The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Hello and welcome to the 1st of a series of rants that I'll post weekly.
It's here on the Future of Gaming board because they'll encompass the games industry and what not as a whole - whats going on now and how things will go in the future.
Each week's post will (probably) be on a particular topic - something that happened or is happening in the world of games that specific week.
But this week, as its the first post, it'll be about some general aspects of the games industry as I percieve them and how I feel about them and what think (and sometimes, hope) will happen in the future.
I will probably draw from many sources (eg magazines, websites etc), if they are of any worth, I'll mention them and the end of the post (think of them as furthur reading).
Here we go...
Videogames: their growth has a positive correlation with the expansion of technology. Obvious. As computer hardware becomes more advanced, games software become more advanced, harnessing the technology to deliver an entertaining experiance. It works the other way too - as games become more complex, the hardware has to be advanced to run the game effectively.
Examples of this rule: Nintendo created the N64 and produced Super Mario 64 for it - this game could never have been done on the 64's predesceser, it was created utilising the the power of the N64. But it could be said that it was only until hardware of the 64's nature was cretaed that Miyamoto's vision of Mario could be created in 3D. On a similar note, Miyamoto said that it was'nt until the Gamecube that they (Nintendo) could actually express wind in a game (regarding Zelda: Wind Waker).
So what goes around comes around. As technology adavnces, the games move forward, as the games move forward the technology needs to move forward.
The point Im getting to is why can only a few games developers and producers actually make good use of game console's technical abilities?
The problem is not down to a lack of skill and competence when coding, but usually its the lack of good design of the game. A good design can be recognised even if the implementation is a bit shoddy. An example of this in my opinion is Body Harvest on the N64, iffy graohics and controls still dont bring the quality of this game down.
The problem stems from the games producer/publisher - all they want is a product that is cheap to make but makes a lot of money. Obvious, again. This money-grabbing philosophy is the root of a huge sprawling tree that is represents bad games. Each branch of the tree is a different reason or cause to why games can be bad, and the profit hungry-ness on the producers behalf is the root that this tree thrives on. Branches such as Movie tie-ins, sequels and clones amongst others.
Of tie-ins, slapping the anme of a popular film franchise on a game often means good sales of a quickly (and cheaply) botched together piece of tosh. People go see the film, want to relive it so buy the game. Rarely has a tie-in been of worth, the recent Two Towers springs to mind as an example of a good one. Goldeneye would be but came out long after the movie so I dont regard it as a tie-in.
sequels arent so bad - if the original was any good then fans of it will wanta sequel. But its the pumping out of "the same game but different" that bugs me, 'COUGH, Tomb Raider, COUGH'. EA's yearly updates can annoy but thats only as, for example a new footie season starts, last seasons game is out of date statistcally, that people want to be up to date with sports games.
'Clones' are real cuss-buckets, even if the end product turns out to be great. Why? Well, because its just copying someone elses idea and (usually) jumping on the bandwagon of success that another game has created. Metal Gear Solid sells well, every game after it involves a stealth element and overly long cut-scenes. Cel-shading is the new polygons - every game then uses it to create a "unique graphical style" but the game turns out to be crap and they all look the same anyway.
Rushed games are also a problem, a low quality game is quickly bolted together to jump on the bandwagon of another game's or a film's success.
Shigeru Miyamoto once said, "a delayed game will be a good game, a rushed game will always be a bad one", or something like that.
Where was I? Oh, technology, games, correlation, yeah, I remember. Most of these cruddy games that are flooding the market make absolutley no use of the hardware thats running them. Its only with experimenting with new and original ideas on the hardware that the system can be pushed (Metroid Prime and Pikmin are standout examples on the GC). But original idea's in the games business is, well, risky business. For some reason everyone barks on about the lack of originality but original games seem to sell badly because everyone buys a game that that has a degree of familiarity to it. As a result companies just keep releasing tried and tested formula's that are exhausted as it will sell well.
If games are to move forward (and thus technology) then originality is needed, to inject new life in to the medium. God bless Capcom for this with their forthcoming batch of games (OK, so ones a Resi sequel but one that aims to push the series along), investing money from top selling franchises into new onees that may become top selling franchises in the future.
And so week 1's rant ends, thankyou for listening, I mean, reading.
pc.
It's here on the Future of Gaming board because they'll encompass the games industry and what not as a whole - whats going on now and how things will go in the future.
Each week's post will (probably) be on a particular topic - something that happened or is happening in the world of games that specific week.
But this week, as its the first post, it'll be about some general aspects of the games industry as I percieve them and how I feel about them and what think (and sometimes, hope) will happen in the future.
I will probably draw from many sources (eg magazines, websites etc), if they are of any worth, I'll mention them and the end of the post (think of them as furthur reading).
Here we go...
Videogames: their growth has a positive correlation with the expansion of technology. Obvious. As computer hardware becomes more advanced, games software become more advanced, harnessing the technology to deliver an entertaining experiance. It works the other way too - as games become more complex, the hardware has to be advanced to run the game effectively.
Examples of this rule: Nintendo created the N64 and produced Super Mario 64 for it - this game could never have been done on the 64's predesceser, it was created utilising the the power of the N64. But it could be said that it was only until hardware of the 64's nature was cretaed that Miyamoto's vision of Mario could be created in 3D. On a similar note, Miyamoto said that it was'nt until the Gamecube that they (Nintendo) could actually express wind in a game (regarding Zelda: Wind Waker).
So what goes around comes around. As technology adavnces, the games move forward, as the games move forward the technology needs to move forward.
The point Im getting to is why can only a few games developers and producers actually make good use of game console's technical abilities?
The problem is not down to a lack of skill and competence when coding, but usually its the lack of good design of the game. A good design can be recognised even if the implementation is a bit shoddy. An example of this in my opinion is Body Harvest on the N64, iffy graohics and controls still dont bring the quality of this game down.
The problem stems from the games producer/publisher - all they want is a product that is cheap to make but makes a lot of money. Obvious, again. This money-grabbing philosophy is the root of a huge sprawling tree that is represents bad games. Each branch of the tree is a different reason or cause to why games can be bad, and the profit hungry-ness on the producers behalf is the root that this tree thrives on. Branches such as Movie tie-ins, sequels and clones amongst others.
Of tie-ins, slapping the anme of a popular film franchise on a game often means good sales of a quickly (and cheaply) botched together piece of tosh. People go see the film, want to relive it so buy the game. Rarely has a tie-in been of worth, the recent Two Towers springs to mind as an example of a good one. Goldeneye would be but came out long after the movie so I dont regard it as a tie-in.
sequels arent so bad - if the original was any good then fans of it will wanta sequel. But its the pumping out of "the same game but different" that bugs me, 'COUGH, Tomb Raider, COUGH'. EA's yearly updates can annoy but thats only as, for example a new footie season starts, last seasons game is out of date statistcally, that people want to be up to date with sports games.
'Clones' are real cuss-buckets, even if the end product turns out to be great. Why? Well, because its just copying someone elses idea and (usually) jumping on the bandwagon of success that another game has created. Metal Gear Solid sells well, every game after it involves a stealth element and overly long cut-scenes. Cel-shading is the new polygons - every game then uses it to create a "unique graphical style" but the game turns out to be crap and they all look the same anyway.
Rushed games are also a problem, a low quality game is quickly bolted together to jump on the bandwagon of another game's or a film's success.
Shigeru Miyamoto once said, "a delayed game will be a good game, a rushed game will always be a bad one", or something like that.
Where was I? Oh, technology, games, correlation, yeah, I remember. Most of these cruddy games that are flooding the market make absolutley no use of the hardware thats running them. Its only with experimenting with new and original ideas on the hardware that the system can be pushed (Metroid Prime and Pikmin are standout examples on the GC). But original idea's in the games business is, well, risky business. For some reason everyone barks on about the lack of originality but original games seem to sell badly because everyone buys a game that that has a degree of familiarity to it. As a result companies just keep releasing tried and tested formula's that are exhausted as it will sell well.
If games are to move forward (and thus technology) then originality is needed, to inject new life in to the medium. God bless Capcom for this with their forthcoming batch of games (OK, so ones a Resi sequel but one that aims to push the series along), investing money from top selling franchises into new onees that may become top selling franchises in the future.
And so week 1's rant ends, thankyou for listening, I mean, reading.
pc.
Page:
Hehe, I got angry cos I did exactly this before and I'm jealous because not many people posted in mine :'(.
But it's like when somebody else wins GAD for a post exactly like one you did a week before. Cheap.
But it's like when somebody else wins GAD for a post exactly like one you did a week before. Cheap.
I think you're right about wanting originality but retaining familiarity.
There was a PC game called Giants:Citizen Kabuto that had elements of RTS, base-building, FPS and RPG and it bombed.
Yet it's a fantastic game.
People just thought "Eh?" and ignored it. Yet moaned about sequels.
Odd world.
There was a PC game called Giants:Citizen Kabuto that had elements of RTS, base-building, FPS and RPG and it bombed.
Yet it's a fantastic game.
People just thought "Eh?" and ignored it. Yet moaned about sequels.
Odd world.
Welcome to the 2nd installment of my weekly rantings, well now, was'nt week one a huge success? I got flamed and such like because of the length of the post. Goatboy addressed this in a topic and supported me as did many others, who I would like to thank (you know who you are).
Anyway onto the main event. This weeks topic is... gamers: the wierd and wonderful breed. It stems from a recent Digitiset reader opinion and the state of the forums.
There are many different types of gamer in this world, various categories and labels have been applied, hardcore, casual, and the mainstream are but a few. There are differences between gamers from different countries because of cultural tastes eg Japan dont like FPS's as they suffer from motion sickness from the game.
But what makes a casual gamer?, what makes a hardcore gamer?, what are the specific criteria that must be met?, do we even care what type of gamer we are? As far as im concerned - NO.
Some people strive for recognition as a hardcore gamer, but so what if you're not, its like these forums so what if your a regular or a newbie or whatever.
Due to this large variance in the gamer population it makes them very difficult to please as a whole. They want originality but they buy familiarity, they buy originality but want familiarity, its a vicious cycle that more often than not ends up with 'Game X' being raved about or cussed all over the internet.
The 2 recent GTA games come to mind, GTA3 comes out, it gets mixed reviews due its good gameplay but many niggling glitches. Its a huge game that sold very well, but punters wanted more, cue Vice City - bigger and better and more solid than GTA3. Its gets rave reviews and everybody and his dog goes out and buys it, then come the complaints - "its too similar", "its a full price add-on pack", "its just GTA3 with bikes and helicopters", bla bla bla.
The Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker is another example of gamer hypocrisy - Nintendo inject a little originality into the franchise and gets seriously bad complaints about it, yet the complainers will still buy it and say how good it is.
Games developers just cant win at their own game, if they make a long and sifficult game then people complain that they dont have the time (and skill) to see it all and finish it. But if the games are made shorter and in some cases easier, then gamers maon that they are'nt being challenged enough. Nintendo's new strategy, while it will spawn alot of distaste and needless criticism, in my opinion is a good one. The stratgey Im referring to is their idea to produce more, shorter games in smaller periods of time. This makes everyone happy to a certain degree, as everyone can enjoy the games to the fullest by completing them yet there will be more quality Nintendo titles available. Look at the N64, Nintendo's games were but a slow trickle, now on Gamecube they are flowing along nicely.
Gamers quickness to criticise shows their hostility as a breed of people. Not only are they quick to judge but they are harsh too. This hostility is fuelled by internet annonymity - they can say wahtever the hell they like about anything and not suffer serious consequences.
Their (or our, Im a gamer myself) hostility in their feverish joy at badmouthing other games consoles that they dont like or dont own. "PS2 Rulz", "Gamecubes for kids", "XBox is a big slab of pooh" and all that jazz.
Its just unneccessary, all of it. there no need to violently argue over which console is the best, waht games are good or bad, who's a nOOb or not. Cant we all just get along and play waht we want without fear of criticism?
If you enjoyed a game then by all means recommend it to others, or if you felt a game was bad then warn people of its dubious quality - just dont be so extreme. Dont have a go at people because their opinion differs from yours either or they are of diferent posting status than you. Newbie or hardcore, Casual or regular, in the end were all people with a commom interest in videogames.
Well, there you go week 2 is over and done with. Is everyone looking forward to week3?
Good, see you then.
pc
Anyway onto the main event. This weeks topic is... gamers: the wierd and wonderful breed. It stems from a recent Digitiset reader opinion and the state of the forums.
There are many different types of gamer in this world, various categories and labels have been applied, hardcore, casual, and the mainstream are but a few. There are differences between gamers from different countries because of cultural tastes eg Japan dont like FPS's as they suffer from motion sickness from the game.
But what makes a casual gamer?, what makes a hardcore gamer?, what are the specific criteria that must be met?, do we even care what type of gamer we are? As far as im concerned - NO.
Some people strive for recognition as a hardcore gamer, but so what if you're not, its like these forums so what if your a regular or a newbie or whatever.
Due to this large variance in the gamer population it makes them very difficult to please as a whole. They want originality but they buy familiarity, they buy originality but want familiarity, its a vicious cycle that more often than not ends up with 'Game X' being raved about or cussed all over the internet.
The 2 recent GTA games come to mind, GTA3 comes out, it gets mixed reviews due its good gameplay but many niggling glitches. Its a huge game that sold very well, but punters wanted more, cue Vice City - bigger and better and more solid than GTA3. Its gets rave reviews and everybody and his dog goes out and buys it, then come the complaints - "its too similar", "its a full price add-on pack", "its just GTA3 with bikes and helicopters", bla bla bla.
The Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker is another example of gamer hypocrisy - Nintendo inject a little originality into the franchise and gets seriously bad complaints about it, yet the complainers will still buy it and say how good it is.
Games developers just cant win at their own game, if they make a long and sifficult game then people complain that they dont have the time (and skill) to see it all and finish it. But if the games are made shorter and in some cases easier, then gamers maon that they are'nt being challenged enough. Nintendo's new strategy, while it will spawn alot of distaste and needless criticism, in my opinion is a good one. The stratgey Im referring to is their idea to produce more, shorter games in smaller periods of time. This makes everyone happy to a certain degree, as everyone can enjoy the games to the fullest by completing them yet there will be more quality Nintendo titles available. Look at the N64, Nintendo's games were but a slow trickle, now on Gamecube they are flowing along nicely.
Gamers quickness to criticise shows their hostility as a breed of people. Not only are they quick to judge but they are harsh too. This hostility is fuelled by internet annonymity - they can say wahtever the hell they like about anything and not suffer serious consequences.
Their (or our, Im a gamer myself) hostility in their feverish joy at badmouthing other games consoles that they dont like or dont own. "PS2 Rulz", "Gamecubes for kids", "XBox is a big slab of pooh" and all that jazz.
Its just unneccessary, all of it. there no need to violently argue over which console is the best, waht games are good or bad, who's a nOOb or not. Cant we all just get along and play waht we want without fear of criticism?
If you enjoyed a game then by all means recommend it to others, or if you felt a game was bad then warn people of its dubious quality - just dont be so extreme. Dont have a go at people because their opinion differs from yours either or they are of diferent posting status than you. Newbie or hardcore, Casual or regular, in the end were all people with a commom interest in videogames.
Well, there you go week 2 is over and done with. Is everyone looking forward to week3?
Good, see you then.
pc
Oh what the hell, I'll post it today.
I am currently writing this weeks post, the topic is slightly related to the flaming my first rant recieved. I said it'd be up Thursday But depending on whats happening tonight I might be able to finish wrriting it today and post it tomorrow.
If one good thing has come out from the ranting about this topic, it's that it gave me a chance to discover it myself, not having seen it the first time around.
And very good it was too.
And very good it was too.
And I can honestly and decently say I'm looking forward to it.
keep your eyes peeled and fixated on this topic as the new rant will be here on Thursday.
Eh? Too early for me still, that's the problem.
Thankyou (bows) Thankyou for this awar... er just plain thanks for the praise of this thread.
Page: