The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
How many games are based around killing and mass destruction of some kind or another?
I'd say a good 85-90% of them...
Which is no bad thing... I certainly greatly enjoy killing maining and generally bringing about the death of as many people as possible in as short a amount a time as possible...
Well... Virtually speaking, at least :)
However, my point is, the vast majority of games released into todays market are about, and revolve around killing and destruction...
However, if I draw up a list of my favourite games... a top 10, top 100, or whatever...
And even if my favourite all time game in that list was Quake, Unreal Tornament, GTA3, etc...
I'd suspect a sizable number, would be non-lethal titles...
Although, a number of them may include killing as one of the aspects of the game, the point of the game itself would not be based around killing...
For example, say, Civilisation... where attacking towns and citys is an active part of the game... theres never any gratuitos killing... a captured city will keep the same number of citizens after being captured... (though it may lose a few structures along the way)
So, if thats the case, why is it that so few non-lethal games are released?
How can Tetris be such a universally popular title, yet only be followed by further Tetris titles, and no other big name abstract puzzlers?
How can releases so popular in the eighties, like Sentinal, or Driller, or Skool Daze, etc... be so few and far between, though, when they are released, be so universally aclaimed, and over time, sell in their millions? ...
Given the shelf life of these products, which, since they dont depend on graphics to sell, they can continue to sell in numbers for years, instead of months?
Is it because these titles never have flashy enough pictures on the back of the box?
Is it betting Bub and Bob to try to smash blocks falling from the screen with other blocks of the same colour doesnt make adequet use of that console you just spent a few hundred quid on?
Is it because you never really know what your getting until you've had a few games... after all you could spend 30-40quid ion a puzzel game, only to discover, once you get home, that its feels like a game you could have made yourself given a couple of hours spare?
Is it because a game based around thinking rather than reactions intimidates the average games player?
Any Ideas?
I'd say a good 85-90% of them...
Which is no bad thing... I certainly greatly enjoy killing maining and generally bringing about the death of as many people as possible in as short a amount a time as possible...
Well... Virtually speaking, at least :)
However, my point is, the vast majority of games released into todays market are about, and revolve around killing and destruction...
However, if I draw up a list of my favourite games... a top 10, top 100, or whatever...
And even if my favourite all time game in that list was Quake, Unreal Tornament, GTA3, etc...
I'd suspect a sizable number, would be non-lethal titles...
Although, a number of them may include killing as one of the aspects of the game, the point of the game itself would not be based around killing...
For example, say, Civilisation... where attacking towns and citys is an active part of the game... theres never any gratuitos killing... a captured city will keep the same number of citizens after being captured... (though it may lose a few structures along the way)
So, if thats the case, why is it that so few non-lethal games are released?
How can Tetris be such a universally popular title, yet only be followed by further Tetris titles, and no other big name abstract puzzlers?
How can releases so popular in the eighties, like Sentinal, or Driller, or Skool Daze, etc... be so few and far between, though, when they are released, be so universally aclaimed, and over time, sell in their millions? ...
Given the shelf life of these products, which, since they dont depend on graphics to sell, they can continue to sell in numbers for years, instead of months?
Is it because these titles never have flashy enough pictures on the back of the box?
Is it betting Bub and Bob to try to smash blocks falling from the screen with other blocks of the same colour doesnt make adequet use of that console you just spent a few hundred quid on?
Is it because you never really know what your getting until you've had a few games... after all you could spend 30-40quid ion a puzzel game, only to discover, once you get home, that its feels like a game you could have made yourself given a couple of hours spare?
Is it because a game based around thinking rather than reactions intimidates the average games player?
Any Ideas?
Yeah, it's like saying
"I'm talking crap"
...
...
...
Hey, wait a minute!
"I'm talking crap"
...
...
...
Hey, wait a minute!
Hey!... No fair...
Not the title the post...
THE POST!
:)
Not the title the post...
THE POST!
:)
killed to death lol good title
How many games are based around killing and mass destruction of some kind or another?
I'd say a good 85-90% of them...
Which is no bad thing... I certainly greatly enjoy killing maining and generally bringing about the death of as many people as possible in as short a amount a time as possible...
Well... Virtually speaking, at least :)
However, my point is, the vast majority of games released into todays market are about, and revolve around killing and destruction...
However, if I draw up a list of my favourite games... a top 10, top 100, or whatever...
And even if my favourite all time game in that list was Quake, Unreal Tornament, GTA3, etc...
I'd suspect a sizable number, would be non-lethal titles...
Although, a number of them may include killing as one of the aspects of the game, the point of the game itself would not be based around killing...
For example, say, Civilisation... where attacking towns and citys is an active part of the game... theres never any gratuitos killing... a captured city will keep the same number of citizens after being captured... (though it may lose a few structures along the way)
So, if thats the case, why is it that so few non-lethal games are released?
How can Tetris be such a universally popular title, yet only be followed by further Tetris titles, and no other big name abstract puzzlers?
How can releases so popular in the eighties, like Sentinal, or Driller, or Skool Daze, etc... be so few and far between, though, when they are released, be so universally aclaimed, and over time, sell in their millions? ...
Given the shelf life of these products, which, since they dont depend on graphics to sell, they can continue to sell in numbers for years, instead of months?
Is it because these titles never have flashy enough pictures on the back of the box?
Is it betting Bub and Bob to try to smash blocks falling from the screen with other blocks of the same colour doesnt make adequet use of that console you just spent a few hundred quid on?
Is it because you never really know what your getting until you've had a few games... after all you could spend 30-40quid ion a puzzel game, only to discover, once you get home, that its feels like a game you could have made yourself given a couple of hours spare?
Is it because a game based around thinking rather than reactions intimidates the average games player?
Any Ideas?
I'd say a good 85-90% of them...
Which is no bad thing... I certainly greatly enjoy killing maining and generally bringing about the death of as many people as possible in as short a amount a time as possible...
Well... Virtually speaking, at least :)
However, my point is, the vast majority of games released into todays market are about, and revolve around killing and destruction...
However, if I draw up a list of my favourite games... a top 10, top 100, or whatever...
And even if my favourite all time game in that list was Quake, Unreal Tornament, GTA3, etc...
I'd suspect a sizable number, would be non-lethal titles...
Although, a number of them may include killing as one of the aspects of the game, the point of the game itself would not be based around killing...
For example, say, Civilisation... where attacking towns and citys is an active part of the game... theres never any gratuitos killing... a captured city will keep the same number of citizens after being captured... (though it may lose a few structures along the way)
So, if thats the case, why is it that so few non-lethal games are released?
How can Tetris be such a universally popular title, yet only be followed by further Tetris titles, and no other big name abstract puzzlers?
How can releases so popular in the eighties, like Sentinal, or Driller, or Skool Daze, etc... be so few and far between, though, when they are released, be so universally aclaimed, and over time, sell in their millions? ...
Given the shelf life of these products, which, since they dont depend on graphics to sell, they can continue to sell in numbers for years, instead of months?
Is it because these titles never have flashy enough pictures on the back of the box?
Is it betting Bub and Bob to try to smash blocks falling from the screen with other blocks of the same colour doesnt make adequet use of that console you just spent a few hundred quid on?
Is it because you never really know what your getting until you've had a few games... after all you could spend 30-40quid ion a puzzel game, only to discover, once you get home, that its feels like a game you could have made yourself given a couple of hours spare?
Is it because a game based around thinking rather than reactions intimidates the average games player?
Any Ideas?