The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gamers....were a strange breed of people when you think about it. We play our games, enjoy them for the most part, but there comes a time in ones life when you begin to ask questions about things. Why this and why that. We want answers and I am here to guide you all on your way to gaming bliss. Or at least Brighton anyway.
3d or 2d? Which ones better?
So, you get home and put your new game in your console or PC. The title screen flips up and all is looking good as you skim the writing and look for the option to start the game. Ah ha! There it is. You begin the game. After a lengthy cut scene involving some cool little cartoon style characters the game starts properly. BAM! Your face is slammed straight into a wall.....the game is 2d! Something is a bit wrong here you think. This is the latest game out you think to yourself. Why on earth does it have 2d graphics? I mean these died out with the Snes.
For the casual gamer this may be a question they ask themselves a lot. If we can have 3d games, why exactly would anyone want to play a 2d game. This is something that hints at their lack of knowledge. All true gamers know that games aren't what they are because of their graphics. I mean take Pac man, Jet set willy, Defender and all of the other classics from yester year. All 2d and yet classics every one of them. Of course some people will complain that this was only because they didn't have 3d back then, but if you think about it this is a bit silly.
2d games are good games, love them or hate them they are good. They ooze playability and should be respected. Obviously they aren’t so technically advanced but they make up for this with great gameplay. Take Yoshis Story for example. A game released on the N64 with 2d graphics. People thought Nintendo were mad, but upon release people realised that they weren't. 2d games still have what it takes, but they need an audience. 3d games have this audience as everyone wants to see the latest trick the graphics designers have worked out. 2d games lack this as people think they have seen all the tricks the genre has to offer.
So, in answer to the question, is 2d or 3d better. The answer is neither is better. They are both equal, each having bad points and each having good points. Draw game :)
Does size matter?
Does a game need to be 70 hours plus in size? Or can the developers get away with having only about 12 hours of gameplay in it? This is a question that can be debated greatly. Better get started then :)
Some games are, shall I say huge. These are the Final Fantasy's and the Shadowman's of the gaming world. These games are designed with one thing in common. This is to keep the gamer playing for hours on end. They are sucked into the world of the game and it refuses to let them go. These sorts of games tend to be the games that get you playing for at least 50 hours (un-experienced gamers anyway :-D). Wonderful titles, but do you ever feel the urge to cut the game short? Did you ever feel that it was dragging on a bit too long? Sometimes these games have boring parts, not many, but sometimes there are stages where the gamer can lose interest and this can be a bad thing. They may lose interest and never actually complete that game if worst comes to worst.
On the other side of the river we have the shorter games. Designed in a completely different style these games are made to bring you gaming ecstasy from the moment you turn the game on to the second you vanquish that final boss. You enjoy every second of it, relish each and every moment of gaming bliss. Is this better though? Would you rather pay the same amount of money for a game which is going to last several times shorter? In the end I think it comes down to personal preference. How much spare time do you have? Do you tire of a game if its too long? Are you a lazy muppet who does few levels and expects to see most of the game? These are all contributing factors.
Well, what is better? X-box (MASSIVE) sized games or Gamecube (Teensie weensie) sized games?
*voice cuts in over speakers*
"MJ we thought it was your job to tell them?"
Er...yeah, sorry :P In my opinion I would have to say that a large game is more appealing, but this is going to differ from person to person. So, once again I think I am going to have to declare this a draw!
Originality. Needed in spades or left out in the rain?
So, do games need to be original? Is it safer to go with the tried and tested formulas of the past? Or should we be experimenting? Trying out new things, seeing what works and what doesn't. That last word is very important in this question....D-O-E-S-N-'-T.
Should developers risk it? I mean what happens if a game is made very original to a point where it looks a bit dodgy. Take for example a game is released called "Space Pac man invaders" and the aim of the game is to fly around killing alien ships whilst collecting power pods, can you honestly say you would buy it? I mean its not been done before so no one knows if its any good. For all we know it could end up as one of the best games ever. The problem is, developers are scared of trying it.
So, developers don't want to push originality too far, but should they even bother making their games original at all? I mean look at the FIFA series. One of the least imaginative series of games to date yet it sells by the bucket load each and every update. Should developers take note of this and churn out replica after replica or should they try to add a few new things into their games each time?
For me it has to be the latter as without a glint of originality in a game I would be very bored playing it. Originality makes me want games. If I see a new feature I like the look of there is a good chance I will splash out and get the game. Take Turok 3 for example. I wasn't keen on getting it until I found out it had 2 playable characters. Although it added a longer game to it, it didn't really add much in the way of gameplay, but at least Acclaim tried. Its definitely been done before, but if that first developer didn't experiment, it may have taken a bit longer for a company to try it out.
On that note I am going to state that whilst originality is good, too much can be very bad for a game. Too little can work sometimes, but developers shouldn't see this as an excuse to produce a lazy excuse for a game. You need to get the right balance into a game for it too be a success. SO in answer to my question, originality DOES matter.
Out of the Gamecube vs X Box and Ps2 whats going to win.
Well in my opinion........ :-D
Thanks for reading. MJ
3d or 2d? Which ones better?
So, you get home and put your new game in your console or PC. The title screen flips up and all is looking good as you skim the writing and look for the option to start the game. Ah ha! There it is. You begin the game. After a lengthy cut scene involving some cool little cartoon style characters the game starts properly. BAM! Your face is slammed straight into a wall.....the game is 2d! Something is a bit wrong here you think. This is the latest game out you think to yourself. Why on earth does it have 2d graphics? I mean these died out with the Snes.
For the casual gamer this may be a question they ask themselves a lot. If we can have 3d games, why exactly would anyone want to play a 2d game. This is something that hints at their lack of knowledge. All true gamers know that games aren't what they are because of their graphics. I mean take Pac man, Jet set willy, Defender and all of the other classics from yester year. All 2d and yet classics every one of them. Of course some people will complain that this was only because they didn't have 3d back then, but if you think about it this is a bit silly.
2d games are good games, love them or hate them they are good. They ooze playability and should be respected. Obviously they aren’t so technically advanced but they make up for this with great gameplay. Take Yoshis Story for example. A game released on the N64 with 2d graphics. People thought Nintendo were mad, but upon release people realised that they weren't. 2d games still have what it takes, but they need an audience. 3d games have this audience as everyone wants to see the latest trick the graphics designers have worked out. 2d games lack this as people think they have seen all the tricks the genre has to offer.
So, in answer to the question, is 2d or 3d better. The answer is neither is better. They are both equal, each having bad points and each having good points. Draw game :)
Does size matter?
Does a game need to be 70 hours plus in size? Or can the developers get away with having only about 12 hours of gameplay in it? This is a question that can be debated greatly. Better get started then :)
Some games are, shall I say huge. These are the Final Fantasy's and the Shadowman's of the gaming world. These games are designed with one thing in common. This is to keep the gamer playing for hours on end. They are sucked into the world of the game and it refuses to let them go. These sorts of games tend to be the games that get you playing for at least 50 hours (un-experienced gamers anyway :-D). Wonderful titles, but do you ever feel the urge to cut the game short? Did you ever feel that it was dragging on a bit too long? Sometimes these games have boring parts, not many, but sometimes there are stages where the gamer can lose interest and this can be a bad thing. They may lose interest and never actually complete that game if worst comes to worst.
On the other side of the river we have the shorter games. Designed in a completely different style these games are made to bring you gaming ecstasy from the moment you turn the game on to the second you vanquish that final boss. You enjoy every second of it, relish each and every moment of gaming bliss. Is this better though? Would you rather pay the same amount of money for a game which is going to last several times shorter? In the end I think it comes down to personal preference. How much spare time do you have? Do you tire of a game if its too long? Are you a lazy muppet who does few levels and expects to see most of the game? These are all contributing factors.
Well, what is better? X-box (MASSIVE) sized games or Gamecube (Teensie weensie) sized games?
*voice cuts in over speakers*
"MJ we thought it was your job to tell them?"
Er...yeah, sorry :P In my opinion I would have to say that a large game is more appealing, but this is going to differ from person to person. So, once again I think I am going to have to declare this a draw!
Originality. Needed in spades or left out in the rain?
So, do games need to be original? Is it safer to go with the tried and tested formulas of the past? Or should we be experimenting? Trying out new things, seeing what works and what doesn't. That last word is very important in this question....D-O-E-S-N-'-T.
Should developers risk it? I mean what happens if a game is made very original to a point where it looks a bit dodgy. Take for example a game is released called "Space Pac man invaders" and the aim of the game is to fly around killing alien ships whilst collecting power pods, can you honestly say you would buy it? I mean its not been done before so no one knows if its any good. For all we know it could end up as one of the best games ever. The problem is, developers are scared of trying it.
So, developers don't want to push originality too far, but should they even bother making their games original at all? I mean look at the FIFA series. One of the least imaginative series of games to date yet it sells by the bucket load each and every update. Should developers take note of this and churn out replica after replica or should they try to add a few new things into their games each time?
For me it has to be the latter as without a glint of originality in a game I would be very bored playing it. Originality makes me want games. If I see a new feature I like the look of there is a good chance I will splash out and get the game. Take Turok 3 for example. I wasn't keen on getting it until I found out it had 2 playable characters. Although it added a longer game to it, it didn't really add much in the way of gameplay, but at least Acclaim tried. Its definitely been done before, but if that first developer didn't experiment, it may have taken a bit longer for a company to try it out.
On that note I am going to state that whilst originality is good, too much can be very bad for a game. Too little can work sometimes, but developers shouldn't see this as an excuse to produce a lazy excuse for a game. You need to get the right balance into a game for it too be a success. SO in answer to my question, originality DOES matter.
Out of the Gamecube vs X Box and Ps2 whats going to win.
Well in my opinion........ :-D
Thanks for reading. MJ
Page:
I remember the time when there was no mouse look in FPSs. The original Wolfenstein 3D only had straight forward shooting, as did Doom but they were great fun. The lack of mouse look on consoles though could be more of a problem since so many FPSs on the PC use it so well. In Quake 3 there is a lot of jumping about and sniping online and off and without mouse look it wouldn't be nearly as much fun, so how will consoles compete. My guess is that they wont and so they should stick to what they're good at like the mostly straight shooting Goldeneye and Perfect Dark and the Third Person adventuring antics of Metal Gear Solid. I think that if console games ever try to be like PC games they must be careful to take into account the restriction on both mouse and buttons (in the form of a keyboard). Real Time Strategies just can't be as good on a console because the mouse is very useful and anyway there are no original RTSs for consoles. I can't think how Black and White, with it's praised ability to be controlled entirely with one hand on your mouse and the other free for any purpose (even sandwiches as long as you lean back from the vitals of the computer), could possibly succeed on any console. I suppose it's all about making sure your game is appropriate to available control systems. Platformers are unpopular on the PC because they don't use enough controls (possibly), Space Flight sims (well any flight sim really) only work on PCs because of the amount of buttons needed using a combination of keyboard and joystick (with joystick being a recent addition to the console arsenal and there are the examples I already covered. Half-Life worked well on the PC but will it suffer because of lack of mouse? Gameplay isn't just about good games, it's about controlling good games too.
Hmmm, how to reply to Gronti.....very long post. I will have a go later, have to get off the computer for a bit. Thanks for replying anyone who has. Made writing the topic worth it.
Strafex wrote:
You
> have to look at 2D games in a different sense.
You'll never get that sort of
> great simplistic gameplay on a PS2 or possibly not even the Gamecube.
These
> classic style 2D games required more skill while modern games tend to require
> more memory.
Dodging something as it comes, or remembering the level's lay
> out and set pieces?
Simplistic gameplay....one word. Super Monkey Ball! This game looks simple to me and this has to be one of the reasons that it will sell well. Great graphics, simple gameplay, wonderful game. Mind you, if you think about it CBFD has very simple game play. I mean there wasn't any complicated moves or anything, just hitting B when you stand on a pad. But this game was *in one word* fun. It didnt need millions of moves yet it shined in a sea of incompetent immitators to Mario.
I know that both kinds have elements of both but 2D games
> tend to be more on the moment while 3D games are often based around memory.
Hmm, I don't know how much I can agree with that statement. If you play a game on any console and play the same level you won't ever be doing the same thing. This is because the AI responds to what your doing. Like different soldiers say run different ways depending on how you approach them. Due to this a 3d game cant really be all down to memory. However, some of the older 2d games can. Take the age old classic of Galaga for example. Taking Space Invaders to a new level, each level would have swarms of ships for you to destroy, but the key thing is you could learn the way they attack and use it to your advantage.
The only problem with me saying this, is that its the same for some 3d games. Take any of the Bosses in Zelda for instance. Each boss has a pattern to attack you. You learn this and then beat the boss. SO in theory all I am trying to prove is that both 2d and 3d need memory and spur of the moment thinking.
As for the length of a game, I wouldn't prefer a long game at the
> expense of the gameplay, but I still want my moneys worth and atleast 30 hours
> of Gameplay.
If a game can't be long then the publishers must make it harder to
> make it last longer, or put in a damn good multiplayer which'll occupy the
> player for a long while.
This was the problem I found with CBFD. A great game, but it lasted me about 12 hours tops. I replayed it and it lasted me mere hours. I paid 50 pounds for a game which lasted me a week. The multiplayer was fun for a while but it quickly lost its appeal. However I would be much more willing to pay out 50 pounds for a ga,me such as Goldeneye. Great one player (short if your good, long if your not) but the key thing is it had a tremendous multiplayer in it. Its lasted years and it still comes out on top regularily if its a choice between that and Perfect Dark. THats the true sign of a great game.
You
> have to look at 2D games in a different sense.
You'll never get that sort of
> great simplistic gameplay on a PS2 or possibly not even the Gamecube.
These
> classic style 2D games required more skill while modern games tend to require
> more memory.
Dodging something as it comes, or remembering the level's lay
> out and set pieces?
Simplistic gameplay....one word. Super Monkey Ball! This game looks simple to me and this has to be one of the reasons that it will sell well. Great graphics, simple gameplay, wonderful game. Mind you, if you think about it CBFD has very simple game play. I mean there wasn't any complicated moves or anything, just hitting B when you stand on a pad. But this game was *in one word* fun. It didnt need millions of moves yet it shined in a sea of incompetent immitators to Mario.
I know that both kinds have elements of both but 2D games
> tend to be more on the moment while 3D games are often based around memory.
Hmm, I don't know how much I can agree with that statement. If you play a game on any console and play the same level you won't ever be doing the same thing. This is because the AI responds to what your doing. Like different soldiers say run different ways depending on how you approach them. Due to this a 3d game cant really be all down to memory. However, some of the older 2d games can. Take the age old classic of Galaga for example. Taking Space Invaders to a new level, each level would have swarms of ships for you to destroy, but the key thing is you could learn the way they attack and use it to your advantage.
The only problem with me saying this, is that its the same for some 3d games. Take any of the Bosses in Zelda for instance. Each boss has a pattern to attack you. You learn this and then beat the boss. SO in theory all I am trying to prove is that both 2d and 3d need memory and spur of the moment thinking.
As for the length of a game, I wouldn't prefer a long game at the
> expense of the gameplay, but I still want my moneys worth and atleast 30 hours
> of Gameplay.
If a game can't be long then the publishers must make it harder to
> make it last longer, or put in a damn good multiplayer which'll occupy the
> player for a long while.
This was the problem I found with CBFD. A great game, but it lasted me about 12 hours tops. I replayed it and it lasted me mere hours. I paid 50 pounds for a game which lasted me a week. The multiplayer was fun for a while but it quickly lost its appeal. However I would be much more willing to pay out 50 pounds for a ga,me such as Goldeneye. Great one player (short if your good, long if your not) but the key thing is it had a tremendous multiplayer in it. Its lasted years and it still comes out on top regularily if its a choice between that and Perfect Dark. THats the true sign of a great game.
Ah yes, there are many questions which gamers ask, often to themselves when they realise that all their friends have gone home and it is 3:00 in the morning. They ask "where did my drink go? It was there a minute ago," (They finished it an hour before), they ask "Why do I keep dying here?" and perhaps most importantly they ask "Where did all the time go". Well that is the dream anyway, finding a game that eats your life without you ever noticing. You lose any sort of social activity, you lose weight due to missing meals, you lose all your friends because you never let them play and you lose the ability to care about any of this because you have true love in the game. Of course one day the game will dump you or you will dump it as you become bored of it's features (you cad, only interested in one thing) so you need something new and what do you look for?
Well the 2D 3D debate died along with 2D but since 2D isn't quite dead there are those who wont give up, no matter how hard you kick them. Well with the GBA out 2D is pushing it's way bach out to the gaming public and we soon realise that it's not that bad. The Pokemon phenomenon was almost entirely carried out in 2D and it was amazingly popular, there were suspicions of subliminal messages and mind control techniques but nothing was ever proven. Hail the grand master Pikachu... Ahem sorry, where was I? Anyway 2D games are all fine and well for novelty but these days they just don't cut a muffin (wait a minute). If you want to keep moving to the future of gaming then 3D is really the only way to go (until we get 4D, ooh shiny) and with new games like Return To Castle Wolfenstein taking full advantage of the powers 3D provides can any 2D game stand up to them? Even the mighty bastion of 2D GTA has dropped all bastionhood and went for a 3D third instalment, just as Duke Nukem did when it used up a great joke by calling itself Duke Nukem 3D. Of course Duke Nukem Forever used another joke by actually taking forever to come out, if it ever does that is, and of course fears of another Daikatana fiasco are abound. Of course we forget Duke because of all the new games that Duke Nukem Forever could have been, such as the afformentioned Return To Castle Wolfenstein. Yes so I don't think there is any competition between 3D and 2D for quality of games these days. 2D dominates the GBA and 3D dominates pretty much everything else. So 3D wins for most people's purposes. Of course 2D supporters would tell you that 3D doesn't exist but they are just spreading the rumour that consoles and computers aren't really portals into other worlds which allow us to interact and control indirectly through them with the other world. Next they'll be telling us Thunderbirds wasn't a documentary about the work of International Rescue and that those safety harnesses are actually strings on puppets, oh the insanity.
So next up is size and one that MJSwerve may well have hit right on the nail's innocent little head. Yes length in games can be a great thing but only if done correctly. Baldur's Gate 2 takes a very long time to complete and is consistently fun throughout but some games may become tedious and repetitive resulting in length being a bad thing. Then there are short and snappy games, which also have their good points and bad points. Some short games tend to have good replayability, such as wrestling games which can be played for all time if they are good but don't really have very long stories. Of course the No Mercy story mode did have 7 belts each with several different paths so maybe you could class wrestling games as long. Okay then, Max Payne, it was quite short but a lot of people said it was great fun to play and well worth playing again and again. Of course not everyone agreed and some people saw through the gameplay as being really just "slow motion dodge, shoot bad guy, repeat" which wasn't entirely inaccurate. Of course this style was actually quite fun but if the game was any longer it may have been much more loathed because less people would have played to completion before realising how repetitive it was. Maybe more puzzles in Max Payne 2? Of course size only matters in so far as it has to be right for the gameplay, big games are good if the gameplay will last right through but small games excel at being fun all the way through by not being long enough to become tedious and boring. So in the end I must agree with MJSwerve that good big games are better because they manage to be good for a bigger game and small games can be good but aren't to everyones tastes. Of course replayability makes some games difficult to place, for example would any GTA last long if you only completed any given level once and as soon as you had enough cash? It wouldn't of course but they are so replayable you can consider them to be big games because of the time they take to get boring (if they ever do).
Okay, what's next, ah originality, the eternal debate that can never be solved. Well I don't know if originality really does matter as much as some people would have you believe. Black and White may have done well because it was very original and great fun but GTA3 is successful on the basis that it is just a little more of the same sort of GTA and GTA2 fun. Okay there are differences but mostly in graphics and perspective so the biggest changes are really cosmetic but it doesn't matter because the GTA style of gameplay is one that will never really get boring. It's the same with First Person Shooters, mostly originality comes in the form of new level design, new weapons and improved AI but in the end the biggest parts of the game are going to be running and shooting and who could complain becaause running and shooting is great fun. Of course there is quite a lot of originality, Black and White may have been about 70% originality and maybe even more than that but most games at least get a little originality and some even get amounts of say 20-30% which results in a game with many new elements even if it is at the core still an old style. Deus Ex for example was original in that it took some RPG elements and added them to an FPS (though didn't System Shock do this first?) and it was hailed as very original despite being essentially a FPS. Of course there were all the stealth, character interaction and specialty elements which did quite a lot to make it original but really a game doesn't need much to stand out from the competition. Take Return To Castle Wolfenstein, it doesn't appear to have much ground breaking new ideas or technologies, it's just a well designed game with a good stroy and excellent gameplay. The end result is still a great game and so should be enjoyed by all who buy it. So perhaps originality is not that important but really games must always provide something new even if it's just a style change to keep gamers happy. So perhaps there is originality in all good games, it may be hard to see but it's there and it's a good thing. Oh so that means MJSwerve was right that originality does matter, at least to a reasonable extent.
Oh, well that appears to be everything and very little has come out with different conclusions. So I guess MJSwerve was almost right but it's always good to go over things. Possibly. Well anyway I don't think the PS2 and X-Box could ever be judged in competition since the X-Box is too new to compare with the PS2. It's all about how times change really. I'll be getting an X-Box I suspect, maybe a GC... Hmm, now that is a real question, GC or X-Box?
Well the 2D 3D debate died along with 2D but since 2D isn't quite dead there are those who wont give up, no matter how hard you kick them. Well with the GBA out 2D is pushing it's way bach out to the gaming public and we soon realise that it's not that bad. The Pokemon phenomenon was almost entirely carried out in 2D and it was amazingly popular, there were suspicions of subliminal messages and mind control techniques but nothing was ever proven. Hail the grand master Pikachu... Ahem sorry, where was I? Anyway 2D games are all fine and well for novelty but these days they just don't cut a muffin (wait a minute). If you want to keep moving to the future of gaming then 3D is really the only way to go (until we get 4D, ooh shiny) and with new games like Return To Castle Wolfenstein taking full advantage of the powers 3D provides can any 2D game stand up to them? Even the mighty bastion of 2D GTA has dropped all bastionhood and went for a 3D third instalment, just as Duke Nukem did when it used up a great joke by calling itself Duke Nukem 3D. Of course Duke Nukem Forever used another joke by actually taking forever to come out, if it ever does that is, and of course fears of another Daikatana fiasco are abound. Of course we forget Duke because of all the new games that Duke Nukem Forever could have been, such as the afformentioned Return To Castle Wolfenstein. Yes so I don't think there is any competition between 3D and 2D for quality of games these days. 2D dominates the GBA and 3D dominates pretty much everything else. So 3D wins for most people's purposes. Of course 2D supporters would tell you that 3D doesn't exist but they are just spreading the rumour that consoles and computers aren't really portals into other worlds which allow us to interact and control indirectly through them with the other world. Next they'll be telling us Thunderbirds wasn't a documentary about the work of International Rescue and that those safety harnesses are actually strings on puppets, oh the insanity.
So next up is size and one that MJSwerve may well have hit right on the nail's innocent little head. Yes length in games can be a great thing but only if done correctly. Baldur's Gate 2 takes a very long time to complete and is consistently fun throughout but some games may become tedious and repetitive resulting in length being a bad thing. Then there are short and snappy games, which also have their good points and bad points. Some short games tend to have good replayability, such as wrestling games which can be played for all time if they are good but don't really have very long stories. Of course the No Mercy story mode did have 7 belts each with several different paths so maybe you could class wrestling games as long. Okay then, Max Payne, it was quite short but a lot of people said it was great fun to play and well worth playing again and again. Of course not everyone agreed and some people saw through the gameplay as being really just "slow motion dodge, shoot bad guy, repeat" which wasn't entirely inaccurate. Of course this style was actually quite fun but if the game was any longer it may have been much more loathed because less people would have played to completion before realising how repetitive it was. Maybe more puzzles in Max Payne 2? Of course size only matters in so far as it has to be right for the gameplay, big games are good if the gameplay will last right through but small games excel at being fun all the way through by not being long enough to become tedious and boring. So in the end I must agree with MJSwerve that good big games are better because they manage to be good for a bigger game and small games can be good but aren't to everyones tastes. Of course replayability makes some games difficult to place, for example would any GTA last long if you only completed any given level once and as soon as you had enough cash? It wouldn't of course but they are so replayable you can consider them to be big games because of the time they take to get boring (if they ever do).
Okay, what's next, ah originality, the eternal debate that can never be solved. Well I don't know if originality really does matter as much as some people would have you believe. Black and White may have done well because it was very original and great fun but GTA3 is successful on the basis that it is just a little more of the same sort of GTA and GTA2 fun. Okay there are differences but mostly in graphics and perspective so the biggest changes are really cosmetic but it doesn't matter because the GTA style of gameplay is one that will never really get boring. It's the same with First Person Shooters, mostly originality comes in the form of new level design, new weapons and improved AI but in the end the biggest parts of the game are going to be running and shooting and who could complain becaause running and shooting is great fun. Of course there is quite a lot of originality, Black and White may have been about 70% originality and maybe even more than that but most games at least get a little originality and some even get amounts of say 20-30% which results in a game with many new elements even if it is at the core still an old style. Deus Ex for example was original in that it took some RPG elements and added them to an FPS (though didn't System Shock do this first?) and it was hailed as very original despite being essentially a FPS. Of course there were all the stealth, character interaction and specialty elements which did quite a lot to make it original but really a game doesn't need much to stand out from the competition. Take Return To Castle Wolfenstein, it doesn't appear to have much ground breaking new ideas or technologies, it's just a well designed game with a good stroy and excellent gameplay. The end result is still a great game and so should be enjoyed by all who buy it. So perhaps originality is not that important but really games must always provide something new even if it's just a style change to keep gamers happy. So perhaps there is originality in all good games, it may be hard to see but it's there and it's a good thing. Oh so that means MJSwerve was right that originality does matter, at least to a reasonable extent.
Oh, well that appears to be everything and very little has come out with different conclusions. So I guess MJSwerve was almost right but it's always good to go over things. Possibly. Well anyway I don't think the PS2 and X-Box could ever be judged in competition since the X-Box is too new to compare with the PS2. It's all about how times change really. I'll be getting an X-Box I suspect, maybe a GC... Hmm, now that is a real question, GC or X-Box?
Ant wrote:
> Yep, there are lots of questions.
I prefer 3D to be honest. I may sound
> 'immature,' but I strgulle to play Mario on my GBA when my PS2 can offer so much
> more of an experience, especially graphically.
You have to look at 2D games in a different sense.
You'll never get that sort of great simplistic gameplay on a PS2 or possibly not even the Gamecube.
These classic style 2D games required more skill while modern games tend to require more memory.
Dodging something as it comes, or remembering the level's lay out and set pieces?
I know that both kinds have elements of both but 2D games tend to be more on the moment while 3D games are often based around memory.
I suppose it's down to what suits your style. I like both kinds in different ways.
As for the length of a game, I wouldn't prefer a long game at the expense of the gameplay, but I still want my moneys worth and atleast 30 hours of Gameplay.
If a game can't be long then the publishers must make it harder to make it last longer, or put in a damn good multiplayer which'll occupy the player for a long while.
I don't judge games on their length but it's still a crucially important factor on how good a game is.
And what's even more important is that it's got to be well worth playing for that 30+ hours!
> Yep, there are lots of questions.
I prefer 3D to be honest. I may sound
> 'immature,' but I strgulle to play Mario on my GBA when my PS2 can offer so much
> more of an experience, especially graphically.
You have to look at 2D games in a different sense.
You'll never get that sort of great simplistic gameplay on a PS2 or possibly not even the Gamecube.
These classic style 2D games required more skill while modern games tend to require more memory.
Dodging something as it comes, or remembering the level's lay out and set pieces?
I know that both kinds have elements of both but 2D games tend to be more on the moment while 3D games are often based around memory.
I suppose it's down to what suits your style. I like both kinds in different ways.
As for the length of a game, I wouldn't prefer a long game at the expense of the gameplay, but I still want my moneys worth and atleast 30 hours of Gameplay.
If a game can't be long then the publishers must make it harder to make it last longer, or put in a damn good multiplayer which'll occupy the player for a long while.
I don't judge games on their length but it's still a crucially important factor on how good a game is.
And what's even more important is that it's got to be well worth playing for that 30+ hours!
Ant wrote:
Take FPS' for an example. They're
> all unoriginal nowadays. But what they CAN do to make it original, is add
> something to it. Red Faction added the Geo-Mod Technology, which made it a
> different sort of FPS.
Deus Ex is an amazing FPS, as it adds so many
> different aspects to an FPS. All the computer hacking, nano-technology etc, it
> made it original, even though it was an FPS.
* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *
Oh, I see what you mean now. So what you meant was using an idea that has been tried and tested many times, but then adding something into it to make it just that bit different. Like in ALiens Vs Predator when they allowed you to control 3 different species.
Take FPS' for an example. They're
> all unoriginal nowadays. But what they CAN do to make it original, is add
> something to it. Red Faction added the Geo-Mod Technology, which made it a
> different sort of FPS.
Deus Ex is an amazing FPS, as it adds so many
> different aspects to an FPS. All the computer hacking, nano-technology etc, it
> made it original, even though it was an FPS.
* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *
Oh, I see what you mean now. So what you meant was using an idea that has been tried and tested many times, but then adding something into it to make it just that bit different. Like in ALiens Vs Predator when they allowed you to control 3 different species.
MJswerve wrote:
> Ant wrote:
I don't mind original. However, most stuff has been done now and
> the
> original games that are coming out fail to catch on, and usually fail
> anyway.
> Unoriginal is fine, as we know it works.
MOst of the original
> ideas have been done? I have to disagree there. I mean when you thin about it,
> what does original mean? Its something that hasn;t been done before. SO in other
> words there are plenty of original ideas out there, its just we need someone to
> think about them.
DOn't you get bored playing unoriginal games? I am sure you
> would prefer to play something a bit fresher?
Take FPS' for an example. They're all unoriginal nowadays. But what they CAN do to make it original, is add something to it. Red Faction added the Geo-Mod Technology, which made it a different sort of FPS.
Deus Ex is an amazing FPS, as it adds so many different aspects to an FPS. All the computer hacking, nano-technology etc, it made it original, even though it was an FPS.
> Ant wrote:
I don't mind original. However, most stuff has been done now and
> the
> original games that are coming out fail to catch on, and usually fail
> anyway.
> Unoriginal is fine, as we know it works.
MOst of the original
> ideas have been done? I have to disagree there. I mean when you thin about it,
> what does original mean? Its something that hasn;t been done before. SO in other
> words there are plenty of original ideas out there, its just we need someone to
> think about them.
DOn't you get bored playing unoriginal games? I am sure you
> would prefer to play something a bit fresher?
Take FPS' for an example. They're all unoriginal nowadays. But what they CAN do to make it original, is add something to it. Red Faction added the Geo-Mod Technology, which made it a different sort of FPS.
Deus Ex is an amazing FPS, as it adds so many different aspects to an FPS. All the computer hacking, nano-technology etc, it made it original, even though it was an FPS.
Ant wrote:
I prefer 3D to be honest. I may sound
> 'immature,' but I strgulle to play Mario on my GBA when my PS2 can offer so much
> more of an experience, especially graphically.
I suppose I see where your coming from in that respect. Once you've seen the sort of graphics the 128bit consoles have a handheld like the GBA does seem to be rather outdated doesn't it. Its a shame as a lot of the games are true classics or have the potential to be. I am sure your ont the only one here who feels like that Ant, to be honest I woul;d rather play a nice 3d game instead of a 2d one at the best of times. The only 2d game that has managed to drag me away from 3d games for a long time was Chrono Trigger.
Games don't need to be that
> long, as long as they're amazing while you play them. MGS is the perfect
> answer.
Hmm, I see where your coming from. SHort games that sell well tend to be absolutely fantastic games dont they. As you said MGS is a su[erb example. Its a great game which is quite short, however I bet there is no one here who can say they only completed it once. If there is I would be surprised as they in fact haven't completed the game. Seeing as there is two ways to go when you get put in the torture chamber.
I don't mind original. However, most stuff has been done now and the
> original games that are coming out fail to catch on, and usually fail anyway.
> Unoriginal is fine, as we know it works.
MOst of the original ideas have been done? I have to disagree there. I mean when you thin about it, what does original mean? Its something that hasn;t been done before. SO in other words there are plenty of original ideas out there, its just we need someone to think about them.
DOn't you get bored playing unoriginal games? I am sure you would prefer to play something a bit fresher?
Thanks for replying by the way Ant :-) Brightened my morning up :)
I prefer 3D to be honest. I may sound
> 'immature,' but I strgulle to play Mario on my GBA when my PS2 can offer so much
> more of an experience, especially graphically.
I suppose I see where your coming from in that respect. Once you've seen the sort of graphics the 128bit consoles have a handheld like the GBA does seem to be rather outdated doesn't it. Its a shame as a lot of the games are true classics or have the potential to be. I am sure your ont the only one here who feels like that Ant, to be honest I woul;d rather play a nice 3d game instead of a 2d one at the best of times. The only 2d game that has managed to drag me away from 3d games for a long time was Chrono Trigger.
Games don't need to be that
> long, as long as they're amazing while you play them. MGS is the perfect
> answer.
Hmm, I see where your coming from. SHort games that sell well tend to be absolutely fantastic games dont they. As you said MGS is a su[erb example. Its a great game which is quite short, however I bet there is no one here who can say they only completed it once. If there is I would be surprised as they in fact haven't completed the game. Seeing as there is two ways to go when you get put in the torture chamber.
I don't mind original. However, most stuff has been done now and the
> original games that are coming out fail to catch on, and usually fail anyway.
> Unoriginal is fine, as we know it works.
MOst of the original ideas have been done? I have to disagree there. I mean when you thin about it, what does original mean? Its something that hasn;t been done before. SO in other words there are plenty of original ideas out there, its just we need someone to think about them.
DOn't you get bored playing unoriginal games? I am sure you would prefer to play something a bit fresher?
Thanks for replying by the way Ant :-) Brightened my morning up :)
Yep, there are lots of questions.
I prefer 3D to be honest. I may sound 'immature,' but I strgulle to play Mario on my GBA when my PS2 can offer so much more of an experience, especially graphically.
Games don't need to be that long, as long as they're amazing while you play them. MGS is the perfect answer.
I don't mind original. However, most stuff has been done now and the original games that are coming out fail to catch on, and usually fail anyway. Unoriginal is fine, as we know it works.
I prefer 3D to be honest. I may sound 'immature,' but I strgulle to play Mario on my GBA when my PS2 can offer so much more of an experience, especially graphically.
Games don't need to be that long, as long as they're amazing while you play them. MGS is the perfect answer.
I don't mind original. However, most stuff has been done now and the original games that are coming out fail to catch on, and usually fail anyway. Unoriginal is fine, as we know it works.
.......I may as well give up then, no one wants to read it....either that or your all a bunch of lazy baboons. ANyway, one last POP....live the dream.
Page: