The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
By playing gaming you prematurely age. You don’t get old, decrepit and begin to leave unfortunate yellow stains on your clothing – but you do feel like you’re surrounded by kids. I’m only twenty, but posting here I feel like an old fart. In fact, I still buy the N64/new GameCube related name that escapes me at the moment (games related altsymers?) and to me it seems like it is being written for a particularly excited seven year old. Now, maybe part of the reason is that I’ve dabbled a little in the old journalistic business and am more critical as I had to come up with a style of my own that was the polar opposite of the one adopted by N64… you know, I didn’t mean to talk about this.
I’ve been playing games since for as long as I can remember – I’ve just finished reading Stephen L Kent’s “Ultimate History of Videogames” and it sort of made me realise that I’m part of the last generation that has seen home gaming form its infancy. I can remember playing on Amiga and Atari’s and noting that Defender was “cutting edge”. It made me appreciate more how we have so much now and anyone complaining about how gaming should go back to the “good old days” either never experienced them or has gone funny in the head and should take of those rose tinted spectacles.
The big thing we have now is choice. Sure, there’s always been plenty of titles to choose between, but now there is a lot of quality to go with the quantity. The other thing I have because of my age/job/living situation is a lot of free money. I can pick and choose games and to a point, if I want it I have the ability to buy it without needing to rely on anyone else e.g. Santa J I end up turning into almost a games collecter rather than player. I few days back when someone was asking about the best GBA games I began to look though the pile of titles lying on my desk hunting for inspiration and was surprised by how little I’d played some of them – a significant number had won my attention for less than half an hour I’d estimate.
The disadvange is I have to work hard to get that cash and there’s less time to enjoy it. I may have piles of games, but I spend less and less time with each one. When I do get round to playing I want games I can dip into and out of at will and without ruining the game. This should be the real definition of mature gaming.
I’m all for longevity, but I ask the people around my age – how often do you actually get to see the end of a game? With epics like the Zelda’s, Final Fantasy or more reciently Golden Sun, how often do you actually find the time to play them to the end? It’s very rare that I actually get a free hour to sit down and play one game continusiously, without interuption, and that ruins a lot of games. RPGs really demand you time in chunks to be enjoyed and that’s not something I can give too often. I should really take a moment to point out that I’m not complaining about being over worked or anything – just I like to do a lot of other things too (such as sitting down with a good film everyday or making tea). Grown ups get to do all sorts of things you kids haven’t even imagined yet ! ; )
Anyway, so I guess you want me to make a point sooner or late. Well it is this, maybe it isn’t that bad that some games are shorter and/or more like arcade titles with instant and short play in chunks. People world over are moaning about how Luigi’s Mansion is so short and segmented, but that’s one of the things I like about it. My GameCube arrived yesterday and I managed to actually clock up a fair bit of time with it yestaerday by dipping into it throughout the evening in between everthing else that was going on – most notably preparing an Impact Report for Scotish Power on the adoption of FRS19 practices (as fun as it sounds). The game is broken up into lots of one room play areas i.e. your entire current objective in based inside a restricted environment and the completion of the objective opens up a new task again set entirely inside a confined area. As I took gaming breaks I’d play a few rooms and then save the game to pick it up later. This way I could dip in and out of the game without it suffering – I never felt I was loosing a grip of what was going on.
It’s also good for gamers in general. Nintendo have already implied that they will no longer be making “epic” titles and working to almost half the development time of their previous games – so you’ll end up with shorter titles but more often. How can anyone complain about this so long as we assume you’ll be getting your monies worth?
Or, there’s another way of doing it – arcarde style titles, such as another game I started playing yesterday, Super Monkey Ball. The main objective is high scores and the play areas are small and not physically connected. Simple task is to get from A to B – lovely. Again, something I can dip into at will and leave when I fancy. However, for the player who does want an on-going and deep relationshiop with the title (oh er!) there are all sorts of mini-games to be unlocked and there’s always the good old time trial mode.
I’ve got nothing against RPGs or any game relying hours of devoted attention, but these will become more and more of a specialised market as gaming becomes more mass market and mature. Mature gamers don’t have the time to walk from one side of the FF7 world map to the other or sit through a 80 minute long cut sequence before you can get to the game propper in Golden Sun (once you’ve done that it is suprisingly good). If the majority of your market won’t apprecaite these titles then it can be argued that you should err away from making them. Why waste having a pile of you coders working on a less profitable line?
This all brings in another interesting angle to the “hardcore/causal” debate that I hate so much – can’t stand those terms. However, is one who’s played games all his life, but doesn’t have time to play games propperly anymore “hardcore”? Does it matter? No, just a wee thought J
All that said, I’d still love another huge Mario title in the line of Mario 64, somethings you’ve just got to make time for! Oh well, traffic should have cleared, time to drive home.
I’ve been playing games since for as long as I can remember – I’ve just finished reading Stephen L Kent’s “Ultimate History of Videogames” and it sort of made me realise that I’m part of the last generation that has seen home gaming form its infancy. I can remember playing on Amiga and Atari’s and noting that Defender was “cutting edge”. It made me appreciate more how we have so much now and anyone complaining about how gaming should go back to the “good old days” either never experienced them or has gone funny in the head and should take of those rose tinted spectacles.
The big thing we have now is choice. Sure, there’s always been plenty of titles to choose between, but now there is a lot of quality to go with the quantity. The other thing I have because of my age/job/living situation is a lot of free money. I can pick and choose games and to a point, if I want it I have the ability to buy it without needing to rely on anyone else e.g. Santa J I end up turning into almost a games collecter rather than player. I few days back when someone was asking about the best GBA games I began to look though the pile of titles lying on my desk hunting for inspiration and was surprised by how little I’d played some of them – a significant number had won my attention for less than half an hour I’d estimate.
The disadvange is I have to work hard to get that cash and there’s less time to enjoy it. I may have piles of games, but I spend less and less time with each one. When I do get round to playing I want games I can dip into and out of at will and without ruining the game. This should be the real definition of mature gaming.
I’m all for longevity, but I ask the people around my age – how often do you actually get to see the end of a game? With epics like the Zelda’s, Final Fantasy or more reciently Golden Sun, how often do you actually find the time to play them to the end? It’s very rare that I actually get a free hour to sit down and play one game continusiously, without interuption, and that ruins a lot of games. RPGs really demand you time in chunks to be enjoyed and that’s not something I can give too often. I should really take a moment to point out that I’m not complaining about being over worked or anything – just I like to do a lot of other things too (such as sitting down with a good film everyday or making tea). Grown ups get to do all sorts of things you kids haven’t even imagined yet ! ; )
Anyway, so I guess you want me to make a point sooner or late. Well it is this, maybe it isn’t that bad that some games are shorter and/or more like arcade titles with instant and short play in chunks. People world over are moaning about how Luigi’s Mansion is so short and segmented, but that’s one of the things I like about it. My GameCube arrived yesterday and I managed to actually clock up a fair bit of time with it yestaerday by dipping into it throughout the evening in between everthing else that was going on – most notably preparing an Impact Report for Scotish Power on the adoption of FRS19 practices (as fun as it sounds). The game is broken up into lots of one room play areas i.e. your entire current objective in based inside a restricted environment and the completion of the objective opens up a new task again set entirely inside a confined area. As I took gaming breaks I’d play a few rooms and then save the game to pick it up later. This way I could dip in and out of the game without it suffering – I never felt I was loosing a grip of what was going on.
It’s also good for gamers in general. Nintendo have already implied that they will no longer be making “epic” titles and working to almost half the development time of their previous games – so you’ll end up with shorter titles but more often. How can anyone complain about this so long as we assume you’ll be getting your monies worth?
Or, there’s another way of doing it – arcarde style titles, such as another game I started playing yesterday, Super Monkey Ball. The main objective is high scores and the play areas are small and not physically connected. Simple task is to get from A to B – lovely. Again, something I can dip into at will and leave when I fancy. However, for the player who does want an on-going and deep relationshiop with the title (oh er!) there are all sorts of mini-games to be unlocked and there’s always the good old time trial mode.
I’ve got nothing against RPGs or any game relying hours of devoted attention, but these will become more and more of a specialised market as gaming becomes more mass market and mature. Mature gamers don’t have the time to walk from one side of the FF7 world map to the other or sit through a 80 minute long cut sequence before you can get to the game propper in Golden Sun (once you’ve done that it is suprisingly good). If the majority of your market won’t apprecaite these titles then it can be argued that you should err away from making them. Why waste having a pile of you coders working on a less profitable line?
This all brings in another interesting angle to the “hardcore/causal” debate that I hate so much – can’t stand those terms. However, is one who’s played games all his life, but doesn’t have time to play games propperly anymore “hardcore”? Does it matter? No, just a wee thought J
All that said, I’d still love another huge Mario title in the line of Mario 64, somethings you’ve just got to make time for! Oh well, traffic should have cleared, time to drive home.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
>Now stop being pedantic.
Never! :)
>Now stop being pedantic.
Never! :)
Considering the most cutting edge I'd experienced then was a Spectrum, then yes, it was. It was just before I got a NES which wiped the floor with it, like, and the Atari hand-me-down mate wasn't allowed one as his Mum said their was no sence in having a 5200 and a NES, hehehehe.
Now stop being pedantic.
Now stop being pedantic.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> I didn't
> get to play it until a good few years later as the console belonged to my
> neighbour/best mate's Uncle and he off-loaded it on to us when he got something
> new and more sparkly.
Not quite cutting edge thogh huh? :P
> I didn't
> get to play it until a good few years later as the console belonged to my
> neighbour/best mate's Uncle and he off-loaded it on to us when he got something
> new and more sparkly.
Not quite cutting edge thogh huh? :P
Nope, talking about the home version remember - it was on the Atari 5200 (a launch title IIRC) which didn't get a US launch until the end of 1982. I didn't get to play it until a good few years later as the console belonged to my neighbour/best mate's Uncle and he off-loaded it on to us when he got something new and more sparkly.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> I can remember playing on Amiga and Atari’s and noting that Defender was
> “cutting edge”.
Wasnt Defender released in 1980...
> I can remember playing on Amiga and Atari’s and noting that Defender was
> “cutting edge”.
Wasnt Defender released in 1980...
Thought of something else while I was driving home - all the new super high-density media we've got now thanks to DVD being used. Suddenly developers have gone from literally ks of data up to gigabytes in a few decades, and because of this code and game designs get flabby.
You know the way people often complain about how SR has the character limit for the reviews set so low? I think this is a good idea – it means people have to edit their review to cut out the waffle and leave in the good stuff. It’s the same with games. Back in the day every single line of code had to count and game design had to be strictly regulated and revised to keep within size limits. Ultimately, of course, it is good that developers can now total realize their visions without having to remove items because the cartridge, or tape, or disk etc are too small. However, this does result in loads of junk being left in the game.
Example? Most FMV. A little is good, but I play a game for a reason – I want to play! Sounds simple doesn’t it, but loads of game designers don’t seem to get this simple concept and try and make chunks of the game like a movie. Sorry guys, if I want to watch a movie I’ll go grab a DVD. You can progress the plot of the game without stopping every now and then for a five minute FMV sequences. Case in point – Golden Sun (okay, in this case it isn’t FMV, but you get the point). The first couple of hours are maybe 75% un-interactive story sequences, with minimal player interaction. That’s not fun unless (by some freak and drastic increase in writing ability) the game designers can come up with a good story – and, you know, they’re not very good at that.
Anyway, POP – what do the young’uns think? Epics that sap hours of your life or short, sharp, shocks of gaming goodness?
You know the way people often complain about how SR has the character limit for the reviews set so low? I think this is a good idea – it means people have to edit their review to cut out the waffle and leave in the good stuff. It’s the same with games. Back in the day every single line of code had to count and game design had to be strictly regulated and revised to keep within size limits. Ultimately, of course, it is good that developers can now total realize their visions without having to remove items because the cartridge, or tape, or disk etc are too small. However, this does result in loads of junk being left in the game.
Example? Most FMV. A little is good, but I play a game for a reason – I want to play! Sounds simple doesn’t it, but loads of game designers don’t seem to get this simple concept and try and make chunks of the game like a movie. Sorry guys, if I want to watch a movie I’ll go grab a DVD. You can progress the plot of the game without stopping every now and then for a five minute FMV sequences. Case in point – Golden Sun (okay, in this case it isn’t FMV, but you get the point). The first couple of hours are maybe 75% un-interactive story sequences, with minimal player interaction. That’s not fun unless (by some freak and drastic increase in writing ability) the game designers can come up with a good story – and, you know, they’re not very good at that.
Anyway, POP – what do the young’uns think? Epics that sap hours of your life or short, sharp, shocks of gaming goodness?
By playing gaming you prematurely age. You don’t get old, decrepit and begin to leave unfortunate yellow stains on your clothing – but you do feel like you’re surrounded by kids. I’m only twenty, but posting here I feel like an old fart. In fact, I still buy the N64/new GameCube related name that escapes me at the moment (games related altsymers?) and to me it seems like it is being written for a particularly excited seven year old. Now, maybe part of the reason is that I’ve dabbled a little in the old journalistic business and am more critical as I had to come up with a style of my own that was the polar opposite of the one adopted by N64… you know, I didn’t mean to talk about this.
I’ve been playing games since for as long as I can remember – I’ve just finished reading Stephen L Kent’s “Ultimate History of Videogames” and it sort of made me realise that I’m part of the last generation that has seen home gaming form its infancy. I can remember playing on Amiga and Atari’s and noting that Defender was “cutting edge”. It made me appreciate more how we have so much now and anyone complaining about how gaming should go back to the “good old days” either never experienced them or has gone funny in the head and should take of those rose tinted spectacles.
The big thing we have now is choice. Sure, there’s always been plenty of titles to choose between, but now there is a lot of quality to go with the quantity. The other thing I have because of my age/job/living situation is a lot of free money. I can pick and choose games and to a point, if I want it I have the ability to buy it without needing to rely on anyone else e.g. Santa J I end up turning into almost a games collecter rather than player. I few days back when someone was asking about the best GBA games I began to look though the pile of titles lying on my desk hunting for inspiration and was surprised by how little I’d played some of them – a significant number had won my attention for less than half an hour I’d estimate.
The disadvange is I have to work hard to get that cash and there’s less time to enjoy it. I may have piles of games, but I spend less and less time with each one. When I do get round to playing I want games I can dip into and out of at will and without ruining the game. This should be the real definition of mature gaming.
I’m all for longevity, but I ask the people around my age – how often do you actually get to see the end of a game? With epics like the Zelda’s, Final Fantasy or more reciently Golden Sun, how often do you actually find the time to play them to the end? It’s very rare that I actually get a free hour to sit down and play one game continusiously, without interuption, and that ruins a lot of games. RPGs really demand you time in chunks to be enjoyed and that’s not something I can give too often. I should really take a moment to point out that I’m not complaining about being over worked or anything – just I like to do a lot of other things too (such as sitting down with a good film everyday or making tea). Grown ups get to do all sorts of things you kids haven’t even imagined yet ! ; )
Anyway, so I guess you want me to make a point sooner or late. Well it is this, maybe it isn’t that bad that some games are shorter and/or more like arcade titles with instant and short play in chunks. People world over are moaning about how Luigi’s Mansion is so short and segmented, but that’s one of the things I like about it. My GameCube arrived yesterday and I managed to actually clock up a fair bit of time with it yestaerday by dipping into it throughout the evening in between everthing else that was going on – most notably preparing an Impact Report for Scotish Power on the adoption of FRS19 practices (as fun as it sounds). The game is broken up into lots of one room play areas i.e. your entire current objective in based inside a restricted environment and the completion of the objective opens up a new task again set entirely inside a confined area. As I took gaming breaks I’d play a few rooms and then save the game to pick it up later. This way I could dip in and out of the game without it suffering – I never felt I was loosing a grip of what was going on.
It’s also good for gamers in general. Nintendo have already implied that they will no longer be making “epic” titles and working to almost half the development time of their previous games – so you’ll end up with shorter titles but more often. How can anyone complain about this so long as we assume you’ll be getting your monies worth?
Or, there’s another way of doing it – arcarde style titles, such as another game I started playing yesterday, Super Monkey Ball. The main objective is high scores and the play areas are small and not physically connected. Simple task is to get from A to B – lovely. Again, something I can dip into at will and leave when I fancy. However, for the player who does want an on-going and deep relationshiop with the title (oh er!) there are all sorts of mini-games to be unlocked and there’s always the good old time trial mode.
I’ve got nothing against RPGs or any game relying hours of devoted attention, but these will become more and more of a specialised market as gaming becomes more mass market and mature. Mature gamers don’t have the time to walk from one side of the FF7 world map to the other or sit through a 80 minute long cut sequence before you can get to the game propper in Golden Sun (once you’ve done that it is suprisingly good). If the majority of your market won’t apprecaite these titles then it can be argued that you should err away from making them. Why waste having a pile of you coders working on a less profitable line?
This all brings in another interesting angle to the “hardcore/causal” debate that I hate so much – can’t stand those terms. However, is one who’s played games all his life, but doesn’t have time to play games propperly anymore “hardcore”? Does it matter? No, just a wee thought J
All that said, I’d still love another huge Mario title in the line of Mario 64, somethings you’ve just got to make time for! Oh well, traffic should have cleared, time to drive home.
I’ve been playing games since for as long as I can remember – I’ve just finished reading Stephen L Kent’s “Ultimate History of Videogames” and it sort of made me realise that I’m part of the last generation that has seen home gaming form its infancy. I can remember playing on Amiga and Atari’s and noting that Defender was “cutting edge”. It made me appreciate more how we have so much now and anyone complaining about how gaming should go back to the “good old days” either never experienced them or has gone funny in the head and should take of those rose tinted spectacles.
The big thing we have now is choice. Sure, there’s always been plenty of titles to choose between, but now there is a lot of quality to go with the quantity. The other thing I have because of my age/job/living situation is a lot of free money. I can pick and choose games and to a point, if I want it I have the ability to buy it without needing to rely on anyone else e.g. Santa J I end up turning into almost a games collecter rather than player. I few days back when someone was asking about the best GBA games I began to look though the pile of titles lying on my desk hunting for inspiration and was surprised by how little I’d played some of them – a significant number had won my attention for less than half an hour I’d estimate.
The disadvange is I have to work hard to get that cash and there’s less time to enjoy it. I may have piles of games, but I spend less and less time with each one. When I do get round to playing I want games I can dip into and out of at will and without ruining the game. This should be the real definition of mature gaming.
I’m all for longevity, but I ask the people around my age – how often do you actually get to see the end of a game? With epics like the Zelda’s, Final Fantasy or more reciently Golden Sun, how often do you actually find the time to play them to the end? It’s very rare that I actually get a free hour to sit down and play one game continusiously, without interuption, and that ruins a lot of games. RPGs really demand you time in chunks to be enjoyed and that’s not something I can give too often. I should really take a moment to point out that I’m not complaining about being over worked or anything – just I like to do a lot of other things too (such as sitting down with a good film everyday or making tea). Grown ups get to do all sorts of things you kids haven’t even imagined yet ! ; )
Anyway, so I guess you want me to make a point sooner or late. Well it is this, maybe it isn’t that bad that some games are shorter and/or more like arcade titles with instant and short play in chunks. People world over are moaning about how Luigi’s Mansion is so short and segmented, but that’s one of the things I like about it. My GameCube arrived yesterday and I managed to actually clock up a fair bit of time with it yestaerday by dipping into it throughout the evening in between everthing else that was going on – most notably preparing an Impact Report for Scotish Power on the adoption of FRS19 practices (as fun as it sounds). The game is broken up into lots of one room play areas i.e. your entire current objective in based inside a restricted environment and the completion of the objective opens up a new task again set entirely inside a confined area. As I took gaming breaks I’d play a few rooms and then save the game to pick it up later. This way I could dip in and out of the game without it suffering – I never felt I was loosing a grip of what was going on.
It’s also good for gamers in general. Nintendo have already implied that they will no longer be making “epic” titles and working to almost half the development time of their previous games – so you’ll end up with shorter titles but more often. How can anyone complain about this so long as we assume you’ll be getting your monies worth?
Or, there’s another way of doing it – arcarde style titles, such as another game I started playing yesterday, Super Monkey Ball. The main objective is high scores and the play areas are small and not physically connected. Simple task is to get from A to B – lovely. Again, something I can dip into at will and leave when I fancy. However, for the player who does want an on-going and deep relationshiop with the title (oh er!) there are all sorts of mini-games to be unlocked and there’s always the good old time trial mode.
I’ve got nothing against RPGs or any game relying hours of devoted attention, but these will become more and more of a specialised market as gaming becomes more mass market and mature. Mature gamers don’t have the time to walk from one side of the FF7 world map to the other or sit through a 80 minute long cut sequence before you can get to the game propper in Golden Sun (once you’ve done that it is suprisingly good). If the majority of your market won’t apprecaite these titles then it can be argued that you should err away from making them. Why waste having a pile of you coders working on a less profitable line?
This all brings in another interesting angle to the “hardcore/causal” debate that I hate so much – can’t stand those terms. However, is one who’s played games all his life, but doesn’t have time to play games propperly anymore “hardcore”? Does it matter? No, just a wee thought J
All that said, I’d still love another huge Mario title in the line of Mario 64, somethings you’ve just got to make time for! Oh well, traffic should have cleared, time to drive home.