The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
At the end of the day, even though the employees of these companies may love their work, the companies that design, code and publish games are out to make money. They create a game, you buy it, they earn.
But, in order for us to buy a game, it has to be appealing, new, innovative, inspiring, and beautiful. If it isn't any of these things then the game next to it that is all these things will be chosen by us instead, and the companies have wasted their time.
But are we being too choosey? Are we letting our search for the perfect game stand in the way of us buying the great titles out there that we are missing out on purely because we just expect better?
Take the sequels debate for example. A company releases a game that wow's the world - for example purposes, we'll call it Loom Raider. People buy it in their droves. For the game companies it makes commercial sense to release a sequel as it can use the success of the first game for advertising.
To guaruntee that the franchise will run to a third, and the fact that they made so much money from the first, they spend more money into making the game an improvement over the original. Many will buy this game, but many will not because they believe that because they have played the first they have seen what the franchise has to offer already and look for something new.
Now take that same game, change the lead character and call the game a different name - say, Broom Trader. Would the public buy the game thinking that it ws something new, it was from the people that made Loom Raider and it's like that game that you really got into last year? Ot would they dismiss the game because it's too similar to Loom Raider?
So, either way the companies release a game, either as a sequel or a standalone, it's slated for not being the other. Audiences want something new, exciting, challenging and more beautiful than ever. "Regardless of how much better Broom Trader is over Loom Raider, It's still the same thing..."
What about Ico? One of the most beautiful, original games on the PS2 and one of my personal favourite games of all time, completely ignored by the gaming community. It barely made the top 20, regardless of universal praise for excellence and innovation. Gitaroo Man? Has anyone actually played this? Genius, yet completely ignored. Space Channel 5 part 2 isn't even being released in this country, because of the lack of sales of the first game.
I'm not saying we should accept rubbish from the game companies, far from it. The only real power we have over these people and what gets released is with our wallets, as at the end of the day it is sales fugures that matter to them. If a game is rubbish, we don't buy it, the companies think 'oh, no-one bought our rubbish game, we'll have to make a better one next time', and we've had this power since the start.
But consider it the other way. Great sales in innovative games will prompt more innovation. If you see a brand new game next to a sequel of a fave, take the chance. In exchange for more of the same you get an entirely new experience, and you add your vote to the petition for more innovation. If you want something new, start buying games that are new, and the companies will notice.
We may only be able to influence the games we buy through our wallets, but it's more power than we might realise.
But, in order for us to buy a game, it has to be appealing, new, innovative, inspiring, and beautiful. If it isn't any of these things then the game next to it that is all these things will be chosen by us instead, and the companies have wasted their time.
But are we being too choosey? Are we letting our search for the perfect game stand in the way of us buying the great titles out there that we are missing out on purely because we just expect better?
Take the sequels debate for example. A company releases a game that wow's the world - for example purposes, we'll call it Loom Raider. People buy it in their droves. For the game companies it makes commercial sense to release a sequel as it can use the success of the first game for advertising.
To guaruntee that the franchise will run to a third, and the fact that they made so much money from the first, they spend more money into making the game an improvement over the original. Many will buy this game, but many will not because they believe that because they have played the first they have seen what the franchise has to offer already and look for something new.
Now take that same game, change the lead character and call the game a different name - say, Broom Trader. Would the public buy the game thinking that it ws something new, it was from the people that made Loom Raider and it's like that game that you really got into last year? Ot would they dismiss the game because it's too similar to Loom Raider?
So, either way the companies release a game, either as a sequel or a standalone, it's slated for not being the other. Audiences want something new, exciting, challenging and more beautiful than ever. "Regardless of how much better Broom Trader is over Loom Raider, It's still the same thing..."
What about Ico? One of the most beautiful, original games on the PS2 and one of my personal favourite games of all time, completely ignored by the gaming community. It barely made the top 20, regardless of universal praise for excellence and innovation. Gitaroo Man? Has anyone actually played this? Genius, yet completely ignored. Space Channel 5 part 2 isn't even being released in this country, because of the lack of sales of the first game.
I'm not saying we should accept rubbish from the game companies, far from it. The only real power we have over these people and what gets released is with our wallets, as at the end of the day it is sales fugures that matter to them. If a game is rubbish, we don't buy it, the companies think 'oh, no-one bought our rubbish game, we'll have to make a better one next time', and we've had this power since the start.
But consider it the other way. Great sales in innovative games will prompt more innovation. If you see a brand new game next to a sequel of a fave, take the chance. In exchange for more of the same you get an entirely new experience, and you add your vote to the petition for more innovation. If you want something new, start buying games that are new, and the companies will notice.
We may only be able to influence the games we buy through our wallets, but it's more power than we might realise.
Who is Rez? I've never heard of a GAMER called Rez...
I say you should all play Rez, the most underrated gamer of all time. Ever.
I think I went a bit off topic there. Maybe. It's late so I'm not really sure what I\'m typing.
It was really difficult not to laugh at LoomRaider and Broom Trader.
But I agree completely, of course, many people know nothing about new releases, the companies whomake them and many of the issues such as Piracy etc, all they know, is that they want a game that they know won't waste them money, that's why sequels usually are top sellers. THere are the odd few that get through, but that's normally becaus eof the hype, or advertising that surrounds them. And these games get sold. It means that the great games with no advertising go away unnoticed.
But I agree completely, of course, many people know nothing about new releases, the companies whomake them and many of the issues such as Piracy etc, all they know, is that they want a game that they know won't waste them money, that's why sequels usually are top sellers. THere are the odd few that get through, but that's normally becaus eof the hype, or advertising that surrounds them. And these games get sold. It means that the great games with no advertising go away unnoticed.
At the end of the day, even though the employees of these companies may love their work, the companies that design, code and publish games are out to make money. They create a game, you buy it, they earn.
But, in order for us to buy a game, it has to be appealing, new, innovative, inspiring, and beautiful. If it isn't any of these things then the game next to it that is all these things will be chosen by us instead, and the companies have wasted their time.
But are we being too choosey? Are we letting our search for the perfect game stand in the way of us buying the great titles out there that we are missing out on purely because we just expect better?
Take the sequels debate for example. A company releases a game that wow's the world - for example purposes, we'll call it Loom Raider. People buy it in their droves. For the game companies it makes commercial sense to release a sequel as it can use the success of the first game for advertising.
To guaruntee that the franchise will run to a third, and the fact that they made so much money from the first, they spend more money into making the game an improvement over the original. Many will buy this game, but many will not because they believe that because they have played the first they have seen what the franchise has to offer already and look for something new.
Now take that same game, change the lead character and call the game a different name - say, Broom Trader. Would the public buy the game thinking that it ws something new, it was from the people that made Loom Raider and it's like that game that you really got into last year? Ot would they dismiss the game because it's too similar to Loom Raider?
So, either way the companies release a game, either as a sequel or a standalone, it's slated for not being the other. Audiences want something new, exciting, challenging and more beautiful than ever. "Regardless of how much better Broom Trader is over Loom Raider, It's still the same thing..."
What about Ico? One of the most beautiful, original games on the PS2 and one of my personal favourite games of all time, completely ignored by the gaming community. It barely made the top 20, regardless of universal praise for excellence and innovation. Gitaroo Man? Has anyone actually played this? Genius, yet completely ignored. Space Channel 5 part 2 isn't even being released in this country, because of the lack of sales of the first game.
I'm not saying we should accept rubbish from the game companies, far from it. The only real power we have over these people and what gets released is with our wallets, as at the end of the day it is sales fugures that matter to them. If a game is rubbish, we don't buy it, the companies think 'oh, no-one bought our rubbish game, we'll have to make a better one next time', and we've had this power since the start.
But consider it the other way. Great sales in innovative games will prompt more innovation. If you see a brand new game next to a sequel of a fave, take the chance. In exchange for more of the same you get an entirely new experience, and you add your vote to the petition for more innovation. If you want something new, start buying games that are new, and the companies will notice.
We may only be able to influence the games we buy through our wallets, but it's more power than we might realise.
But, in order for us to buy a game, it has to be appealing, new, innovative, inspiring, and beautiful. If it isn't any of these things then the game next to it that is all these things will be chosen by us instead, and the companies have wasted their time.
But are we being too choosey? Are we letting our search for the perfect game stand in the way of us buying the great titles out there that we are missing out on purely because we just expect better?
Take the sequels debate for example. A company releases a game that wow's the world - for example purposes, we'll call it Loom Raider. People buy it in their droves. For the game companies it makes commercial sense to release a sequel as it can use the success of the first game for advertising.
To guaruntee that the franchise will run to a third, and the fact that they made so much money from the first, they spend more money into making the game an improvement over the original. Many will buy this game, but many will not because they believe that because they have played the first they have seen what the franchise has to offer already and look for something new.
Now take that same game, change the lead character and call the game a different name - say, Broom Trader. Would the public buy the game thinking that it ws something new, it was from the people that made Loom Raider and it's like that game that you really got into last year? Ot would they dismiss the game because it's too similar to Loom Raider?
So, either way the companies release a game, either as a sequel or a standalone, it's slated for not being the other. Audiences want something new, exciting, challenging and more beautiful than ever. "Regardless of how much better Broom Trader is over Loom Raider, It's still the same thing..."
What about Ico? One of the most beautiful, original games on the PS2 and one of my personal favourite games of all time, completely ignored by the gaming community. It barely made the top 20, regardless of universal praise for excellence and innovation. Gitaroo Man? Has anyone actually played this? Genius, yet completely ignored. Space Channel 5 part 2 isn't even being released in this country, because of the lack of sales of the first game.
I'm not saying we should accept rubbish from the game companies, far from it. The only real power we have over these people and what gets released is with our wallets, as at the end of the day it is sales fugures that matter to them. If a game is rubbish, we don't buy it, the companies think 'oh, no-one bought our rubbish game, we'll have to make a better one next time', and we've had this power since the start.
But consider it the other way. Great sales in innovative games will prompt more innovation. If you see a brand new game next to a sequel of a fave, take the chance. In exchange for more of the same you get an entirely new experience, and you add your vote to the petition for more innovation. If you want something new, start buying games that are new, and the companies will notice.
We may only be able to influence the games we buy through our wallets, but it's more power than we might realise.