The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 played GTA3 the other day, Boxing day. My brother got a PS2 for Xmas, you see, and we (me the wife and kids) went to my parents house (where my brother still lives) for the day.
Anyway, I had a little go on GTA3. I thought that the driving was hugely improved over previous versions, but when out of the car the greatest improvements seem to have been made.
But as nice as it is to be able to roam where ever the fun you feel, you really do need those missions in the game to give you some sense of direction, don't you? You can go around shooting people, and have great fun, whenever you like, and yu can keep on trying to run from the police, but eventually you know that you're going to get shot down, and end up outside the hospital.
So I reckon, on the strength of this short experience, that a game with no direction would not be a very good game at all.
We need some kind of action and reward system to keep us going on. We have a need to achieve. GTA3 certainly has this, with new areas opening up when a number of missions have been completed (with bridges opening etc).
I guess games just aren't big enough yet to allow us to roam where ever we like, and do what we like forever. You have to stay within parameters, and I can see it always remaining this way.
I finally got around to watching eXistenZ on Christmas Eve. (Stay with me, I'll come back to my point later.) If you haven't seen the film it's worth watching, especially for you gamers. Anyway, those that have seen it will know that eXistenZ is a game. (Don't worry, I'm not going to give anything of the film away!) Anyway, even within this game, this virtual reality game in which you fell that you are actually there, there are still these limitations.
Other characters within the game will only react to the correct dialogue. You can play forever and not get anywhere without doing specific things.
If a vision of a game in the future still has these limitations is it not time to stop thinging about breaking them, and start using them to make the types of games we are capable of playing that little bit better?
As free as we seem to be to do what the fun we like in games, we're all after reaching a final goal, and there are certain things you have to do to get there. Games will always have to be linear to a degree, or there will be no purpose. But rather that allowing us to run around like headless chicken (headless chickens that run people down, and rob prostitutes) and wait for us to hit a certain trigger, why not allow multiple triggers?
This is certainly the way that games seem to be going. In my opinion there should always be a number of paths through to a final conclusion. A simple path that you will find with little exploration, and further paths that you can take if you explore a little more, or something.
Yeah, multiple paths rule. So does freedom. Wander around, do what you like, stumble upon something, find a purpose and continue on to the next thing. The next time you start the game from the beginning you may well stumble down a completely different path, and find yourself with a slightly different game.
By the way, I thought GTA3 was very good, and I didn't feel like driving like a nutter OR shooting people in the face after playing it.
Anyway, I had a little go on GTA3. I thought that the driving was hugely improved over previous versions, but when out of the car the greatest improvements seem to have been made.
But as nice as it is to be able to roam where ever the fun you feel, you really do need those missions in the game to give you some sense of direction, don't you? You can go around shooting people, and have great fun, whenever you like, and yu can keep on trying to run from the police, but eventually you know that you're going to get shot down, and end up outside the hospital.
So I reckon, on the strength of this short experience, that a game with no direction would not be a very good game at all.
We need some kind of action and reward system to keep us going on. We have a need to achieve. GTA3 certainly has this, with new areas opening up when a number of missions have been completed (with bridges opening etc).
I guess games just aren't big enough yet to allow us to roam where ever we like, and do what we like forever. You have to stay within parameters, and I can see it always remaining this way.
I finally got around to watching eXistenZ on Christmas Eve. (Stay with me, I'll come back to my point later.) If you haven't seen the film it's worth watching, especially for you gamers. Anyway, those that have seen it will know that eXistenZ is a game. (Don't worry, I'm not going to give anything of the film away!) Anyway, even within this game, this virtual reality game in which you fell that you are actually there, there are still these limitations.
Other characters within the game will only react to the correct dialogue. You can play forever and not get anywhere without doing specific things.
If a vision of a game in the future still has these limitations is it not time to stop thinging about breaking them, and start using them to make the types of games we are capable of playing that little bit better?
As free as we seem to be to do what the fun we like in games, we're all after reaching a final goal, and there are certain things you have to do to get there. Games will always have to be linear to a degree, or there will be no purpose. But rather that allowing us to run around like headless chicken (headless chickens that run people down, and rob prostitutes) and wait for us to hit a certain trigger, why not allow multiple triggers?
This is certainly the way that games seem to be going. In my opinion there should always be a number of paths through to a final conclusion. A simple path that you will find with little exploration, and further paths that you can take if you explore a little more, or something.
Yeah, multiple paths rule. So does freedom. Wander around, do what you like, stumble upon something, find a purpose and continue on to the next thing. The next time you start the game from the beginning you may well stumble down a completely different path, and find yourself with a slightly different game.
By the way, I thought GTA3 was very good, and I didn't feel like driving like a nutter OR shooting people in the face after playing it.
I've always loved the thought of a gme like you described, Grix. But the tihng is, no matter how powerful a console is, there is ALWAYS limits to what you can do.
I'm not sure if I'm making ANY sense whatsoever, but I know what I mean. :-)
I'm not sure if I'm making ANY sense whatsoever, but I know what I mean. :-)
The Game wrote:
he'd throw mushrooms at me all
> night.
And that's a punishment?
he'd throw mushrooms at me all
> night.
And that's a punishment?
Meka Dragon wrote:
"The next time you play you might do something slightly differently, and your brother will get shot, so you'll organisea lynch mob, and track down your brothers killer, and hang him high, leaving the frm to be run by your faithful assistant, ready too return to."
Yup, that sort of thing... but I think that perhaps the element of having something to fall back on would spoil it somehow... the "don't look back because there's nothing there" sort of thing.
"The next time you play you might do something slightly differently, and your brother will get shot, so you'll organisea lynch mob, and track down your brothers killer, and hang him high, leaving the frm to be run by your faithful assistant, ready too return to."
Yup, that sort of thing... but I think that perhaps the element of having something to fall back on would spoil it somehow... the "don't look back because there's nothing there" sort of thing.
Grix Thraves wrote:
>Imagine... third person,
It's funny, but whenever I visualise something it's usually 3rd person, top down or isometric view, never this over the shoulder look, or first person.
Anyway, I'd love to see a game like this, there clearly is a story there, but it makes you think that you are free to do whatever you choose.
It all works on the 'trigger' concept. Once you pull a trigger things start to change, and the story moves along again. What would make it really smart would be if you had no real idea what the triggers were, and the story could change drastically depending upon which 'triggers' you pull. Maybe wandering into a barn you will see a murder, the game would move along, but if you hadn't seen it you could go about your daily business until you hit another trigger.
Imagine something like Harvest Moon, where you're working happily on this farm from day to day, imagine that is some sort of cover for the real game hidden inside. You could play for adays, watering plants, feeding cows, building fences, and trigger none of th special events, and just think you're playing a farm sim. The next time you play you might do something slightly differently, and your brother will get shot, so you'll organisea lynch mob, and track down your brothers killer, and hang him high, leaving the frm to be run by your faithful assistant, ready too return to.
>Imagine... third person,
It's funny, but whenever I visualise something it's usually 3rd person, top down or isometric view, never this over the shoulder look, or first person.
Anyway, I'd love to see a game like this, there clearly is a story there, but it makes you think that you are free to do whatever you choose.
It all works on the 'trigger' concept. Once you pull a trigger things start to change, and the story moves along again. What would make it really smart would be if you had no real idea what the triggers were, and the story could change drastically depending upon which 'triggers' you pull. Maybe wandering into a barn you will see a murder, the game would move along, but if you hadn't seen it you could go about your daily business until you hit another trigger.
Imagine something like Harvest Moon, where you're working happily on this farm from day to day, imagine that is some sort of cover for the real game hidden inside. You could play for adays, watering plants, feeding cows, building fences, and trigger none of th special events, and just think you're playing a farm sim. The next time you play you might do something slightly differently, and your brother will get shot, so you'll organisea lynch mob, and track down your brothers killer, and hang him high, leaving the frm to be run by your faithful assistant, ready too return to.
I worry about freedom in games. I don't think a game that was totally free would sell very well.
Look at Zelda. People got bored even when they knew where they had to go, but all the running seemed pointless.
Same with Deus Ex. A lot of people didn't like that either.
And Shenmue.
Best selling game of last/this year was relatively linear, and that was Pokemon. You never really had an awful lot to get lost in at one time, and you were forced to explore what you were allowed to in order to actually get some decent Pokemon and all.
Not what I would call freedom, but it seems enough for most people.
I really hope one day there is a game made, where you start off with nothing, nowhere, and have no idea what the plot is, or where you are. There are no limits to where you can go, but only yourself can limit where you go, simply by common sense, or what people tell you to do.
Imagine... third person, cowboy/western setting, you're a small boy, small working family. Perhaps you are told to work on the farm/whatever, and to do stuff... but in the evening you're free to do what you want.
You could go outside the town, nothing is really stopping you... but you're advised:
"Don't go out there sonny... there be the riders out there, and you don't want to be messing with them."
Stuff like that. You go out, you'll probably die. Serves you right.
If you wait, perhaps a few days in your parents are killed or something. Stuff like that happens in games. Puts you out on your own suddenly, and perhaps then you're told to escape. Or at least think you should.
Nick a stage coach? Ride horseback, go on foot... stow away aboard a train? Travel with someone? Anything you can think of.
It'll end up like an RPG, I expect... but stuff like that is excellent. It also means you can go back and play it again, making new decisions and playing a whole new game.
Would take a lot of work though... but all the best things do.
Grix Thraves © 2001
:0)
Look at Zelda. People got bored even when they knew where they had to go, but all the running seemed pointless.
Same with Deus Ex. A lot of people didn't like that either.
And Shenmue.
Best selling game of last/this year was relatively linear, and that was Pokemon. You never really had an awful lot to get lost in at one time, and you were forced to explore what you were allowed to in order to actually get some decent Pokemon and all.
Not what I would call freedom, but it seems enough for most people.
I really hope one day there is a game made, where you start off with nothing, nowhere, and have no idea what the plot is, or where you are. There are no limits to where you can go, but only yourself can limit where you go, simply by common sense, or what people tell you to do.
Imagine... third person, cowboy/western setting, you're a small boy, small working family. Perhaps you are told to work on the farm/whatever, and to do stuff... but in the evening you're free to do what you want.
You could go outside the town, nothing is really stopping you... but you're advised:
"Don't go out there sonny... there be the riders out there, and you don't want to be messing with them."
Stuff like that. You go out, you'll probably die. Serves you right.
If you wait, perhaps a few days in your parents are killed or something. Stuff like that happens in games. Puts you out on your own suddenly, and perhaps then you're told to escape. Or at least think you should.
Nick a stage coach? Ride horseback, go on foot... stow away aboard a train? Travel with someone? Anything you can think of.
It'll end up like an RPG, I expect... but stuff like that is excellent. It also means you can go back and play it again, making new decisions and playing a whole new game.
Would take a lot of work though... but all the best things do.
Grix Thraves © 2001
:0)
*Hides PS2*
Meka! How could you play a PS2! I'm ashamed of you!
If my daddy caught me playing a PlayStation, he'd throw mushrooms at me all night.
Granted he dresses up in a Mario costume, and makes my mum do the same with the Peach costume he bought for their 25th anniversary, but still, playing PlayStation One or 2 just isn't koopa.. I mean kosher!
Game: Joking.
Meka! How could you play a PS2! I'm ashamed of you!
If my daddy caught me playing a PlayStation, he'd throw mushrooms at me all night.
Granted he dresses up in a Mario costume, and makes my mum do the same with the Peach costume he bought for their 25th anniversary, but still, playing PlayStation One or 2 just isn't koopa.. I mean kosher!
Game: Joking.
eXistenZ- great film... I'm a huge Cronnenburg fan myself (along with Ridley Scott, he's my fave director!).
Anyway, if an eXistenZ style plug-yourself-in system was invented, imagine how cool multiplayer Goldeneye would be... u would litterally be running and shooting at each other!
Sonic
Anyway, if an eXistenZ style plug-yourself-in system was invented, imagine how cool multiplayer Goldeneye would be... u would litterally be running and shooting at each other!
Sonic
I played GTA3 the other day, Boxing day. My brother got a PS2 for Xmas, you see, and we (me the wife and kids) went to my parents house (where my brother still lives) for the day.
Anyway, I had a little go on GTA3. I thought that the driving was hugely improved over previous versions, but when out of the car the greatest improvements seem to have been made.
But as nice as it is to be able to roam where ever the fun you feel, you really do need those missions in the game to give you some sense of direction, don't you? You can go around shooting people, and have great fun, whenever you like, and yu can keep on trying to run from the police, but eventually you know that you're going to get shot down, and end up outside the hospital.
So I reckon, on the strength of this short experience, that a game with no direction would not be a very good game at all.
We need some kind of action and reward system to keep us going on. We have a need to achieve. GTA3 certainly has this, with new areas opening up when a number of missions have been completed (with bridges opening etc).
I guess games just aren't big enough yet to allow us to roam where ever we like, and do what we like forever. You have to stay within parameters, and I can see it always remaining this way.
I finally got around to watching eXistenZ on Christmas Eve. (Stay with me, I'll come back to my point later.) If you haven't seen the film it's worth watching, especially for you gamers. Anyway, those that have seen it will know that eXistenZ is a game. (Don't worry, I'm not going to give anything of the film away!) Anyway, even within this game, this virtual reality game in which you fell that you are actually there, there are still these limitations.
Other characters within the game will only react to the correct dialogue. You can play forever and not get anywhere without doing specific things.
If a vision of a game in the future still has these limitations is it not time to stop thinging about breaking them, and start using them to make the types of games we are capable of playing that little bit better?
As free as we seem to be to do what the fun we like in games, we're all after reaching a final goal, and there are certain things you have to do to get there. Games will always have to be linear to a degree, or there will be no purpose. But rather that allowing us to run around like headless chicken (headless chickens that run people down, and rob prostitutes) and wait for us to hit a certain trigger, why not allow multiple triggers?
This is certainly the way that games seem to be going. In my opinion there should always be a number of paths through to a final conclusion. A simple path that you will find with little exploration, and further paths that you can take if you explore a little more, or something.
Yeah, multiple paths rule. So does freedom. Wander around, do what you like, stumble upon something, find a purpose and continue on to the next thing. The next time you start the game from the beginning you may well stumble down a completely different path, and find yourself with a slightly different game.
By the way, I thought GTA3 was very good, and I didn't feel like driving like a nutter OR shooting people in the face after playing it.
Anyway, I had a little go on GTA3. I thought that the driving was hugely improved over previous versions, but when out of the car the greatest improvements seem to have been made.
But as nice as it is to be able to roam where ever the fun you feel, you really do need those missions in the game to give you some sense of direction, don't you? You can go around shooting people, and have great fun, whenever you like, and yu can keep on trying to run from the police, but eventually you know that you're going to get shot down, and end up outside the hospital.
So I reckon, on the strength of this short experience, that a game with no direction would not be a very good game at all.
We need some kind of action and reward system to keep us going on. We have a need to achieve. GTA3 certainly has this, with new areas opening up when a number of missions have been completed (with bridges opening etc).
I guess games just aren't big enough yet to allow us to roam where ever we like, and do what we like forever. You have to stay within parameters, and I can see it always remaining this way.
I finally got around to watching eXistenZ on Christmas Eve. (Stay with me, I'll come back to my point later.) If you haven't seen the film it's worth watching, especially for you gamers. Anyway, those that have seen it will know that eXistenZ is a game. (Don't worry, I'm not going to give anything of the film away!) Anyway, even within this game, this virtual reality game in which you fell that you are actually there, there are still these limitations.
Other characters within the game will only react to the correct dialogue. You can play forever and not get anywhere without doing specific things.
If a vision of a game in the future still has these limitations is it not time to stop thinging about breaking them, and start using them to make the types of games we are capable of playing that little bit better?
As free as we seem to be to do what the fun we like in games, we're all after reaching a final goal, and there are certain things you have to do to get there. Games will always have to be linear to a degree, or there will be no purpose. But rather that allowing us to run around like headless chicken (headless chickens that run people down, and rob prostitutes) and wait for us to hit a certain trigger, why not allow multiple triggers?
This is certainly the way that games seem to be going. In my opinion there should always be a number of paths through to a final conclusion. A simple path that you will find with little exploration, and further paths that you can take if you explore a little more, or something.
Yeah, multiple paths rule. So does freedom. Wander around, do what you like, stumble upon something, find a purpose and continue on to the next thing. The next time you start the game from the beginning you may well stumble down a completely different path, and find yourself with a slightly different game.
By the way, I thought GTA3 was very good, and I didn't feel like driving like a nutter OR shooting people in the face after playing it.