The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There is one main part in the creation of any game that I tend to think goes a little un-noticed. Gaming Engines are used in all games, the better they are then the better the finished game should be. They control just about everything and anything in the game that isn't in the users control. The physics part controls how all objects that can be moved or interacted with in some way will act if they are dropped or shot or physically used at some point in the game. The more detail that is added at these points then the more realistic the game will be. It also deals with the levels, i.e. stops you from running through walls or other characters. It works out what happens when you shoot someone in the leg or shoot them in the head. It is a major part of any game and if it is done wrong then the game will suffer in a big way.
Nowadays many developers buy a gaming engine from another developer. There are many reasons why they may do this.
1. The gaming engine is very complex to make it match today's standards. Can take a long time to create and in the end may not work as intended.
2. Another developer may have created one which you are unable to beat if you were to make one of your own.
3. Can save a lot of time, meaning you can release the game a lot sooner. Also allows the developer to concentrate purely on the game, its characters and the storyline to the game.
4. The improvements you could make would be minimal compared to one you can buy.
The problem with this is to do with originality. All games that use the same gaming engine or similar one will be very similar and almost the same game with different story line. Take the Quake 2 and 3 gaming engine, they get used a lot in many different games that all seem to play very similar to each other. So should developers be allowed to buy gaming engines of other companies to make their games?
Well my view is yes. The gaming engine in Quake 2 was of a high standard, hard to beat so by using it in other games means we get more games that match the high standard. Just because a lot of games are similar doesn't mean you have to buy them all, only the ones that interest you, and chances are the storylines and characters will make the game play a little different. I think it is alright if a company buys a gaming engine if it is better than any version they could improve but I wouldn't like to see developers buying them just to make things easier for themselves. So what are your views on this?
One of the student lecturers at my university has friends who create part of the gaming engines in the PS2 and X-Box. He has shown us some of the techniques they use and troubles they have. It is a big part of the game and some is built into the console so that the developers can use pre-written code in the console instead of trying to write their own. Hopefully this is an area that will get a little more notification and attract people towards developing these in the future, I myself am quite interested in getting into developing games or gaming engines in the future.
Moving away from the gaming engine point of view, should things like this be allowed to happen, do they actually improve it for us? The gaming industry is improving all the time, which makes a lot of us happy in that we get an end product of a very high standard. But sadly there are some that don't meet this standard. Surely we have the right to complain when things aren't as good as they could and in many cases should be. Criticism helps us all improve, something we learn in school at a young age, if your work isn't good enough the teacher points out ways of improving it and also improving your overall standards. I have noticed that we as a nation don't really complain that much, not as much as we could. Games like army men are released and are poor compared to today's standards. Yet we do nothing to say "It's not worth the hassle making a game this poor".
Sure we wont buy a poor game but surely the time and effort spent making this game could have been used to make a game of a better standard that maybe could be possible. Unless we criticise developers when they make crucial errors then the industry will never reach its full potential. If you bought a household appliance from a well known shop and it broke down the next day many of us would complain and want it fixed or our money back. Maybe developers should have to have games of a certain standard and if it isn't what it says on the box then you are entitled to your money back.
So what do you think? Should we complain more about games that aren't as good as they could be?
From the other point it can be very hard to take the original idea of the game and get exactly what you want. Those of you who program will know just how hard and stressful it can be, maybe we put enough pressure on developers already, maybe the games they make are already very complex and the ones that fail to meet these standards are actually good attempts at making a decent game. So what do you think? Are we already expecting to much from the developers?
Back to the originality aspect. Think of your favourite game, one that was a must buy and has given you hours upon hours of fun and enjoyment. Chances are it's kept you up in the small hours of the morning trying to reach a certain point. Now think of a similar game, the chances are there will be a few games that look and appear similar, why is this? The problem is nowadays original ideas are few and far between, all the good ones have been used or are been currently turned into games. When a developer releases a game there is an extremely high amount of pressure on them to succeed, if the game doesn't sell they could lose a lot of money and end up having to stop making games, this means it is easier for them just to make a sequel or polish up an old idea. It's kind of like a guaranteed sale as you know someone out there was interested before and likely to be interested this time round to. It is hear I think that we should complain more, if a developer just decides to release and updated version of a previous game we should be complaining during the development of areas that need to be improved and fixed before it is released. Sounds like some games could be a quick way for developers to make a pretty penny. (or in the case of games several millions or billions of pretty pennies)
One game I am looking forward to is the getaway on the PS2, not just because it is an original idea but due to the fact that early on it looks impressive, just hope the final version has everything they promise, and more. That could also be another problem. Magazines reviewing games and being a little gentle on them. If a game has poor areas I want to know about them before I buy them. I would like to know if there are certain points that should have been made better. Or if this game is one of the best released and a must buy game. Now I'm not accusing magazines of *Cough *Bung Taking* /Cough* but what they need to remember is everyone has different tastes, they need to cater for everyone which means their review should tell the truth about the game. Also the problem of certain games needing to be updated also pops up. Sports games need to be changed nearly every year as the team line up change and new stars appear. Also with these games there is no point of changing the whole game if the way you already do it works fine and is the best you can make it anyway.
Another question is do we actually want new and original ideas. Many are happy to play sequels as the original was so good and any improvement on the original must make the game a definite buy. I'm not bothered if a game is original or not, if it is fun and appeals to me I will buy it. I guess it all depends on your definition of a sequel, take GT3 and GT2, some would say GT3 is just like an updated version of GT2 (same applies to the likes of EA's Fifa games) is this a sequel or just an update. Or is a sequel something more like GTA3 where the whole game has been redone in 3-D with the controls and view being totally altered and improved. Maybe what the industry need is a new idea to change things for the better. A new way of doing things, something that will attract more people and keep the old ones keen and improve it for us all.
Maybe one of us in the future will have a new idea that could revolutionise the whole industry. It is likely someone in the world will come up with an idea that will change things for the better. New ways of playing, new style of presenting games. Games always need to be improved, without the improvement the industry will reach a certain standard and then become less and less popular and may well end. So if you have ideas or ways of improving things then speak up, don't keep them to yourself, allow us to help and criticise them and help make them even better ideas. (We can even split the vast amount of money we make from selling the idea).
The last thing I wanted to babble on about was surprise hits, games that don't get too much hype and when they come out they surprise the pants of you. The first game that I got that did this was resident evil. I got an American import copy of the game months before it came out over here. Little was known about this game but my dad's friend was selling it cheap and I wanted more games. As soon as I watched the intro I knew that it had potential to be special and after running about in the game for twenty minutes I knew this game was good. Metal Gear solid was also a bit like this for me, it did get some hype but I didn't really read into it too much. It is one of the best games I have ever played. It was emotional and brilliant to play. Maybe didn't last long enough or have much replay value but it did blow your socks off in a big way.
The last game that did this was GTA3, think everyone knows what this game has got. Words can't really describe how great I thought this game was. I wasn't expecting a game this great and it only really gathered hype until a few weeks before the release.
I think that with surprise games that are really good, that fact that it takes you by surprise is one of the reasons it is so good. Sure games like MGS2 will be good even though they have so much hype surrounding them. Problem is that nowadays the industry is huge and magazines and web sites battle it out to give you up to date information on the latest games and peripherals. Which can be a good thing as it can tell you of good up and coming games and really pants ones that you should avoid. The only problem is that now the chances of a great game slipping through and taking us by surprise is unlikely meaning that hype will take over and something similar to what happened to WWF Smackdown 3 in that most of the good points were overshadowed by bits that were missed out and things that magazines and web sites said it would have that were not included in the final game.
Ok think I have went on long enough, seeing it is the festive season all that is left is to say. Hope Christmas was good and all the best for New Year.
Nowadays many developers buy a gaming engine from another developer. There are many reasons why they may do this.
1. The gaming engine is very complex to make it match today's standards. Can take a long time to create and in the end may not work as intended.
2. Another developer may have created one which you are unable to beat if you were to make one of your own.
3. Can save a lot of time, meaning you can release the game a lot sooner. Also allows the developer to concentrate purely on the game, its characters and the storyline to the game.
4. The improvements you could make would be minimal compared to one you can buy.
The problem with this is to do with originality. All games that use the same gaming engine or similar one will be very similar and almost the same game with different story line. Take the Quake 2 and 3 gaming engine, they get used a lot in many different games that all seem to play very similar to each other. So should developers be allowed to buy gaming engines of other companies to make their games?
Well my view is yes. The gaming engine in Quake 2 was of a high standard, hard to beat so by using it in other games means we get more games that match the high standard. Just because a lot of games are similar doesn't mean you have to buy them all, only the ones that interest you, and chances are the storylines and characters will make the game play a little different. I think it is alright if a company buys a gaming engine if it is better than any version they could improve but I wouldn't like to see developers buying them just to make things easier for themselves. So what are your views on this?
One of the student lecturers at my university has friends who create part of the gaming engines in the PS2 and X-Box. He has shown us some of the techniques they use and troubles they have. It is a big part of the game and some is built into the console so that the developers can use pre-written code in the console instead of trying to write their own. Hopefully this is an area that will get a little more notification and attract people towards developing these in the future, I myself am quite interested in getting into developing games or gaming engines in the future.
Moving away from the gaming engine point of view, should things like this be allowed to happen, do they actually improve it for us? The gaming industry is improving all the time, which makes a lot of us happy in that we get an end product of a very high standard. But sadly there are some that don't meet this standard. Surely we have the right to complain when things aren't as good as they could and in many cases should be. Criticism helps us all improve, something we learn in school at a young age, if your work isn't good enough the teacher points out ways of improving it and also improving your overall standards. I have noticed that we as a nation don't really complain that much, not as much as we could. Games like army men are released and are poor compared to today's standards. Yet we do nothing to say "It's not worth the hassle making a game this poor".
Sure we wont buy a poor game but surely the time and effort spent making this game could have been used to make a game of a better standard that maybe could be possible. Unless we criticise developers when they make crucial errors then the industry will never reach its full potential. If you bought a household appliance from a well known shop and it broke down the next day many of us would complain and want it fixed or our money back. Maybe developers should have to have games of a certain standard and if it isn't what it says on the box then you are entitled to your money back.
So what do you think? Should we complain more about games that aren't as good as they could be?
From the other point it can be very hard to take the original idea of the game and get exactly what you want. Those of you who program will know just how hard and stressful it can be, maybe we put enough pressure on developers already, maybe the games they make are already very complex and the ones that fail to meet these standards are actually good attempts at making a decent game. So what do you think? Are we already expecting to much from the developers?
Back to the originality aspect. Think of your favourite game, one that was a must buy and has given you hours upon hours of fun and enjoyment. Chances are it's kept you up in the small hours of the morning trying to reach a certain point. Now think of a similar game, the chances are there will be a few games that look and appear similar, why is this? The problem is nowadays original ideas are few and far between, all the good ones have been used or are been currently turned into games. When a developer releases a game there is an extremely high amount of pressure on them to succeed, if the game doesn't sell they could lose a lot of money and end up having to stop making games, this means it is easier for them just to make a sequel or polish up an old idea. It's kind of like a guaranteed sale as you know someone out there was interested before and likely to be interested this time round to. It is hear I think that we should complain more, if a developer just decides to release and updated version of a previous game we should be complaining during the development of areas that need to be improved and fixed before it is released. Sounds like some games could be a quick way for developers to make a pretty penny. (or in the case of games several millions or billions of pretty pennies)
One game I am looking forward to is the getaway on the PS2, not just because it is an original idea but due to the fact that early on it looks impressive, just hope the final version has everything they promise, and more. That could also be another problem. Magazines reviewing games and being a little gentle on them. If a game has poor areas I want to know about them before I buy them. I would like to know if there are certain points that should have been made better. Or if this game is one of the best released and a must buy game. Now I'm not accusing magazines of *Cough *Bung Taking* /Cough* but what they need to remember is everyone has different tastes, they need to cater for everyone which means their review should tell the truth about the game. Also the problem of certain games needing to be updated also pops up. Sports games need to be changed nearly every year as the team line up change and new stars appear. Also with these games there is no point of changing the whole game if the way you already do it works fine and is the best you can make it anyway.
Another question is do we actually want new and original ideas. Many are happy to play sequels as the original was so good and any improvement on the original must make the game a definite buy. I'm not bothered if a game is original or not, if it is fun and appeals to me I will buy it. I guess it all depends on your definition of a sequel, take GT3 and GT2, some would say GT3 is just like an updated version of GT2 (same applies to the likes of EA's Fifa games) is this a sequel or just an update. Or is a sequel something more like GTA3 where the whole game has been redone in 3-D with the controls and view being totally altered and improved. Maybe what the industry need is a new idea to change things for the better. A new way of doing things, something that will attract more people and keep the old ones keen and improve it for us all.
Maybe one of us in the future will have a new idea that could revolutionise the whole industry. It is likely someone in the world will come up with an idea that will change things for the better. New ways of playing, new style of presenting games. Games always need to be improved, without the improvement the industry will reach a certain standard and then become less and less popular and may well end. So if you have ideas or ways of improving things then speak up, don't keep them to yourself, allow us to help and criticise them and help make them even better ideas. (We can even split the vast amount of money we make from selling the idea).
The last thing I wanted to babble on about was surprise hits, games that don't get too much hype and when they come out they surprise the pants of you. The first game that I got that did this was resident evil. I got an American import copy of the game months before it came out over here. Little was known about this game but my dad's friend was selling it cheap and I wanted more games. As soon as I watched the intro I knew that it had potential to be special and after running about in the game for twenty minutes I knew this game was good. Metal Gear solid was also a bit like this for me, it did get some hype but I didn't really read into it too much. It is one of the best games I have ever played. It was emotional and brilliant to play. Maybe didn't last long enough or have much replay value but it did blow your socks off in a big way.
The last game that did this was GTA3, think everyone knows what this game has got. Words can't really describe how great I thought this game was. I wasn't expecting a game this great and it only really gathered hype until a few weeks before the release.
I think that with surprise games that are really good, that fact that it takes you by surprise is one of the reasons it is so good. Sure games like MGS2 will be good even though they have so much hype surrounding them. Problem is that nowadays the industry is huge and magazines and web sites battle it out to give you up to date information on the latest games and peripherals. Which can be a good thing as it can tell you of good up and coming games and really pants ones that you should avoid. The only problem is that now the chances of a great game slipping through and taking us by surprise is unlikely meaning that hype will take over and something similar to what happened to WWF Smackdown 3 in that most of the good points were overshadowed by bits that were missed out and things that magazines and web sites said it would have that were not included in the final game.
Ok think I have went on long enough, seeing it is the festive season all that is left is to say. Hope Christmas was good and all the best for New Year.
One thing you do get into on theis topic is the idea of Middleware...
annoying seeing as my next topic was going to be on that! lol... I'll post something on it in this topic 2moror instead!
Sonic
annoying seeing as my next topic was going to be on that! lol... I'll post something on it in this topic 2moror instead!
Sonic
There is one main part in the creation of any game that I tend to think goes a little un-noticed. Gaming Engines are used in all games, the better they are then the better the finished game should be. They control just about everything and anything in the game that isn't in the users control. The physics part controls how all objects that can be moved or interacted with in some way will act if they are dropped or shot or physically used at some point in the game. The more detail that is added at these points then the more realistic the game will be. It also deals with the levels, i.e. stops you from running through walls or other characters. It works out what happens when you shoot someone in the leg or shoot them in the head. It is a major part of any game and if it is done wrong then the game will suffer in a big way.
Nowadays many developers buy a gaming engine from another developer. There are many reasons why they may do this.
1. The gaming engine is very complex to make it match today's standards. Can take a long time to create and in the end may not work as intended.
2. Another developer may have created one which you are unable to beat if you were to make one of your own.
3. Can save a lot of time, meaning you can release the game a lot sooner. Also allows the developer to concentrate purely on the game, its characters and the storyline to the game.
4. The improvements you could make would be minimal compared to one you can buy.
The problem with this is to do with originality. All games that use the same gaming engine or similar one will be very similar and almost the same game with different story line. Take the Quake 2 and 3 gaming engine, they get used a lot in many different games that all seem to play very similar to each other. So should developers be allowed to buy gaming engines of other companies to make their games?
Well my view is yes. The gaming engine in Quake 2 was of a high standard, hard to beat so by using it in other games means we get more games that match the high standard. Just because a lot of games are similar doesn't mean you have to buy them all, only the ones that interest you, and chances are the storylines and characters will make the game play a little different. I think it is alright if a company buys a gaming engine if it is better than any version they could improve but I wouldn't like to see developers buying them just to make things easier for themselves. So what are your views on this?
One of the student lecturers at my university has friends who create part of the gaming engines in the PS2 and X-Box. He has shown us some of the techniques they use and troubles they have. It is a big part of the game and some is built into the console so that the developers can use pre-written code in the console instead of trying to write their own. Hopefully this is an area that will get a little more notification and attract people towards developing these in the future, I myself am quite interested in getting into developing games or gaming engines in the future.
Moving away from the gaming engine point of view, should things like this be allowed to happen, do they actually improve it for us? The gaming industry is improving all the time, which makes a lot of us happy in that we get an end product of a very high standard. But sadly there are some that don't meet this standard. Surely we have the right to complain when things aren't as good as they could and in many cases should be. Criticism helps us all improve, something we learn in school at a young age, if your work isn't good enough the teacher points out ways of improving it and also improving your overall standards. I have noticed that we as a nation don't really complain that much, not as much as we could. Games like army men are released and are poor compared to today's standards. Yet we do nothing to say "It's not worth the hassle making a game this poor".
Sure we wont buy a poor game but surely the time and effort spent making this game could have been used to make a game of a better standard that maybe could be possible. Unless we criticise developers when they make crucial errors then the industry will never reach its full potential. If you bought a household appliance from a well known shop and it broke down the next day many of us would complain and want it fixed or our money back. Maybe developers should have to have games of a certain standard and if it isn't what it says on the box then you are entitled to your money back.
So what do you think? Should we complain more about games that aren't as good as they could be?
From the other point it can be very hard to take the original idea of the game and get exactly what you want. Those of you who program will know just how hard and stressful it can be, maybe we put enough pressure on developers already, maybe the games they make are already very complex and the ones that fail to meet these standards are actually good attempts at making a decent game. So what do you think? Are we already expecting to much from the developers?
Back to the originality aspect. Think of your favourite game, one that was a must buy and has given you hours upon hours of fun and enjoyment. Chances are it's kept you up in the small hours of the morning trying to reach a certain point. Now think of a similar game, the chances are there will be a few games that look and appear similar, why is this? The problem is nowadays original ideas are few and far between, all the good ones have been used or are been currently turned into games. When a developer releases a game there is an extremely high amount of pressure on them to succeed, if the game doesn't sell they could lose a lot of money and end up having to stop making games, this means it is easier for them just to make a sequel or polish up an old idea. It's kind of like a guaranteed sale as you know someone out there was interested before and likely to be interested this time round to. It is hear I think that we should complain more, if a developer just decides to release and updated version of a previous game we should be complaining during the development of areas that need to be improved and fixed before it is released. Sounds like some games could be a quick way for developers to make a pretty penny. (or in the case of games several millions or billions of pretty pennies)
One game I am looking forward to is the getaway on the PS2, not just because it is an original idea but due to the fact that early on it looks impressive, just hope the final version has everything they promise, and more. That could also be another problem. Magazines reviewing games and being a little gentle on them. If a game has poor areas I want to know about them before I buy them. I would like to know if there are certain points that should have been made better. Or if this game is one of the best released and a must buy game. Now I'm not accusing magazines of *Cough *Bung Taking* /Cough* but what they need to remember is everyone has different tastes, they need to cater for everyone which means their review should tell the truth about the game. Also the problem of certain games needing to be updated also pops up. Sports games need to be changed nearly every year as the team line up change and new stars appear. Also with these games there is no point of changing the whole game if the way you already do it works fine and is the best you can make it anyway.
Another question is do we actually want new and original ideas. Many are happy to play sequels as the original was so good and any improvement on the original must make the game a definite buy. I'm not bothered if a game is original or not, if it is fun and appeals to me I will buy it. I guess it all depends on your definition of a sequel, take GT3 and GT2, some would say GT3 is just like an updated version of GT2 (same applies to the likes of EA's Fifa games) is this a sequel or just an update. Or is a sequel something more like GTA3 where the whole game has been redone in 3-D with the controls and view being totally altered and improved. Maybe what the industry need is a new idea to change things for the better. A new way of doing things, something that will attract more people and keep the old ones keen and improve it for us all.
Maybe one of us in the future will have a new idea that could revolutionise the whole industry. It is likely someone in the world will come up with an idea that will change things for the better. New ways of playing, new style of presenting games. Games always need to be improved, without the improvement the industry will reach a certain standard and then become less and less popular and may well end. So if you have ideas or ways of improving things then speak up, don't keep them to yourself, allow us to help and criticise them and help make them even better ideas. (We can even split the vast amount of money we make from selling the idea).
The last thing I wanted to babble on about was surprise hits, games that don't get too much hype and when they come out they surprise the pants of you. The first game that I got that did this was resident evil. I got an American import copy of the game months before it came out over here. Little was known about this game but my dad's friend was selling it cheap and I wanted more games. As soon as I watched the intro I knew that it had potential to be special and after running about in the game for twenty minutes I knew this game was good. Metal Gear solid was also a bit like this for me, it did get some hype but I didn't really read into it too much. It is one of the best games I have ever played. It was emotional and brilliant to play. Maybe didn't last long enough or have much replay value but it did blow your socks off in a big way.
The last game that did this was GTA3, think everyone knows what this game has got. Words can't really describe how great I thought this game was. I wasn't expecting a game this great and it only really gathered hype until a few weeks before the release.
I think that with surprise games that are really good, that fact that it takes you by surprise is one of the reasons it is so good. Sure games like MGS2 will be good even though they have so much hype surrounding them. Problem is that nowadays the industry is huge and magazines and web sites battle it out to give you up to date information on the latest games and peripherals. Which can be a good thing as it can tell you of good up and coming games and really pants ones that you should avoid. The only problem is that now the chances of a great game slipping through and taking us by surprise is unlikely meaning that hype will take over and something similar to what happened to WWF Smackdown 3 in that most of the good points were overshadowed by bits that were missed out and things that magazines and web sites said it would have that were not included in the final game.
Ok think I have went on long enough, seeing it is the festive season all that is left is to say. Hope Christmas was good and all the best for New Year.
Nowadays many developers buy a gaming engine from another developer. There are many reasons why they may do this.
1. The gaming engine is very complex to make it match today's standards. Can take a long time to create and in the end may not work as intended.
2. Another developer may have created one which you are unable to beat if you were to make one of your own.
3. Can save a lot of time, meaning you can release the game a lot sooner. Also allows the developer to concentrate purely on the game, its characters and the storyline to the game.
4. The improvements you could make would be minimal compared to one you can buy.
The problem with this is to do with originality. All games that use the same gaming engine or similar one will be very similar and almost the same game with different story line. Take the Quake 2 and 3 gaming engine, they get used a lot in many different games that all seem to play very similar to each other. So should developers be allowed to buy gaming engines of other companies to make their games?
Well my view is yes. The gaming engine in Quake 2 was of a high standard, hard to beat so by using it in other games means we get more games that match the high standard. Just because a lot of games are similar doesn't mean you have to buy them all, only the ones that interest you, and chances are the storylines and characters will make the game play a little different. I think it is alright if a company buys a gaming engine if it is better than any version they could improve but I wouldn't like to see developers buying them just to make things easier for themselves. So what are your views on this?
One of the student lecturers at my university has friends who create part of the gaming engines in the PS2 and X-Box. He has shown us some of the techniques they use and troubles they have. It is a big part of the game and some is built into the console so that the developers can use pre-written code in the console instead of trying to write their own. Hopefully this is an area that will get a little more notification and attract people towards developing these in the future, I myself am quite interested in getting into developing games or gaming engines in the future.
Moving away from the gaming engine point of view, should things like this be allowed to happen, do they actually improve it for us? The gaming industry is improving all the time, which makes a lot of us happy in that we get an end product of a very high standard. But sadly there are some that don't meet this standard. Surely we have the right to complain when things aren't as good as they could and in many cases should be. Criticism helps us all improve, something we learn in school at a young age, if your work isn't good enough the teacher points out ways of improving it and also improving your overall standards. I have noticed that we as a nation don't really complain that much, not as much as we could. Games like army men are released and are poor compared to today's standards. Yet we do nothing to say "It's not worth the hassle making a game this poor".
Sure we wont buy a poor game but surely the time and effort spent making this game could have been used to make a game of a better standard that maybe could be possible. Unless we criticise developers when they make crucial errors then the industry will never reach its full potential. If you bought a household appliance from a well known shop and it broke down the next day many of us would complain and want it fixed or our money back. Maybe developers should have to have games of a certain standard and if it isn't what it says on the box then you are entitled to your money back.
So what do you think? Should we complain more about games that aren't as good as they could be?
From the other point it can be very hard to take the original idea of the game and get exactly what you want. Those of you who program will know just how hard and stressful it can be, maybe we put enough pressure on developers already, maybe the games they make are already very complex and the ones that fail to meet these standards are actually good attempts at making a decent game. So what do you think? Are we already expecting to much from the developers?
Back to the originality aspect. Think of your favourite game, one that was a must buy and has given you hours upon hours of fun and enjoyment. Chances are it's kept you up in the small hours of the morning trying to reach a certain point. Now think of a similar game, the chances are there will be a few games that look and appear similar, why is this? The problem is nowadays original ideas are few and far between, all the good ones have been used or are been currently turned into games. When a developer releases a game there is an extremely high amount of pressure on them to succeed, if the game doesn't sell they could lose a lot of money and end up having to stop making games, this means it is easier for them just to make a sequel or polish up an old idea. It's kind of like a guaranteed sale as you know someone out there was interested before and likely to be interested this time round to. It is hear I think that we should complain more, if a developer just decides to release and updated version of a previous game we should be complaining during the development of areas that need to be improved and fixed before it is released. Sounds like some games could be a quick way for developers to make a pretty penny. (or in the case of games several millions or billions of pretty pennies)
One game I am looking forward to is the getaway on the PS2, not just because it is an original idea but due to the fact that early on it looks impressive, just hope the final version has everything they promise, and more. That could also be another problem. Magazines reviewing games and being a little gentle on them. If a game has poor areas I want to know about them before I buy them. I would like to know if there are certain points that should have been made better. Or if this game is one of the best released and a must buy game. Now I'm not accusing magazines of *Cough *Bung Taking* /Cough* but what they need to remember is everyone has different tastes, they need to cater for everyone which means their review should tell the truth about the game. Also the problem of certain games needing to be updated also pops up. Sports games need to be changed nearly every year as the team line up change and new stars appear. Also with these games there is no point of changing the whole game if the way you already do it works fine and is the best you can make it anyway.
Another question is do we actually want new and original ideas. Many are happy to play sequels as the original was so good and any improvement on the original must make the game a definite buy. I'm not bothered if a game is original or not, if it is fun and appeals to me I will buy it. I guess it all depends on your definition of a sequel, take GT3 and GT2, some would say GT3 is just like an updated version of GT2 (same applies to the likes of EA's Fifa games) is this a sequel or just an update. Or is a sequel something more like GTA3 where the whole game has been redone in 3-D with the controls and view being totally altered and improved. Maybe what the industry need is a new idea to change things for the better. A new way of doing things, something that will attract more people and keep the old ones keen and improve it for us all.
Maybe one of us in the future will have a new idea that could revolutionise the whole industry. It is likely someone in the world will come up with an idea that will change things for the better. New ways of playing, new style of presenting games. Games always need to be improved, without the improvement the industry will reach a certain standard and then become less and less popular and may well end. So if you have ideas or ways of improving things then speak up, don't keep them to yourself, allow us to help and criticise them and help make them even better ideas. (We can even split the vast amount of money we make from selling the idea).
The last thing I wanted to babble on about was surprise hits, games that don't get too much hype and when they come out they surprise the pants of you. The first game that I got that did this was resident evil. I got an American import copy of the game months before it came out over here. Little was known about this game but my dad's friend was selling it cheap and I wanted more games. As soon as I watched the intro I knew that it had potential to be special and after running about in the game for twenty minutes I knew this game was good. Metal Gear solid was also a bit like this for me, it did get some hype but I didn't really read into it too much. It is one of the best games I have ever played. It was emotional and brilliant to play. Maybe didn't last long enough or have much replay value but it did blow your socks off in a big way.
The last game that did this was GTA3, think everyone knows what this game has got. Words can't really describe how great I thought this game was. I wasn't expecting a game this great and it only really gathered hype until a few weeks before the release.
I think that with surprise games that are really good, that fact that it takes you by surprise is one of the reasons it is so good. Sure games like MGS2 will be good even though they have so much hype surrounding them. Problem is that nowadays the industry is huge and magazines and web sites battle it out to give you up to date information on the latest games and peripherals. Which can be a good thing as it can tell you of good up and coming games and really pants ones that you should avoid. The only problem is that now the chances of a great game slipping through and taking us by surprise is unlikely meaning that hype will take over and something similar to what happened to WWF Smackdown 3 in that most of the good points were overshadowed by bits that were missed out and things that magazines and web sites said it would have that were not included in the final game.
Ok think I have went on long enough, seeing it is the festive season all that is left is to say. Hope Christmas was good and all the best for New Year.