The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
How many people reading this have a custom skin for Quake or Unreal? In Baldur's Gate, have you given the main character a name that nobody else would ever think of? Have you even (skirting hastily around the issue) got naked women for hostages on Counter-strike?
People enjoy personalising games, and they enjoy making their own version of a game special to them. Countless people have entered their own familiy in to The Sims, so they can imagine what it would be like if they really were a pop star, or a high-flying executive. Computer games are escapist - this is obvious - and customisation options allow a user to make the little world they play in even more their own. Half-life has skins, mp3 players and even spraypaints that are editable; Max Payne has patches that let you turn him in to a lady (for the more feminist players, I presume); even Black and White allowed the importing of custom creatures, allowing players to photograph every body part of their dog and see it blown up to gigantic proportions on their computer screen.
But why do people think it neccessary to do this? Why aren't people happy with the 16 creatures B&W already has, or the skins already available in Unreal Tournament? What is the need to scan in a picture of yourself so that you can show other Quake players your ugly face?
As I said above, computers are escapist, but why do players think it neccessary to inject their own reality in to a game that is, ultimately, only a game? Obviously, levels, mods and so on add to the longevity of a game, but there are now three businesses on the internet that make money from constructing skins for games from photgraphs emailed to them. Personalisation of a game is fine and often adds to the experience, but I'd be interested to hear other views on this.
People enjoy personalising games, and they enjoy making their own version of a game special to them. Countless people have entered their own familiy in to The Sims, so they can imagine what it would be like if they really were a pop star, or a high-flying executive. Computer games are escapist - this is obvious - and customisation options allow a user to make the little world they play in even more their own. Half-life has skins, mp3 players and even spraypaints that are editable; Max Payne has patches that let you turn him in to a lady (for the more feminist players, I presume); even Black and White allowed the importing of custom creatures, allowing players to photograph every body part of their dog and see it blown up to gigantic proportions on their computer screen.
But why do people think it neccessary to do this? Why aren't people happy with the 16 creatures B&W already has, or the skins already available in Unreal Tournament? What is the need to scan in a picture of yourself so that you can show other Quake players your ugly face?
As I said above, computers are escapist, but why do players think it neccessary to inject their own reality in to a game that is, ultimately, only a game? Obviously, levels, mods and so on add to the longevity of a game, but there are now three businesses on the internet that make money from constructing skins for games from photgraphs emailed to them. Personalisation of a game is fine and often adds to the experience, but I'd be interested to hear other views on this.
How many people reading this have a custom skin for Quake or Unreal? In Baldur's Gate, have you given the main character a name that nobody else would ever think of? Have you even (skirting hastily around the issue) got naked women for hostages on Counter-strike?
People enjoy personalising games, and they enjoy making their own version of a game special to them. Countless people have entered their own familiy in to The Sims, so they can imagine what it would be like if they really were a pop star, or a high-flying executive. Computer games are escapist - this is obvious - and customisation options allow a user to make the little world they play in even more their own. Half-life has skins, mp3 players and even spraypaints that are editable; Max Payne has patches that let you turn him in to a lady (for the more feminist players, I presume); even Black and White allowed the importing of custom creatures, allowing players to photograph every body part of their dog and see it blown up to gigantic proportions on their computer screen.
But why do people think it neccessary to do this? Why aren't people happy with the 16 creatures B&W already has, or the skins already available in Unreal Tournament? What is the need to scan in a picture of yourself so that you can show other Quake players your ugly face?
As I said above, computers are escapist, but why do players think it neccessary to inject their own reality in to a game that is, ultimately, only a game? Obviously, levels, mods and so on add to the longevity of a game, but there are now three businesses on the internet that make money from constructing skins for games from photgraphs emailed to them. Personalisation of a game is fine and often adds to the experience, but I'd be interested to hear other views on this.
People enjoy personalising games, and they enjoy making their own version of a game special to them. Countless people have entered their own familiy in to The Sims, so they can imagine what it would be like if they really were a pop star, or a high-flying executive. Computer games are escapist - this is obvious - and customisation options allow a user to make the little world they play in even more their own. Half-life has skins, mp3 players and even spraypaints that are editable; Max Payne has patches that let you turn him in to a lady (for the more feminist players, I presume); even Black and White allowed the importing of custom creatures, allowing players to photograph every body part of their dog and see it blown up to gigantic proportions on their computer screen.
But why do people think it neccessary to do this? Why aren't people happy with the 16 creatures B&W already has, or the skins already available in Unreal Tournament? What is the need to scan in a picture of yourself so that you can show other Quake players your ugly face?
As I said above, computers are escapist, but why do players think it neccessary to inject their own reality in to a game that is, ultimately, only a game? Obviously, levels, mods and so on add to the longevity of a game, but there are now three businesses on the internet that make money from constructing skins for games from photgraphs emailed to them. Personalisation of a game is fine and often adds to the experience, but I'd be interested to hear other views on this.
Well, I first finished Tony Hawk 3 with my custom character (Mr. Jimbobjoe) and finished Final Fantasy 7 with all the characters having totally weird names. Ie. Clod (heh heh). It came as a surprise when I had to fight Proud Clod.