The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Even if I were gay, I'd still see more naked chicks than 99% of the mouthbreathers here that seem to try and denigrate "newbies" that actually bother to write decent topics instead of spewing the usual mind-rot that passes for chat in this forum.
This guy has proven, in 1 thread, that he has more sense, articulation and intelligence than quite a few regulars.
This guy has proven, in 1 thread, that he has more sense, articulation and intelligence than quite a few regulars.
Exactyl, I would report him, but I've no idea whether or not SR would take action.
maddmun wrote:
> Knick Knack wrote:
>
> And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
>
> Where did he actually reveal that he is a homosexual? And how would
> that affect whose side's he takes. I could bet that at least one
> person on these forums IS gay, but since they are no different, we
> would never be avble to tell.
Well said, I dont think 'gay' should be able to be used in the context that Knick Knack uses it, on these forums, its offensive and immature.
> Knick Knack wrote:
>
> And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
>
> Where did he actually reveal that he is a homosexual? And how would
> that affect whose side's he takes. I could bet that at least one
> person on these forums IS gay, but since they are no different, we
> would never be avble to tell.
Well said, I dont think 'gay' should be able to be used in the context that Knick Knack uses it, on these forums, its offensive and immature.
Knick Knack wrote:
> And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
Where did he actually reveal that he is a homosexual? And how would that affect whose side's he takes. I could bet that at least one person on these forums IS gay, but since they are no different, we would never be avble to tell.
> And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
Where did he actually reveal that he is a homosexual? And how would that affect whose side's he takes. I could bet that at least one person on these forums IS gay, but since they are no different, we would never be avble to tell.
RosaIind wrote:
Lots and Lots Of words (Kinda)
I agree totally with what you said, THese idiots are slating his topic, as they are scared that one day, through all of his experince, he will createmany GAD winning topics, and they are scared that he will take away their future GAD's. SO they are trying to make him think his topic is rubbish, so that he will write no more.
EIther that or they just looked at it, said, LONG, and began critiscising him.
Lots and Lots Of words (Kinda)
I agree totally with what you said, THese idiots are slating his topic, as they are scared that one day, through all of his experince, he will createmany GAD winning topics, and they are scared that he will take away their future GAD's. SO they are trying to make him think his topic is rubbish, so that he will write no more.
EIther that or they just looked at it, said, LONG, and began critiscising him.
"(o)(o)"
Work it girl, work it!
Work it girl, work it!
*sigh*
It was an obvious parody of a post further down this thread.
Although... wanton lust might be more my bag :D
It was an obvious parody of a post further down this thread.
Although... wanton lust might be more my bag :D
Goatboy wrote:
> It's wanton lust disguised as contempt and barely-tolerated humour.
Thats the stuff.
> It's wanton lust disguised as contempt and barely-tolerated humour.
Thats the stuff.
It's wanton lust disguised as contempt and barely-tolerated humour.
RosaIind wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> It's jealousy at sentence construction and general sloshing about of
> their massive water-filled skulls.
>
> I said that first! get some origniality you must be GAY GAY GAY.
>
> :oÞ
I sure hope I detect sarcastic irony here?
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> It's jealousy at sentence construction and general sloshing about of
> their massive water-filled skulls.
>
> I said that first! get some origniality you must be GAY GAY GAY.
>
> :oÞ
I sure hope I detect sarcastic irony here?
Page: