The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
And......?
That gives him the right to bash him just because he had the same idea?
And where you even here when 1/2Pint wrote them? I think not!
That gives him the right to bash him just because he had the same idea?
And where you even here when 1/2Pint wrote them? I think not!
Oh shut Para.
1/2's was better anyways......
1/2's was better anyways......
Don't be so harsh on him.
And shut up 1/2Pint you fool.
And shut up 1/2Pint you fool.
OI!!! YOU GAY!!! GET SOME ORIGINALITY. I WAS THE FIRST!!!
I did 1/2pint's weekly banter a while back. It's my idea! Mine!!! Go back to your hovel, you idea-sniding evil chobe eater. GRRRRR!!!!
I did 1/2pint's weekly banter a while back. It's my idea! Mine!!! Go back to your hovel, you idea-sniding evil chobe eater. GRRRRR!!!!
Knick Knack wrote:
> And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
I'm taking his side because I believe he's being treated unfairly. What's more, as a regular you should know better than to prowl around labelling posts as crap, or launching pointless insults at people.
> And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
I'm taking his side because I believe he's being treated unfairly. What's more, as a regular you should know better than to prowl around labelling posts as crap, or launching pointless insults at people.
I read it, and its all been done to death before.
VenomByte wrote:
> Did any of you actually bother to read his post? All the way
> through?
>
> Whether or not you agree with or have any interest in his viewpoints,
> you can't deny that it's a well written topic with a clearly
> underlying theme which is put across well, and elaborated on where
> necessary.
>
> Just because you lack the attention span, interest, or intelligence to
> read the longer words, does not give you any cause to label it as
> rubbish.
And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
> Did any of you actually bother to read his post? All the way
> through?
>
> Whether or not you agree with or have any interest in his viewpoints,
> you can't deny that it's a well written topic with a clearly
> underlying theme which is put across well, and elaborated on where
> necessary.
>
> Just because you lack the attention span, interest, or intelligence to
> read the longer words, does not give you any cause to label it as
> rubbish.
And just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to take his side.
Did any of you actually bother to read his post? All the way through?
Whether or not you agree with or have any interest in his viewpoints, you can't deny that it's a well written topic with a clearly underlying theme which is put across well, and elaborated on where necessary.
Just because you lack the attention span, interest, or intelligence to read the longer words, does not give you any cause to label it as rubbish.
Whether or not you agree with or have any interest in his viewpoints, you can't deny that it's a well written topic with a clearly underlying theme which is put across well, and elaborated on where necessary.
Just because you lack the attention span, interest, or intelligence to read the longer words, does not give you any cause to label it as rubbish.
You know, if you used paragraphs, more folk would read it because it would make it a lot easier. Just something to think about for next week.
:)
:)
Well I was obviously being sarcastic wasn't I.
SARCASM.
SARCASM.
Page: