The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I am sure that I am not the only person in the gaming world that is becoming very VERY sick of seeing games that aren't really games at all on the shelves. Recent examples include "Who wants to be a millionairre" and "The Weakest Link" as well as the absolutely appaling "Big Brother" games.
Why is it that games designers feel the need to take a successful idea and then completely ruin it, whilst keeping as much of the original concept as possible from actually being in the game?
Having played WWTBAM myself, I quickly became tired of it, since despite the packaging proclaiming over 1000 questions the same question popped up in two consecutive attempts. And I am also sure that a player of Weakest Link would get VERY fed up with constant pre-recorded put-downs from Anne Robinsons badly animated 3D model.
Don't get me wrong though - I fully support games based on successful films (Goldeneye, anyone?) but I really can not stand completly rubbish games based on, say, a mediocre TV show. I could not believe my eyes the other day when, after walking in to my local GAME I say the new 'family' edition of Family Fortunes (Featuring the voice of Les Dennis!).
Surely all these bad games are a publishers last desperate attempts to milk some cash out of the game-buying public.
I can understand that many people bought Millionairre because it was a quiz game that can be played as a family, but if they knew the game was going to be so successful, why didn't the game designers put more effort in the game itself? There is no tenseness to the game, and also Chris Tarrant does is say "Final Answer?" in five or six different ways.
Is there anyone out there that agrees or disagrees with this?
Why is it that games designers feel the need to take a successful idea and then completely ruin it, whilst keeping as much of the original concept as possible from actually being in the game?
Having played WWTBAM myself, I quickly became tired of it, since despite the packaging proclaiming over 1000 questions the same question popped up in two consecutive attempts. And I am also sure that a player of Weakest Link would get VERY fed up with constant pre-recorded put-downs from Anne Robinsons badly animated 3D model.
Don't get me wrong though - I fully support games based on successful films (Goldeneye, anyone?) but I really can not stand completly rubbish games based on, say, a mediocre TV show. I could not believe my eyes the other day when, after walking in to my local GAME I say the new 'family' edition of Family Fortunes (Featuring the voice of Les Dennis!).
Surely all these bad games are a publishers last desperate attempts to milk some cash out of the game-buying public.
I can understand that many people bought Millionairre because it was a quiz game that can be played as a family, but if they knew the game was going to be so successful, why didn't the game designers put more effort in the game itself? There is no tenseness to the game, and also Chris Tarrant does is say "Final Answer?" in five or six different ways.
Is there anyone out there that agrees or disagrees with this?
I'm not sure they did expect such a high number of sales from 'millionare' computer games... It is just a jumped up pub quizz after all...
Those that followed... Weakest Link, Family Fortunes, etc... seem to be attempting to cash in on 'millionares' success last year...
The graphics for these games are appaling, and the overall presentation is definitly underpar...
But then the target audience probably wont realise this...
And besides, if people start with such low expectation, then the newer editions, with better graphics, more speech, etc... may seem that much more appealing... and still require very little effort from the developers?
Those that followed... Weakest Link, Family Fortunes, etc... seem to be attempting to cash in on 'millionares' success last year...
The graphics for these games are appaling, and the overall presentation is definitly underpar...
But then the target audience probably wont realise this...
And besides, if people start with such low expectation, then the newer editions, with better graphics, more speech, etc... may seem that much more appealing... and still require very little effort from the developers?
i completely agree
welcome to the forums keep up the good posts and don't croak it! (sorry) lol
slik ~_~
slik ~_~
Good post, but break it up into paragraphs next time.
I am sure that I am not the only person in the gaming world that is becoming very VERY sick of seeing games that aren't really games at all on the shelves. Recent examples include "Who wants to be a millionairre" and "The Weakest Link" as well as the absolutely appaling "Big Brother" games.
Why is it that games designers feel the need to take a successful idea and then completely ruin it, whilst keeping as much of the original concept as possible from actually being in the game?
Having played WWTBAM myself, I quickly became tired of it, since despite the packaging proclaiming over 1000 questions the same question popped up in two consecutive attempts. And I am also sure that a player of Weakest Link would get VERY fed up with constant pre-recorded put-downs from Anne Robinsons badly animated 3D model.
Don't get me wrong though - I fully support games based on successful films (Goldeneye, anyone?) but I really can not stand completly rubbish games based on, say, a mediocre TV show. I could not believe my eyes the other day when, after walking in to my local GAME I say the new 'family' edition of Family Fortunes (Featuring the voice of Les Dennis!).
Surely all these bad games are a publishers last desperate attempts to milk some cash out of the game-buying public.
I can understand that many people bought Millionairre because it was a quiz game that can be played as a family, but if they knew the game was going to be so successful, why didn't the game designers put more effort in the game itself? There is no tenseness to the game, and also Chris Tarrant does is say "Final Answer?" in five or six different ways.
Is there anyone out there that agrees or disagrees with this?
Why is it that games designers feel the need to take a successful idea and then completely ruin it, whilst keeping as much of the original concept as possible from actually being in the game?
Having played WWTBAM myself, I quickly became tired of it, since despite the packaging proclaiming over 1000 questions the same question popped up in two consecutive attempts. And I am also sure that a player of Weakest Link would get VERY fed up with constant pre-recorded put-downs from Anne Robinsons badly animated 3D model.
Don't get me wrong though - I fully support games based on successful films (Goldeneye, anyone?) but I really can not stand completly rubbish games based on, say, a mediocre TV show. I could not believe my eyes the other day when, after walking in to my local GAME I say the new 'family' edition of Family Fortunes (Featuring the voice of Les Dennis!).
Surely all these bad games are a publishers last desperate attempts to milk some cash out of the game-buying public.
I can understand that many people bought Millionairre because it was a quiz game that can be played as a family, but if they knew the game was going to be so successful, why didn't the game designers put more effort in the game itself? There is no tenseness to the game, and also Chris Tarrant does is say "Final Answer?" in five or six different ways.
Is there anyone out there that agrees or disagrees with this?