The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
God knows how many years ago, Zelda numbero one was released. A few years back, Ocarina of Time was released on the N64.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
Page:
Dammit Grix, write shorter topics.
I just finished reading it, but before I've had a chance to read the replies, Georgia has woken up, so now I can't give the topic the proper response it deserves.
Well, maybe later.
I just finished reading it, but before I've had a chance to read the replies, Georgia has woken up, so now I can't give the topic the proper response it deserves.
Well, maybe later.
Okay, so you can switch to third person at certain times, but how often is that going to happen? 1st person is fine for shooting - preferable to third person in fact - but anything more related to platform gaming could be tricky.
You all remember how much Turok was slated for it's fiddly ledge jumping.
Anyway, what I'm basically saying here is that there is only so much you can do from a first person view (mostly shoot things), which you've most likely done a zillion times before on other first person shooters. Even if there is a significant portion of the game using the third person view for jumps and hooks andstuff, for me, that's the better part of the game, and renders the first person sections a little on the dull side.
Resident evil was third person, but did that lose any of it's atmosphere? No. It also utilised fixed camers angles to prevent the whole looking round corners thing - so that could've been done on parts of metroid, if necessary.
I expect it'll still turn out great, but I tend to have misgivings about any games that are first person these days.
You all remember how much Turok was slated for it's fiddly ledge jumping.
Anyway, what I'm basically saying here is that there is only so much you can do from a first person view (mostly shoot things), which you've most likely done a zillion times before on other first person shooters. Even if there is a significant portion of the game using the third person view for jumps and hooks andstuff, for me, that's the better part of the game, and renders the first person sections a little on the dull side.
Resident evil was third person, but did that lose any of it's atmosphere? No. It also utilised fixed camers angles to prevent the whole looking round corners thing - so that could've been done on parts of metroid, if necessary.
I expect it'll still turn out great, but I tend to have misgivings about any games that are first person these days.
And now I'll take my cue... :0)
Strafex wrote:
"BUT, it not only restricts what you can see, but what you can do also. Having played Super Metroid, running and manauvering are just as important, if not more important than the shooting and exploration. First Person Platforming doesn't work."
That's true. What I didn't mention is that they'll be using third person perspective for different times... like when you get out the hookshot, go into a ball, and such. Wish I'd mentioned it now...
"I see what you're getting at. A first person game does allow for more atmosphere in certain ways, but I still don't think that should be the priority."
Fair enough, but you get enough atmosphere, and you won't be worrying about jumping on walls. :0)
"Dolby surround sound could work just as well around the camera, like it does for films.
Ok, so you could look round a corner without going around, but I don't think that it makes THAT much difference."
I hate it, personally. Spoils the whole point of actually putting something behind the corner. You don't even have to be careful.
"And another thing I disagree with.
You say that a first person perspective works well because it's YOU there, not Samus. Isn't the whole point of the Metroid franchise to play as Samus?"
Note to the third person sections again. When it MATTERS, you'll be playing as yourself. When you're shooting and going crazy because you're locked in a room full of aliens, then you'll be you. That's all I care about. When you get crap scared, you'll be firing the gun, not Samus.
But when you're jumping around and being a platformer, you'll be watching Samus. Best of both worlds.
"Then other than the fact it means Samus might as well not be there, it also excludes the other main element of Metroid - platforming."
Third person switching again.
"So, a lack of platforming and a lack of Samus makes a first person Metroid, simply not Metroid."
Nah, it just makes a different Metroid. If you can cram in wall jumping and ball rolling in third person, and shooting the crap out of bosses and stuff in first, you've got a great game.
"I know that there would be slightly less atmosphere than a first person game, but I'd rather have a Metroid game than a scary one."
But Metroid was all about scaring you! Everything else was just tunnels!
"I think that Retro should've moulded Metroid Prime on Jet Force Gemini."
Gah! Then it's just a crappy rip off! Using a switch of first and third person, like I've described, has not been done effectively before. This could work excellently, and will NOT be labelled as a simple third person shooter!
"This way, you could've had Samus, gloriously brought to life and animated for players to marvel at"
If you want to watch animation, play Tomb Raider. :0)
"(You see Samus standing in a room as the floor around her starts falling into nowhere... That wouldn't work in first person!)"
Now there you're definitely wrong. Look at Half-Life, they did that in several places.
Imagine it. You've just opened a door, and walked through. You hear the slam behind you... and look around.
There's a door at the other side of the room. Below you, you can see lava bubbling away underneath the mesh floor, that's suspended by cables and wall struts.
Suddenly, the walls start to shake... the mesh floor wobbles. A giant piece of rock falls from the ceiling, smashing through part of the mesh floor ahead of you. A cable snaps and whips off towards the floor, sparking. You decide to run for it as the floor begins to tilt to the left...
More pieces fall down, smashing the mesh. The brave will turn around... perhaps noticing some fallen powerups... but the sane will keep running. It's THAT sort of atmosphere, having to make quick decisions. It would work in third person, but by seeing all around you, it would give a false sense of security.
Strafex wrote:
"BUT, it not only restricts what you can see, but what you can do also. Having played Super Metroid, running and manauvering are just as important, if not more important than the shooting and exploration. First Person Platforming doesn't work."
That's true. What I didn't mention is that they'll be using third person perspective for different times... like when you get out the hookshot, go into a ball, and such. Wish I'd mentioned it now...
"I see what you're getting at. A first person game does allow for more atmosphere in certain ways, but I still don't think that should be the priority."
Fair enough, but you get enough atmosphere, and you won't be worrying about jumping on walls. :0)
"Dolby surround sound could work just as well around the camera, like it does for films.
Ok, so you could look round a corner without going around, but I don't think that it makes THAT much difference."
I hate it, personally. Spoils the whole point of actually putting something behind the corner. You don't even have to be careful.
"And another thing I disagree with.
You say that a first person perspective works well because it's YOU there, not Samus. Isn't the whole point of the Metroid franchise to play as Samus?"
Note to the third person sections again. When it MATTERS, you'll be playing as yourself. When you're shooting and going crazy because you're locked in a room full of aliens, then you'll be you. That's all I care about. When you get crap scared, you'll be firing the gun, not Samus.
But when you're jumping around and being a platformer, you'll be watching Samus. Best of both worlds.
"Then other than the fact it means Samus might as well not be there, it also excludes the other main element of Metroid - platforming."
Third person switching again.
"So, a lack of platforming and a lack of Samus makes a first person Metroid, simply not Metroid."
Nah, it just makes a different Metroid. If you can cram in wall jumping and ball rolling in third person, and shooting the crap out of bosses and stuff in first, you've got a great game.
"I know that there would be slightly less atmosphere than a first person game, but I'd rather have a Metroid game than a scary one."
But Metroid was all about scaring you! Everything else was just tunnels!
"I think that Retro should've moulded Metroid Prime on Jet Force Gemini."
Gah! Then it's just a crappy rip off! Using a switch of first and third person, like I've described, has not been done effectively before. This could work excellently, and will NOT be labelled as a simple third person shooter!
"This way, you could've had Samus, gloriously brought to life and animated for players to marvel at"
If you want to watch animation, play Tomb Raider. :0)
"(You see Samus standing in a room as the floor around her starts falling into nowhere... That wouldn't work in first person!)"
Now there you're definitely wrong. Look at Half-Life, they did that in several places.
Imagine it. You've just opened a door, and walked through. You hear the slam behind you... and look around.
There's a door at the other side of the room. Below you, you can see lava bubbling away underneath the mesh floor, that's suspended by cables and wall struts.
Suddenly, the walls start to shake... the mesh floor wobbles. A giant piece of rock falls from the ceiling, smashing through part of the mesh floor ahead of you. A cable snaps and whips off towards the floor, sparking. You decide to run for it as the floor begins to tilt to the left...
More pieces fall down, smashing the mesh. The brave will turn around... perhaps noticing some fallen powerups... but the sane will keep running. It's THAT sort of atmosphere, having to make quick decisions. It would work in third person, but by seeing all around you, it would give a false sense of security.
darn tootin'
(does anyone know what that phrase actually means?)
(does anyone know what that phrase actually means?)
Yikes, I've gone on a bit there...
Basically, I think that now Retro's lead designer has deserted the company, Shigsy should come here and sent me to Texas to over see the rest of it's devellopment.
I'd set it all straight! ;-D
Basically, I think that now Retro's lead designer has deserted the company, Shigsy should come here and sent me to Texas to over see the rest of it's devellopment.
I'd set it all straight! ;-D
Grix Thraves wrote:
There's been a
> lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid.
I think I'll take a cue here...
First person is restrictive, and
> would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of
> Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the
> time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
BUT, it not only restricts what you can see, but what you can do also.
Having played Super Metroid, running and manauvering are just as important, if not more important than the shooting and exploration. First Person Platforming doesn't work.
I see what you're getting at. A first person game does allow for more atmosphere in certain ways, but I still don't think that should be the priority.
Dolby surround sound could work just as well around the camera, like it does for films.
Ok, so you could look round a corner without going around, but I don't think that it makes THAT much difference.
And another thing I disagree with.
You say that a first person perspective works well because it's YOU there, not Samus. Isn't the whole point of the Metroid franchise to play as Samus?
Having used her in Super Metroid and Smash Brothers, I've been impressed at how brilliant her design is.
Her suit is agile, she can do all sorts of jumps, she has a grappling hook, she can roll, her movement is slick and sleek and she's not the sort of character who simply runs around with a gun. The animation (especially in Smash Brothers) was amazing.
Look at every first person game. When you imagine one, does the main character come to mind?
No. You don't see the main character. The main character is YOU.
That's why Samus is wasted on a first person shooter. She might as well not be there. You'll see her in one or two cutscenes and that's it.
Then other than the fact it means Samus might as well not be there, it also excludes the other main element of Metroid - platforming.
You don't need me to tell you that first person platforming just doesn't work. With a lot of bother and effort you can jump over a box or onto a ledge that's both near and level to the one you're on, but you can't do platforming properly.
Remember Mario's move on Mario 64 where he kicked himself off a wall? Samus did that in Super Metroid.
Remember the hookshot action, one of Zelda 64's best elements? Samus was doing that too.
Feezing enemies to use as a platform, jumping over pits of spikes/lava/acid.
So, a lack of platforming and a lack of Samus makes a first person Metroid, simply not Metroid.
I know that there would be slightly less atmosphere than a first person game, but I'd rather have a Metroid game than a scary one.
I think that Retro should've moulded Metroid Prime on Jet Force Gemini. Third Person for platforming and general exploration (the controls were slightly sluggish but this was refinable), by pressing R, you could go into third person for aiming (and still be able to move around).
This way, you could've had Samus, gloriously brought to life and animated for players to marvel at, kept the platforming, kept the shooting, lost some atmosphere but gained more (You see Samus standing in a room as the floor around her starts falling into nowhere... That wouldn't work in first person!) and that would trully bring Metroid into the third dimension.
Seeing as Metroid isn't popular in Japan, perhaps Nintendo don't care what happens to this franchise...
There's been a
> lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid.
I think I'll take a cue here...
First person is restrictive, and
> would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of
> Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the
> time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
BUT, it not only restricts what you can see, but what you can do also.
Having played Super Metroid, running and manauvering are just as important, if not more important than the shooting and exploration. First Person Platforming doesn't work.
I see what you're getting at. A first person game does allow for more atmosphere in certain ways, but I still don't think that should be the priority.
Dolby surround sound could work just as well around the camera, like it does for films.
Ok, so you could look round a corner without going around, but I don't think that it makes THAT much difference.
And another thing I disagree with.
You say that a first person perspective works well because it's YOU there, not Samus. Isn't the whole point of the Metroid franchise to play as Samus?
Having used her in Super Metroid and Smash Brothers, I've been impressed at how brilliant her design is.
Her suit is agile, she can do all sorts of jumps, she has a grappling hook, she can roll, her movement is slick and sleek and she's not the sort of character who simply runs around with a gun. The animation (especially in Smash Brothers) was amazing.
Look at every first person game. When you imagine one, does the main character come to mind?
No. You don't see the main character. The main character is YOU.
That's why Samus is wasted on a first person shooter. She might as well not be there. You'll see her in one or two cutscenes and that's it.
Then other than the fact it means Samus might as well not be there, it also excludes the other main element of Metroid - platforming.
You don't need me to tell you that first person platforming just doesn't work. With a lot of bother and effort you can jump over a box or onto a ledge that's both near and level to the one you're on, but you can't do platforming properly.
Remember Mario's move on Mario 64 where he kicked himself off a wall? Samus did that in Super Metroid.
Remember the hookshot action, one of Zelda 64's best elements? Samus was doing that too.
Feezing enemies to use as a platform, jumping over pits of spikes/lava/acid.
So, a lack of platforming and a lack of Samus makes a first person Metroid, simply not Metroid.
I know that there would be slightly less atmosphere than a first person game, but I'd rather have a Metroid game than a scary one.
I think that Retro should've moulded Metroid Prime on Jet Force Gemini. Third Person for platforming and general exploration (the controls were slightly sluggish but this was refinable), by pressing R, you could go into third person for aiming (and still be able to move around).
This way, you could've had Samus, gloriously brought to life and animated for players to marvel at, kept the platforming, kept the shooting, lost some atmosphere but gained more (You see Samus standing in a room as the floor around her starts falling into nowhere... That wouldn't work in first person!) and that would trully bring Metroid into the third dimension.
Seeing as Metroid isn't popular in Japan, perhaps Nintendo don't care what happens to this franchise...
Very good point, and not one I'd thought about. Good post two, damn you for taking 7 minutes of my life, I WANT THEM BACK!... Bah, I'd only waste 'em :-)
Anyway, good post.
RBS: Selfless, cold and composed.
Anyway, good post.
RBS: Selfless, cold and composed.
Hmmmmm
Good points, Good post.
I'd agree that is getting harder and harder to please us.
The only game which made me go "wow" last year was GTA3. Not really an original game, but becasue of the benefits of newer technology the game could be made a hell of lot more interactive. Conker had a similar "wow" effect on me, but that was more to do with original ideas from the developer and not new technology.
I dont know how much further we can go...I just hope the future makes me go "wow."
Good points, Good post.
I'd agree that is getting harder and harder to please us.
The only game which made me go "wow" last year was GTA3. Not really an original game, but becasue of the benefits of newer technology the game could be made a hell of lot more interactive. Conker had a similar "wow" effect on me, but that was more to do with original ideas from the developer and not new technology.
I dont know how much further we can go...I just hope the future makes me go "wow."
Cool, thanks a lot. :0)
nice post, bet you win (another) GAD for that!
;-)
I think there are some good points in there, and it's good to see someone who considers gaming an art.
Well done Grix.
*virtual Sibs pats virtual Grix on back*
;-)
I think there are some good points in there, and it's good to see someone who considers gaming an art.
Well done Grix.
*virtual Sibs pats virtual Grix on back*
Page: