The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Read b!*#h READ!
I am begging you here. Please.
I am begging you here. Please.
Anyone actually going to read this? Or have I posted it for nothing? Well done people. Completely restored my faith in this place..........
RiCkOsS wrote:
> P. O. P.
S. T. R. A. I. G. H. T.
T. O.
T. H. E.
T. O. P.
* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *
What he said :-D
> P. O. P.
S. T. R. A. I. G. H. T.
T. O.
T. H. E.
T. O. P.
* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *
What he said :-D
P. O. P.
S. T. R. A. I. G. H. T.
T. O.
T. H. E.
T. O. P.
S. T. R. A. I. G. H. T.
T. O.
T. H. E.
T. O. P.
POP!
Nice post MJ. Perhaps a GAD winner.
I don't care if the game's short or an epic. As long as its instantly (or almost) playable, and the other features are good, then I'll play it. And if all goes well, I'll buy all three NG consoles, as well as the PS3 whenever that's coming out. But I NEED that job at Tesco's first.
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: