The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
...or have already ruined it. I'm sorry but it had to be said. If you look at all the games out now you'll see a big pattern. Mucho football games and driving games, little variation, little quality. I believe the figures are something like 1 in every 5 games is a football game, probably 2 in every 5 is a football or driving game. Why? Because casual gamers don't do their homework.
Developers and publishers know that people like these types of games, and they also know that people buy games on impulse, without reading up on their desired game and finding out if it is as good as the pretty picture on the front. So developers and publishers don't try. They don't have to. They put out a sub-standard game, having one or more of these faults: poor graphics, unresponsive or difficult controls, way too easy, way too hard, terrible gameplay.
The trouble is that the problem could be solved so easily. All it would take is a little time on the part of the gamers who go out, buy the game they have no idea about, play it once, be disappointed, then leave it - never to be played again. Instead of buying the game on impulse, buy a magazine (and a reputable one like Official Playstation Magazine, not the games page in Maxim) and read up on the genre you choose. Make a decision based on the reviews, previews etc, and the general feel of the game that the magazine gives you. Then go out and buy the better games, like Pro Evolution Soccer and GT3, not the one with the flashy cover or whatever caught your eye in the shops.
This would offer a vast improvement to the gaming industry as a whole. Developers and publishers would realise that no one is buying their game, and so would not be able to put out such rubbish onto our shelves. They would either go bust or (heaven forbid) make a good game. This would mean more competition between developers and therefore better games. Games would be more original, have better graphics, better controls, better gameplay. Developers would branch out into new genres, meaning more variation, and again more originality.
So if there are any casual gamers out there who happen to be reading this, I beg you to do some research before you buy games. You are giving everyone less choice and bringing the quality of games down.
Developers and publishers know that people like these types of games, and they also know that people buy games on impulse, without reading up on their desired game and finding out if it is as good as the pretty picture on the front. So developers and publishers don't try. They don't have to. They put out a sub-standard game, having one or more of these faults: poor graphics, unresponsive or difficult controls, way too easy, way too hard, terrible gameplay.
The trouble is that the problem could be solved so easily. All it would take is a little time on the part of the gamers who go out, buy the game they have no idea about, play it once, be disappointed, then leave it - never to be played again. Instead of buying the game on impulse, buy a magazine (and a reputable one like Official Playstation Magazine, not the games page in Maxim) and read up on the genre you choose. Make a decision based on the reviews, previews etc, and the general feel of the game that the magazine gives you. Then go out and buy the better games, like Pro Evolution Soccer and GT3, not the one with the flashy cover or whatever caught your eye in the shops.
This would offer a vast improvement to the gaming industry as a whole. Developers and publishers would realise that no one is buying their game, and so would not be able to put out such rubbish onto our shelves. They would either go bust or (heaven forbid) make a good game. This would mean more competition between developers and therefore better games. Games would be more original, have better graphics, better controls, better gameplay. Developers would branch out into new genres, meaning more variation, and again more originality.
So if there are any casual gamers out there who happen to be reading this, I beg you to do some research before you buy games. You are giving everyone less choice and bringing the quality of games down.
Page:
...or have already ruined it. I'm sorry but it had to be said. If you look at all the games out now you'll see a big pattern. Mucho football games and driving games, little variation, little quality. I believe the figures are something like 1 in every 5 games is a football game, probably 2 in every 5 is a football or driving game. Why? Because casual gamers don't do their homework.
Developers and publishers know that people like these types of games, and they also know that people buy games on impulse, without reading up on their desired game and finding out if it is as good as the pretty picture on the front. So developers and publishers don't try. They don't have to. They put out a sub-standard game, having one or more of these faults: poor graphics, unresponsive or difficult controls, way too easy, way too hard, terrible gameplay.
The trouble is that the problem could be solved so easily. All it would take is a little time on the part of the gamers who go out, buy the game they have no idea about, play it once, be disappointed, then leave it - never to be played again. Instead of buying the game on impulse, buy a magazine (and a reputable one like Official Playstation Magazine, not the games page in Maxim) and read up on the genre you choose. Make a decision based on the reviews, previews etc, and the general feel of the game that the magazine gives you. Then go out and buy the better games, like Pro Evolution Soccer and GT3, not the one with the flashy cover or whatever caught your eye in the shops.
This would offer a vast improvement to the gaming industry as a whole. Developers and publishers would realise that no one is buying their game, and so would not be able to put out such rubbish onto our shelves. They would either go bust or (heaven forbid) make a good game. This would mean more competition between developers and therefore better games. Games would be more original, have better graphics, better controls, better gameplay. Developers would branch out into new genres, meaning more variation, and again more originality.
So if there are any casual gamers out there who happen to be reading this, I beg you to do some research before you buy games. You are giving everyone less choice and bringing the quality of games down.
Developers and publishers know that people like these types of games, and they also know that people buy games on impulse, without reading up on their desired game and finding out if it is as good as the pretty picture on the front. So developers and publishers don't try. They don't have to. They put out a sub-standard game, having one or more of these faults: poor graphics, unresponsive or difficult controls, way too easy, way too hard, terrible gameplay.
The trouble is that the problem could be solved so easily. All it would take is a little time on the part of the gamers who go out, buy the game they have no idea about, play it once, be disappointed, then leave it - never to be played again. Instead of buying the game on impulse, buy a magazine (and a reputable one like Official Playstation Magazine, not the games page in Maxim) and read up on the genre you choose. Make a decision based on the reviews, previews etc, and the general feel of the game that the magazine gives you. Then go out and buy the better games, like Pro Evolution Soccer and GT3, not the one with the flashy cover or whatever caught your eye in the shops.
This would offer a vast improvement to the gaming industry as a whole. Developers and publishers would realise that no one is buying their game, and so would not be able to put out such rubbish onto our shelves. They would either go bust or (heaven forbid) make a good game. This would mean more competition between developers and therefore better games. Games would be more original, have better graphics, better controls, better gameplay. Developers would branch out into new genres, meaning more variation, and again more originality.
So if there are any casual gamers out there who happen to be reading this, I beg you to do some research before you buy games. You are giving everyone less choice and bringing the quality of games down.
*ruining, sorry.
I PROTEST!
Some gamers just want a quick go at an arcade game (Crazy Taxi, Burnout etc) whereas others prefer a sim like title (GT3, CM2002 etc). Thus I cannot take your statement lying down.
*begins to sob*
Some gamers just want a quick go at an arcade game (Crazy Taxi, Burnout etc) whereas others prefer a sim like title (GT3, CM2002 etc). Thus I cannot take your statement lying down.
*begins to sob*
Sorry, looking back at the post I did kind of put a blanket over all casual gamers. I should have said "most casual gamers". >_<
They haven't ruined it. In fact they are expanding it. Think about it:
Would Sony, Nintendo and Mircrosoft continue to spend billions of dollars on developing a console, just to sell it to a couple of million hard core gamers. Well, no! They would simply spend less cash on it (creating a console of lesser quality) or would not bother.
In the days of the NES, it didn't cost so much to develop games and consoles, so the companies could afford to sell it to a smaller market.
I believe it is a sad fact, that without the large amount of 'casual' gamers buying the consoles, they wouln't be enough money for the devolpers. They simply wouldn't bother. The gaming industry would collpase.
Although there is a lot of gaming rubbish (below 5/10), there are a lot of top quality games available. And without casual gamers, the game makers would not have the incentive to make these games.
Personally, I think the gaming industry has become too graphically devoted. I used to enjoy the simple games, like sonic when it was simple, hadn't gone 3D and most importanly FUN. Games today can have great graphics but the gameplay can be rubbish and it'll still sell.
Casual gamers = good
Would Sony, Nintendo and Mircrosoft continue to spend billions of dollars on developing a console, just to sell it to a couple of million hard core gamers. Well, no! They would simply spend less cash on it (creating a console of lesser quality) or would not bother.
In the days of the NES, it didn't cost so much to develop games and consoles, so the companies could afford to sell it to a smaller market.
I believe it is a sad fact, that without the large amount of 'casual' gamers buying the consoles, they wouln't be enough money for the devolpers. They simply wouldn't bother. The gaming industry would collpase.
Although there is a lot of gaming rubbish (below 5/10), there are a lot of top quality games available. And without casual gamers, the game makers would not have the incentive to make these games.
Personally, I think the gaming industry has become too graphically devoted. I used to enjoy the simple games, like sonic when it was simple, hadn't gone 3D and most importanly FUN. Games today can have great graphics but the gameplay can be rubbish and it'll still sell.
Casual gamers = good
Dude, take a chill pill
Developers are never going to stop making crap games, get over it.
Why?
Cos they want your money, sure every once in a while they'll churn out a corker(like metal gear solid 2..which might i say is oh my god jaw droppingly amazing) but while there are stupid people with money to burn on this god forsaken planet then the fat cats in the industry will carry on laughing at you all.
Developers are never going to stop making crap games, get over it.
Why?
Cos they want your money, sure every once in a while they'll churn out a corker(like metal gear solid 2..which might i say is oh my god jaw droppingly amazing) but while there are stupid people with money to burn on this god forsaken planet then the fat cats in the industry will carry on laughing at you all.
Oh shut up. Casual gamers give you so called hardcore gamers more games that you then love and promptly ignore casual gamers until the next time you feel like a moan. You don't see me and the Movie forum lot moan everytime an indie film doesn't show or only shows for a week.
Blank wrote:
> Sorry, looking back at the post I did kind of put a blanket over all casual
> gamers. I should have said "most casual gamers". >_<
It was sort of a joke. But still - being a HARDCORE gamer - most casual gamers are ruinging (ha ha) the industry.
> Sorry, looking back at the post I did kind of put a blanket over all casual
> gamers. I should have said "most casual gamers". >_<
It was sort of a joke. But still - being a HARDCORE gamer - most casual gamers are ruinging (ha ha) the industry.
Stryke wrote:
> Oh shut up. Casual gamers give you so called hardcore gamers more games that you
> then love and promptly ignore casual gamers until the next time you feel like a
> moan. You don't see me and the Movie forum lot moan everytime an indie film
> doesn't show or only shows for a week.
Are you talking about me. Because if you were my post didn't really consist of how I felt.
> Oh shut up. Casual gamers give you so called hardcore gamers more games that you
> then love and promptly ignore casual gamers until the next time you feel like a
> moan. You don't see me and the Movie forum lot moan everytime an indie film
> doesn't show or only shows for a week.
Are you talking about me. Because if you were my post didn't really consist of how I felt.
No, I was directing my comments to Blank, the latest GAD attempter to try this age old post.
Page: