it's not because the millions who bought it are mindless drones who know no better. It's because a company has researched what people want, and given it to them.
Don't kid yourself that Nintendo or anyone else care more about gamers than the other companies out there. All they care about is getting that cash out of your pocket and into theirs.
People moan about games not offering variety, and then they slam a game like GTA3 or Vice City, which offers something from almost every genre in one package, and combines it all seamlessly, with a good, unintrusive story.
"It only sells because of the violence!" Rubbish - it sells because it has something that appeals to the majority of game players.
I find it ironic and amusing that "hardcore" gamers moan about the lack of originality, then lap up - just for example - countless Mario games, where the only real change is the word or number before or after the name 'Mario'... 'Super Mario', 'Mario 64', 'Mario Advance', 'Super Mario Advance', 'Mario Party (1, 2, 3 and 4!), 'Mario Kart', 'Mario Kart 64', 'Super Mario Kart', 'Mario Sunshine', 'Super Mario World: Mario Advance 2' (two Mario's in that one - must be good!)
Originality is great when it works, but in many cases it's over-rated. After all, if you enjoy something, you want to do it again, right?
Enjoy sex? When your boy/girlfriend says "let's make love", do you reply "nah, sorry, been there, done that, want to try something new"? No, of course not. You might want to try a new position, but that doesn't mean you're off sex.
Similarly, if you enjoyed the original Tomb Raider, why would you not want Tomb Raider 2, 3, 4 and so on? You enjoy the type of game, you have new places to explore and new moves to use. It's familiar, still fun, and just as playable. All of the things you liked so much, but with a new twist.
Exactly why Angel of Darkness will sell bucketloads - one of the biggest icons in gaming, in a new game, on a new platform, with all the features that people enjoyed in the original, and a lot more besides.
Nothing wrong with that *at all*. And certainly no worse from a marketing and sales point of view than what Nintendo has been doing with Mario since the days of the NES.
People buy sequels and similar games because they enjoy them, not because they know no better.
On the other hand, the "hardcore gamer" restricts themself to smaller, niche-market games such as Ico and Rez, thinking that it somehow marks them out as being better than those who buy titles like Enter the Matrix.
By all means support original titles buy purchasing them if they appeal to you. The industry needs that.
But don't presume to tell me or anyone else, either directly or by implication, that we're idiots who are having a detrimental effect on the games industry as a whole.
The fact that you dislike games which appeal to the majority of the gaming public certainly does mark you out as 'special' - but not in the way you seem to think it does.
You're not some kind of 'elite' gamer, and you have no better taste in games than someone who buys and enjoys Enter the Matrix. All it means is that you have a far more restricted taste than most, and favour items of limited appeal.
In other areas of life, the term for such people is "eccentric". Like the old lady who lives down the street, owns 50 cats and holds lengthy conversations with dead relatives.
Now to me, a truly "hardcore" gamer would not be one of these people. A truly "hardcore" gamer would be able to enjoy almost any title on any platform; one who samples and enjoys as many different titles as possible.
A best-selling game is not about people running with the crowd or being otherwise percived as "cool". It's about a company successfully identifying what people like in games and acting on it. We didn't all buy GTA3 because we're sheep who have been told what we like; we bought it because Rockstar did their homework and got their product pretty much spot-on. They made it appeal to the largest number of gamers possible, and if that number doesn't include you, the problem is yours, not ours.
At the end of the day, remember this:
It is the mass-market buyer who funds the attempts at your precious wholly-original titles. These games don't earn enough revenue to pay for themselves.
Without the masses pumping millions into Sega's Outrun machines and their other generic racers over the years, how would they have funded the development of Rez or Super Monkey Ball? They certainly didn't get the cash from Dreamcast sales!
One final comment:
If I am wrong, and games for the "hardcore" really does mean being simple, original, addictive, innovative and great fun, then I expect EVERY ONE OF YOU "HARDCORE" GAMERS will be dashing out to buy yourself a PS2 and an EyeToy as soon as possible.
But of course you won't, because there really is no such thing as a "hardcore gamer". It's just a term invented by those with a heavily restricted, minority taste in games; a cover under which they feel safe posting thinly-veiled console wars topics, and/or sneering at other gamers whose tastes are wider-ranging.
I've been playing videogames for 23 years now. I own all three systems and also play games on my PC. It surely doesn't get more "hardcore" than that. But I love my PS2 most of all, and many of its mass-market games. So I can't possibly be a hardcore gamer, can I?
Not that I care in the slightest. I enjoy my gaming, and that's the only thing that matters to me.
Long live casual gamers and all the rubbish we buy. The industry would be far worse off without us.
What Tiltawhirl said was that they didn't get the success or recognition from the public that they deserve.
He was talking about original games, innovative ones, new concepts, and he was right. Most innovative games don't get the recognition they deserve, whether it's because of their appearance, or what format they're released on.
Zelda: The Wind Waker wasn't anything new, but it is a game critically acclaimed by almost all who've played it, but does it get recognition from the casual gamers you say should 'live long'? No. No it doesn't, and why? Because of it's visuals. Just because a game doesn't look how most think it should, they discount it entirely.
That is the attitude of the casual gamer, this is what the gaming community is like now, and to be frank, they're all pathetic retards who can't cope with anything a little 'different'.
Surely you can't suggest that GTA brought a new concept and idea into the industry either, since, like you said, it was just a blend of lots of other game types. It certainly wasn't anything new.
Before you go off on a giant rant like that, think about what you're saying, and try not to contradict yourself, OK?
And you, Alter Ego, are an idiot.
He was talking about original games, innovative ones, new concepts, and he was right. Most innovative games don't get the recognition they deserve, whether it's because of their appearance, or what format they're released on.
Zelda: The Wind Waker wasn't anything new, but it is a game critically acclaimed by almost all who've played it, but does it get recognition from the casual gamers you say should 'live long'? No. No it doesn't, and why? Because of it's visuals. Just because a game doesn't look how most think it should, they discount it entirely.
That is the attitude of the casual gamer, this is what the gaming community is like now, and to be frank, they're all pathetic retards who can't cope with anything a little 'different'.
Surely you can't suggest that GTA brought a new concept and idea into the industry either, since, like you said, it was just a blend of lots of other game types. It certainly wasn't anything new.
Before you go off on a giant rant like that, think about what you're saying, and try not to contradict yourself, OK?
And you, Alter Ego, are an idiot.
Hehe...
Memorandum wrote:
> Zelda: The Wind Waker wasn't anything new, but it is a game critically
> acclaimed by almost all who've played it, but does it get recognition
> from the casual gamers you say should 'live long'? No. No it
> doesn't, and why? Because of it's visuals. Just because a game
> doesn't look how most think it should, they discount it entirely.
You've killed your own argument there, surely? You say yourself, it offered nothing new. Maybe that's why it didn't sell, rather than the looks?
Previous Zelda's have been quite successful, at least in terms of sales for RPGs. Why have the buyers of previous Zelda's not bought this one and made it at least as successful?
Maybe because it offered nothing new?
Or could it be the graphics? Of course, if it is the graphics, then that proves that just as many "hardcore" Nintendo owners are just as fickle as the rest of us "casuals". After all, they know the game and wouldn't be as shallow as to be put off by graphics alone... would they?
> Surely you can't suggest that GTA brought a new concept and idea into
> the industry either, since, like you said, it was just a blend of lots
> of other game types. It certainly wasn't anything new.
I suggest you read it again, because I made absolutely no claim that GTA3 was original. I said that people moan about the lack of VARIETY in games, and then slam GTA - a title which has just about as much variety as any one game could.
> Before you go off on a giant rant like that, think about what you're
> saying, and try not to contradict yourself, OK?
I thought about it, and I didn't contradict myself. Practice what you preach.
> Zelda: The Wind Waker wasn't anything new, but it is a game critically
> acclaimed by almost all who've played it, but does it get recognition
> from the casual gamers you say should 'live long'? No. No it
> doesn't, and why? Because of it's visuals. Just because a game
> doesn't look how most think it should, they discount it entirely.
You've killed your own argument there, surely? You say yourself, it offered nothing new. Maybe that's why it didn't sell, rather than the looks?
Previous Zelda's have been quite successful, at least in terms of sales for RPGs. Why have the buyers of previous Zelda's not bought this one and made it at least as successful?
Maybe because it offered nothing new?
Or could it be the graphics? Of course, if it is the graphics, then that proves that just as many "hardcore" Nintendo owners are just as fickle as the rest of us "casuals". After all, they know the game and wouldn't be as shallow as to be put off by graphics alone... would they?
> Surely you can't suggest that GTA brought a new concept and idea into
> the industry either, since, like you said, it was just a blend of lots
> of other game types. It certainly wasn't anything new.
I suggest you read it again, because I made absolutely no claim that GTA3 was original. I said that people moan about the lack of VARIETY in games, and then slam GTA - a title which has just about as much variety as any one game could.
> Before you go off on a giant rant like that, think about what you're
> saying, and try not to contradict yourself, OK?
I thought about it, and I didn't contradict myself. Practice what you preach.
Memorandum wrote:
> Before you go off on a giant rant like that, think about what you're
> saying, and try not to contradict yourself, OK?
I should also add that you are the one contradicting yourself.
On the one hand, the "casual" gamers are idiots because they won't buy another Zelda which, by your own admission, offers nothing new.
But these are the same people you will also slam (presumably) for buying Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness or Tekken 5.
You either want them to buy sequels which offer little new content, or you don't. Make your mind up.
Or are they only idiots for buying sequels which offer nothing much new on non-Nintendo platforms?
> Before you go off on a giant rant like that, think about what you're
> saying, and try not to contradict yourself, OK?
I should also add that you are the one contradicting yourself.
On the one hand, the "casual" gamers are idiots because they won't buy another Zelda which, by your own admission, offers nothing new.
But these are the same people you will also slam (presumably) for buying Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness or Tekken 5.
You either want them to buy sequels which offer little new content, or you don't. Make your mind up.
Or are they only idiots for buying sequels which offer nothing much new on non-Nintendo platforms?
Chemical Ali wrote:
> You've killed your own argument there, surely? You say yourself, it
> offered nothing new. Maybe that's why it didn't sell, rather than the
> looks?
I haven't killed my own argument really, I was just pointing out that I wasn't trying to suggest it was original, as I'm sure you would have quickly shot that down as you did with the Mario series. What I meant was that while it offered nothing particularly new, it was just as good as any Zelda game before it, and just more of the same for anyone who likes the series, and as you stated yourself, people know what they like.
> Previous Zelda's have been quite successful, at least in terms of
> sales for RPGs. Why have the buyers of previous Zelda's not bought
> this one and made it at least as successful?
> Maybe because it offered nothing new?
I think what you've done here is what you accused me of doing; shooting down your own argument. You based quite a lot of your original post on the fact that people know what they like and want lots of it. And you're right about the sales of previous Zeldas, they were good, yet none of those games offered anything spectacularly new from the previous offerings, so this time, it must be something different, no?
> Or could it be the graphics? Of course, if it is the graphics, then
> that proves that just as many "hardcore" Nintendo owners are
> just as fickle as the rest of us "casuals". After all, they
> know the game and wouldn't be as shallow as to be put off by graphics
> alone... would they?
Here you're once again going right off the point, I, nor anyone else stated that all Nintendo owners are 'hardcore', as that would be a blatant lie, perhaps someone said that Nintendo was the home of more quirky games, and original ideas, and you can't deny that, surely?
I'm sure plenty of Nintendo owners were put off by the graphics, and I feel exactly the same way towards them as I feel towards owners of any other consoles that criticise it.
I don't feel I have to make exceptions for people just because they own a Gamecube too.
> I suggest you read it again, because I made absolutely no claim that
> GTA3 was original. I said that people moan about the lack of VARIETY
> in games, and then slam GTA - a title which has just about as much
> variety as any one game could.
I see your point here, and having read that section again, I obviously mis-interpreted your intention. It wasn't deliberate.
> You've killed your own argument there, surely? You say yourself, it
> offered nothing new. Maybe that's why it didn't sell, rather than the
> looks?
I haven't killed my own argument really, I was just pointing out that I wasn't trying to suggest it was original, as I'm sure you would have quickly shot that down as you did with the Mario series. What I meant was that while it offered nothing particularly new, it was just as good as any Zelda game before it, and just more of the same for anyone who likes the series, and as you stated yourself, people know what they like.
> Previous Zelda's have been quite successful, at least in terms of
> sales for RPGs. Why have the buyers of previous Zelda's not bought
> this one and made it at least as successful?
> Maybe because it offered nothing new?
I think what you've done here is what you accused me of doing; shooting down your own argument. You based quite a lot of your original post on the fact that people know what they like and want lots of it. And you're right about the sales of previous Zeldas, they were good, yet none of those games offered anything spectacularly new from the previous offerings, so this time, it must be something different, no?
> Or could it be the graphics? Of course, if it is the graphics, then
> that proves that just as many "hardcore" Nintendo owners are
> just as fickle as the rest of us "casuals". After all, they
> know the game and wouldn't be as shallow as to be put off by graphics
> alone... would they?
Here you're once again going right off the point, I, nor anyone else stated that all Nintendo owners are 'hardcore', as that would be a blatant lie, perhaps someone said that Nintendo was the home of more quirky games, and original ideas, and you can't deny that, surely?
I'm sure plenty of Nintendo owners were put off by the graphics, and I feel exactly the same way towards them as I feel towards owners of any other consoles that criticise it.
I don't feel I have to make exceptions for people just because they own a Gamecube too.
> I suggest you read it again, because I made absolutely no claim that
> GTA3 was original. I said that people moan about the lack of VARIETY
> in games, and then slam GTA - a title which has just about as much
> variety as any one game could.
I see your point here, and having read that section again, I obviously mis-interpreted your intention. It wasn't deliberate.
Chemical Ali wrote:
> I should also add that you are the one contradicting yourself.
>
> On the one hand, the "casual" gamers are idiots because they
> won't buy another Zelda which, by your own admission, offers nothing
> new.
I've stated how I feel about this in my previous post, so no need to go over all that again.
> But these are the same people you will also slam (presumably) for
> buying Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness or Tekken 5.
> You either want them to buy sequels which offer little new content, or
> you don't. Make your mind up.
No. Simply no. I have no problem with sequels at all, if the game itself were poor, as well as offering little new in terms of gameplay, then yes, I'm sure I would slam it, but at the same time, I wouldn't be slamming it for being a sequel, I'd be slamming it for its poor quality.
Sequels are fine, as long as they maintain, or improve upon the quality of the original game. Tired sequels - cash-ins, are the problem.
> Or are they only idiots for buying sequels which offer nothing much
> new on non-Nintendo platforms?
Again, I've stated my feelings on this in my previous post.
> I should also add that you are the one contradicting yourself.
>
> On the one hand, the "casual" gamers are idiots because they
> won't buy another Zelda which, by your own admission, offers nothing
> new.
I've stated how I feel about this in my previous post, so no need to go over all that again.
> But these are the same people you will also slam (presumably) for
> buying Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness or Tekken 5.
> You either want them to buy sequels which offer little new content, or
> you don't. Make your mind up.
No. Simply no. I have no problem with sequels at all, if the game itself were poor, as well as offering little new in terms of gameplay, then yes, I'm sure I would slam it, but at the same time, I wouldn't be slamming it for being a sequel, I'd be slamming it for its poor quality.
Sequels are fine, as long as they maintain, or improve upon the quality of the original game. Tired sequels - cash-ins, are the problem.
> Or are they only idiots for buying sequels which offer nothing much
> new on non-Nintendo platforms?
Again, I've stated my feelings on this in my previous post.
Terminator 3 both film and game will be rubbish
I still find it amusing that this guy thinks I'm a 'blinded zealot' because I enjoyed Enter the Matrix. Obviously I will be the downfall of the games industry.
I agree with almost everything Chemical said. I also own all three system on a PC, buy games on all formats and enjoy them regularly. Yet strangely enough, every time I dare to make a comment that doesn't follow the status quo thinking of some of the spack-faced goons on some forums here (I don't like Zelda, Metroid etc.) then I'm surrounded and attacked by screaming tards like the Agent Smiths fight scene in Matrix Reloaded.
And I hate the term 'casual gamer'. Sure in the past I've bought FIFA, Tony Hawk and other games that *shock horror* dare to have sequels and yes, it's very rare I spend longer than an hour playing games at any one sitting. But I've spent well over £3,000 on videogames equipment in the past, read more games magazines than anyone else on the planet, visit games websites dailya and write about videogames professionally for 45 hours a week. I have also owned games like Ico, Rez, Guilty Gear, Parappa the Rapper, Vib Ribbon and a hundred other so called 'hardcore' games. Am I still a casual gamer?
But sure, by buying the Matrix game, I'm 'planting the seeds of doom' that will eventually destroy quality gamesplaying for everyone.
*slaps wrist*
I agree with almost everything Chemical said. I also own all three system on a PC, buy games on all formats and enjoy them regularly. Yet strangely enough, every time I dare to make a comment that doesn't follow the status quo thinking of some of the spack-faced goons on some forums here (I don't like Zelda, Metroid etc.) then I'm surrounded and attacked by screaming tards like the Agent Smiths fight scene in Matrix Reloaded.
And I hate the term 'casual gamer'. Sure in the past I've bought FIFA, Tony Hawk and other games that *shock horror* dare to have sequels and yes, it's very rare I spend longer than an hour playing games at any one sitting. But I've spent well over £3,000 on videogames equipment in the past, read more games magazines than anyone else on the planet, visit games websites dailya and write about videogames professionally for 45 hours a week. I have also owned games like Ico, Rez, Guilty Gear, Parappa the Rapper, Vib Ribbon and a hundred other so called 'hardcore' games. Am I still a casual gamer?
But sure, by buying the Matrix game, I'm 'planting the seeds of doom' that will eventually destroy quality gamesplaying for everyone.
*slaps wrist*
Enter The MAtrix is good, not amazing.
A fun game :-D
A fun game :-D
Page: