The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
A new year and a new GTA game, a new year and a new Fifa game, a new year and a new set of Disney games. Every year developer's work hard as they try to create the ideal game, however gamers and developers a like know that there isn't such a thing. I don't know how to go about explaining my point without using criticism towards the games which both you and I have grown to love but as a gamer yourself please try to understand that this is all constructive criticism and in no uncertain terms am I calling these games below par. Only when this criterion has been met can you ask yourself the question 'Are games as good as we are led to believe?'
It all hit me in the November of 2001 when Ubisoft released information about Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and the new heights that they would take console gaming up to. Every console has a killer application, the GameCube has Resident Evil and Mario Sunshine, the Playstation 2 has GTA3, GTA Vice City and Pro Evolution 2 and the Xbox has Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Splinter Cell, without these games there wouldn't be anything other than personal preference as to which console a gamer would purchase.
People criticise hype for spoiling games and to a degree I feel the same way. However shop our personal hype be matched by the overall product of a game and isn't it about time that developers aimed towards pushing games that one step further to perfection. Take Splinter Cell for example. My favourite game of 2002 was Splinter Cell for the Xbox, I had the game on pre-order for 3 months and I clocked the demo over 20 times all in anticipation of the final product. Thankfully the final release lived up to the majority of my expectations and it turned out to be a master piece. However in my mind I expected more and these little extras made me think about how good games really are?!
Gamers got the chance to control a super spy with all gadgets imaginable and some excellent scenarios which fed the main story of the game. Great, weapons, gadgets, stealth and action, what more do you want? At first I would have gone down the usual path of saying that it was the best game I had ever played but after a while I realised that the game was only good because I wanted it to be. As I progressed through the game I failed to admire some of the excellent textures and I started to look out for errors in the gameplay and this quickly turned into an obsession. The enjoyment slowly started to drift out of the game and I was becoming the gamer which I hoped I would never be.
At that point I then asked myself the question and my answer was not of a positive nature. Was I leading myself into thinking that the game was good? Was I using my mind to persuade my actions into thinking that the game was better than it was? Or was it just me? Other people were enjoying the game and following what my actions suggested and those who had played the game were amazed at the steps taken to give gamers the "5th Freedom". I went through it on normal and then on hard which was a sign that the game was as good as people suggested, however deep inside I was pining for more and all the things left out of the game were starting to annoy me, my mind had taken over and my obsession for negative thoughts took over what could have been the greatest gaming moment of 2002.
The little things like characters gliding up and down stairs, bodies disappearing through walls, characters not connecting with their surroundings and characters getting stuck on in game objects unable to move were the final thoughts I had of the game as I switched off my Xbox console. Its not just Splinter Cell that I have had these feelings about, Metal Gear Solid 2 was the same in the March of 2002 and so was Devil May Cry in the Christmas of 2001. It seemed that all the games I had anticipated were turning into pools of negative thoughts and slowly drifting away from what I hoped the game was going to be.
It's not a case of hype directly but more of what I expect to be in the games I look forward to, I could hype a game up to be something big and it will contain what my level of expectations hoped for but on other occasions the game won't be the hit I was hoping for. After thinking about this it made me wonder of whether games are as good as we are led to believe?! If more games were of Splinter Cell level then would that make Splinter Cell average?
At the moment we can only relate or compare to what is out at the current time and although there are more quality games being released as every month goes by I feel that the market it lacking in killer applications that will live up to people's expectations. If we had more top games to choose from then games like Splinter Cell, Devil May Cry and Mario Sunshine may not be as good as our minds lead us to believe, if this is the case then will a game ever live up to expectations or will it fall down at the 5th hurdle? The way you approach the game will effect your enjoyment levels so don't make the mistake of thinking what could have been done; channel your thoughts into appreciating what has been done!
Thanks for reading
It all hit me in the November of 2001 when Ubisoft released information about Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and the new heights that they would take console gaming up to. Every console has a killer application, the GameCube has Resident Evil and Mario Sunshine, the Playstation 2 has GTA3, GTA Vice City and Pro Evolution 2 and the Xbox has Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Splinter Cell, without these games there wouldn't be anything other than personal preference as to which console a gamer would purchase.
People criticise hype for spoiling games and to a degree I feel the same way. However shop our personal hype be matched by the overall product of a game and isn't it about time that developers aimed towards pushing games that one step further to perfection. Take Splinter Cell for example. My favourite game of 2002 was Splinter Cell for the Xbox, I had the game on pre-order for 3 months and I clocked the demo over 20 times all in anticipation of the final product. Thankfully the final release lived up to the majority of my expectations and it turned out to be a master piece. However in my mind I expected more and these little extras made me think about how good games really are?!
Gamers got the chance to control a super spy with all gadgets imaginable and some excellent scenarios which fed the main story of the game. Great, weapons, gadgets, stealth and action, what more do you want? At first I would have gone down the usual path of saying that it was the best game I had ever played but after a while I realised that the game was only good because I wanted it to be. As I progressed through the game I failed to admire some of the excellent textures and I started to look out for errors in the gameplay and this quickly turned into an obsession. The enjoyment slowly started to drift out of the game and I was becoming the gamer which I hoped I would never be.
At that point I then asked myself the question and my answer was not of a positive nature. Was I leading myself into thinking that the game was good? Was I using my mind to persuade my actions into thinking that the game was better than it was? Or was it just me? Other people were enjoying the game and following what my actions suggested and those who had played the game were amazed at the steps taken to give gamers the "5th Freedom". I went through it on normal and then on hard which was a sign that the game was as good as people suggested, however deep inside I was pining for more and all the things left out of the game were starting to annoy me, my mind had taken over and my obsession for negative thoughts took over what could have been the greatest gaming moment of 2002.
The little things like characters gliding up and down stairs, bodies disappearing through walls, characters not connecting with their surroundings and characters getting stuck on in game objects unable to move were the final thoughts I had of the game as I switched off my Xbox console. Its not just Splinter Cell that I have had these feelings about, Metal Gear Solid 2 was the same in the March of 2002 and so was Devil May Cry in the Christmas of 2001. It seemed that all the games I had anticipated were turning into pools of negative thoughts and slowly drifting away from what I hoped the game was going to be.
It's not a case of hype directly but more of what I expect to be in the games I look forward to, I could hype a game up to be something big and it will contain what my level of expectations hoped for but on other occasions the game won't be the hit I was hoping for. After thinking about this it made me wonder of whether games are as good as we are led to believe?! If more games were of Splinter Cell level then would that make Splinter Cell average?
At the moment we can only relate or compare to what is out at the current time and although there are more quality games being released as every month goes by I feel that the market it lacking in killer applications that will live up to people's expectations. If we had more top games to choose from then games like Splinter Cell, Devil May Cry and Mario Sunshine may not be as good as our minds lead us to believe, if this is the case then will a game ever live up to expectations or will it fall down at the 5th hurdle? The way you approach the game will effect your enjoyment levels so don't make the mistake of thinking what could have been done; channel your thoughts into appreciating what has been done!
Thanks for reading
A new year and a new GTA game, a new year and a new Fifa game, a new year and a new set of Disney games. Every year developer's work hard as they try to create the ideal game, however gamers and developers a like know that there isn't such a thing. I don't know how to go about explaining my point without using criticism towards the games which both you and I have grown to love but as a gamer yourself please try to understand that this is all constructive criticism and in no uncertain terms am I calling these games below par. Only when this criterion has been met can you ask yourself the question 'Are games as good as we are led to believe?'
It all hit me in the November of 2001 when Ubisoft released information about Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and the new heights that they would take console gaming up to. Every console has a killer application, the GameCube has Resident Evil and Mario Sunshine, the Playstation 2 has GTA3, GTA Vice City and Pro Evolution 2 and the Xbox has Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Splinter Cell, without these games there wouldn't be anything other than personal preference as to which console a gamer would purchase.
People criticise hype for spoiling games and to a degree I feel the same way. However shop our personal hype be matched by the overall product of a game and isn't it about time that developers aimed towards pushing games that one step further to perfection. Take Splinter Cell for example. My favourite game of 2002 was Splinter Cell for the Xbox, I had the game on pre-order for 3 months and I clocked the demo over 20 times all in anticipation of the final product. Thankfully the final release lived up to the majority of my expectations and it turned out to be a master piece. However in my mind I expected more and these little extras made me think about how good games really are?!
Gamers got the chance to control a super spy with all gadgets imaginable and some excellent scenarios which fed the main story of the game. Great, weapons, gadgets, stealth and action, what more do you want? At first I would have gone down the usual path of saying that it was the best game I had ever played but after a while I realised that the game was only good because I wanted it to be. As I progressed through the game I failed to admire some of the excellent textures and I started to look out for errors in the gameplay and this quickly turned into an obsession. The enjoyment slowly started to drift out of the game and I was becoming the gamer which I hoped I would never be.
At that point I then asked myself the question and my answer was not of a positive nature. Was I leading myself into thinking that the game was good? Was I using my mind to persuade my actions into thinking that the game was better than it was? Or was it just me? Other people were enjoying the game and following what my actions suggested and those who had played the game were amazed at the steps taken to give gamers the "5th Freedom". I went through it on normal and then on hard which was a sign that the game was as good as people suggested, however deep inside I was pining for more and all the things left out of the game were starting to annoy me, my mind had taken over and my obsession for negative thoughts took over what could have been the greatest gaming moment of 2002.
The little things like characters gliding up and down stairs, bodies disappearing through walls, characters not connecting with their surroundings and characters getting stuck on in game objects unable to move were the final thoughts I had of the game as I switched off my Xbox console. Its not just Splinter Cell that I have had these feelings about, Metal Gear Solid 2 was the same in the March of 2002 and so was Devil May Cry in the Christmas of 2001. It seemed that all the games I had anticipated were turning into pools of negative thoughts and slowly drifting away from what I hoped the game was going to be.
It's not a case of hype directly but more of what I expect to be in the games I look forward to, I could hype a game up to be something big and it will contain what my level of expectations hoped for but on other occasions the game won't be the hit I was hoping for. After thinking about this it made me wonder of whether games are as good as we are led to believe?! If more games were of Splinter Cell level then would that make Splinter Cell average?
At the moment we can only relate or compare to what is out at the current time and although there are more quality games being released as every month goes by I feel that the market it lacking in killer applications that will live up to people's expectations. If we had more top games to choose from then games like Splinter Cell, Devil May Cry and Mario Sunshine may not be as good as our minds lead us to believe, if this is the case then will a game ever live up to expectations or will it fall down at the 5th hurdle? The way you approach the game will effect your enjoyment levels so don't make the mistake of thinking what could have been done; channel your thoughts into appreciating what has been done!
Thanks for reading
It all hit me in the November of 2001 when Ubisoft released information about Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and the new heights that they would take console gaming up to. Every console has a killer application, the GameCube has Resident Evil and Mario Sunshine, the Playstation 2 has GTA3, GTA Vice City and Pro Evolution 2 and the Xbox has Halo, Project Gotham Racing and Splinter Cell, without these games there wouldn't be anything other than personal preference as to which console a gamer would purchase.
People criticise hype for spoiling games and to a degree I feel the same way. However shop our personal hype be matched by the overall product of a game and isn't it about time that developers aimed towards pushing games that one step further to perfection. Take Splinter Cell for example. My favourite game of 2002 was Splinter Cell for the Xbox, I had the game on pre-order for 3 months and I clocked the demo over 20 times all in anticipation of the final product. Thankfully the final release lived up to the majority of my expectations and it turned out to be a master piece. However in my mind I expected more and these little extras made me think about how good games really are?!
Gamers got the chance to control a super spy with all gadgets imaginable and some excellent scenarios which fed the main story of the game. Great, weapons, gadgets, stealth and action, what more do you want? At first I would have gone down the usual path of saying that it was the best game I had ever played but after a while I realised that the game was only good because I wanted it to be. As I progressed through the game I failed to admire some of the excellent textures and I started to look out for errors in the gameplay and this quickly turned into an obsession. The enjoyment slowly started to drift out of the game and I was becoming the gamer which I hoped I would never be.
At that point I then asked myself the question and my answer was not of a positive nature. Was I leading myself into thinking that the game was good? Was I using my mind to persuade my actions into thinking that the game was better than it was? Or was it just me? Other people were enjoying the game and following what my actions suggested and those who had played the game were amazed at the steps taken to give gamers the "5th Freedom". I went through it on normal and then on hard which was a sign that the game was as good as people suggested, however deep inside I was pining for more and all the things left out of the game were starting to annoy me, my mind had taken over and my obsession for negative thoughts took over what could have been the greatest gaming moment of 2002.
The little things like characters gliding up and down stairs, bodies disappearing through walls, characters not connecting with their surroundings and characters getting stuck on in game objects unable to move were the final thoughts I had of the game as I switched off my Xbox console. Its not just Splinter Cell that I have had these feelings about, Metal Gear Solid 2 was the same in the March of 2002 and so was Devil May Cry in the Christmas of 2001. It seemed that all the games I had anticipated were turning into pools of negative thoughts and slowly drifting away from what I hoped the game was going to be.
It's not a case of hype directly but more of what I expect to be in the games I look forward to, I could hype a game up to be something big and it will contain what my level of expectations hoped for but on other occasions the game won't be the hit I was hoping for. After thinking about this it made me wonder of whether games are as good as we are led to believe?! If more games were of Splinter Cell level then would that make Splinter Cell average?
At the moment we can only relate or compare to what is out at the current time and although there are more quality games being released as every month goes by I feel that the market it lacking in killer applications that will live up to people's expectations. If we had more top games to choose from then games like Splinter Cell, Devil May Cry and Mario Sunshine may not be as good as our minds lead us to believe, if this is the case then will a game ever live up to expectations or will it fall down at the 5th hurdle? The way you approach the game will effect your enjoyment levels so don't make the mistake of thinking what could have been done; channel your thoughts into appreciating what has been done!
Thanks for reading
Wow... Blatant GAD attempot but hey. Wow. That's... Put games in a whole new perspective. You don't get many people complaining about silly errors like people "gliding up stairs" and bodies "going through walls". Surely these are time-tested errors, so usual in fact that Developers overlook them as being "slight glitches", and it should defeniatly be overlooked. If you start to expect more than anything will/can deliver, you'll fail. Always, and I mean it, ALWAYS, think the game will be only just over par, HOPE that it will be the amazing once in a lifetime gaming experience that gamers dream of, but expect worse. Then, if it IS only just above par, you can be like "Oh, great game such and such could be worse, but great game!" and if it really is excellent you'll be ecstatic. [Sorry, I can't spell that...]
What is your point about GAD? I wanted input to my post so what more do you want?
If I am paying £39.99 I will expect for the game to give me the same level of satisfaction as earning the money in the first place. Resident Evil for the GameCube managed to sort the stair problem out so why can't others? Halo is another great example of how enemies react according to their surroundings, when an enemy dies on a ledge his body will hang over the edge, when an enemy dies near a wall his body will slump down the wall and he/she/it will slowy release their limbs away from the weapon. These are just 2 examples of games that don't disappoint and how £39.99 is money well spent. Gamers shouldn't be led into thinking that the game is better than it is and if the standard of games was higher the sales figures would show that gamers won't settle for second rate games.
Don't get me wrong on this one Splinter Cell is NOT a second rate game but I expected more. It wasn't hype from reading previews or from in game video it was just what I expected from a game with the potential to break the genre free and lees new life into a dying breed of game. The character connections with their surroundings is something that should automatically appear in games. I know that this is harder to do in 3D and that is why Resident Evil pulled it off so well, however with the appropriate time spent on the game it would happen, this is evident with Halo. I aren't prepared to settle for a second rate game anymore and although my expectations are high games like Resident Evil, Eternal Darkness and Halo manage to live up to them so why can't others? I get tired of trying to persuade myself that a game is better than it actually is and Splinter Cell is a perfect example of how a great game could have been polished off with a bit more time spent on collisions.
Is this too much to ask for? Capcom succeeded with Resident Evil, Bungie Succeeded with Halo and Silikon Knights succeeded with Eternal Darkness so it isn't too much to ask for... is it? With more games like these on the market I wouldn't need to persuade myself into thinking a game is better than it plays because evidently it can be done. We are in 2003 not 1999, characters should react to their surroundings and interact with objects accordingly. I am not talking about little glitches as these don't bother me, what I am talking about is the basics of gaming. Splinter Cell was advertised as the most realistic game to date yet apart from the Bible stories I don't know anyone who can glide up stairs without putting their foot on each step, do you? This is a basic task yet so many developers fail to recognise it, the only difference now is the fact that I won't settle for it and I won't try to persuade myself into ignoring a major graphical error.
If I am paying £39.99 I will expect for the game to give me the same level of satisfaction as earning the money in the first place. Resident Evil for the GameCube managed to sort the stair problem out so why can't others? Halo is another great example of how enemies react according to their surroundings, when an enemy dies on a ledge his body will hang over the edge, when an enemy dies near a wall his body will slump down the wall and he/she/it will slowy release their limbs away from the weapon. These are just 2 examples of games that don't disappoint and how £39.99 is money well spent. Gamers shouldn't be led into thinking that the game is better than it is and if the standard of games was higher the sales figures would show that gamers won't settle for second rate games.
Don't get me wrong on this one Splinter Cell is NOT a second rate game but I expected more. It wasn't hype from reading previews or from in game video it was just what I expected from a game with the potential to break the genre free and lees new life into a dying breed of game. The character connections with their surroundings is something that should automatically appear in games. I know that this is harder to do in 3D and that is why Resident Evil pulled it off so well, however with the appropriate time spent on the game it would happen, this is evident with Halo. I aren't prepared to settle for a second rate game anymore and although my expectations are high games like Resident Evil, Eternal Darkness and Halo manage to live up to them so why can't others? I get tired of trying to persuade myself that a game is better than it actually is and Splinter Cell is a perfect example of how a great game could have been polished off with a bit more time spent on collisions.
Is this too much to ask for? Capcom succeeded with Resident Evil, Bungie Succeeded with Halo and Silikon Knights succeeded with Eternal Darkness so it isn't too much to ask for... is it? With more games like these on the market I wouldn't need to persuade myself into thinking a game is better than it plays because evidently it can be done. We are in 2003 not 1999, characters should react to their surroundings and interact with objects accordingly. I am not talking about little glitches as these don't bother me, what I am talking about is the basics of gaming. Splinter Cell was advertised as the most realistic game to date yet apart from the Bible stories I don't know anyone who can glide up stairs without putting their foot on each step, do you? This is a basic task yet so many developers fail to recognise it, the only difference now is the fact that I won't settle for it and I won't try to persuade myself into ignoring a major graphical error.
i had a time to control a super spy with all gadgets imaginable and some excellent scenarios which fed the main story of the game. Great, weapons, gadgets, stealth and action, what more do you want? At first I would have gone down the usual path of saying that it was the best game I had ever played but after a while As I progressed through the game I failed to admire some of the excellent textures and I started to look out for errors in the gameplay and this quickly turned into an obsession. The enjoyment slowly started to drift out of the game and I was becoming the gamer which I hoped I would never be.
I even thought that the splinter cell game would even end but it ended quite quickly which was unexpectedly to happen
I even thought that the splinter cell game would even end but it ended quite quickly which was unexpectedly to happen
Splinter Cell is the sort of game which i like i like it soo much i am even into army game and other stuff like Dark Angel andi like games with missions especially stealth games if the i hear the word stealth metioned in a game i wnat to buy it yet i cant i dont know why but i cant but when splinter cell was out i bought it played the training level snapped the cd...( it wasnt me an thats obvious duh)..... iwas inlove with the game and just then it snapped i was sooo sad that day!!!
well anyway i dont look at minor erros in games if ts good its good thats what i say and if i like it i lkie it and noone can change that not evn a stupid game
( i wish i was sam fisher...he he ha ha wonder what i would have done....)
well anyway i dont look at minor erros in games if ts good its good thats what i say and if i like it i lkie it and noone can change that not evn a stupid game
( i wish i was sam fisher...he he ha ha wonder what i would have done....)
It ended very quickly and although I went back to play through on Hard mode there was no other insentive to play through the game again. Whilst it lasted the game was great fun to play but it was very short lived and after my second completion I can safely say that I won't be playing it through again for a long time to come. Its not the lastability I am talking about though it is the little additions which make a game better than another on the market. This is where Splinter Cell succeeds, loads of gadgets and additions which make it very different from others on the market, however even with these extras the game avoids the basics of character movement. Take Sam in crouch mode for example, holds onto the gun, stays low, look closely and you will see little textures moving and light reflecting off his body, on fact it is mind blowing to witness the amount of detail put into making the game one of the best in its genre. However even with these little details the developers over looked character collisions and the basic insturctions of characters moving up and down stair cases.
Developers are now skipping the basics and moving straight into advanced techniques of movement. Resident Evil kept the character movements down to a bare minimum and this pays off. Aiming is limited to up, down and central and the movement is limited to run and walk. Some complain about sluggish controls yet after 10 minutes of play they turn out to be very user friendly. Different genres require different styles and I can appreciate that Stealth games require more functions than the majority of other genres. Due to the fact that UBISOFT used drawings to create the characters rather than what SWAT 3 and Max Payne use (I aren't sure of the name but it is where they employ real people and record their movements for the game) it was harder to get the characters to move up and down stairs in a realistic manner. However even with this obsticle UBISFOT admitted that it could be done and this is why I was disappointed, spend more time in development and the results will show.
Don't you agree?
Developers are now skipping the basics and moving straight into advanced techniques of movement. Resident Evil kept the character movements down to a bare minimum and this pays off. Aiming is limited to up, down and central and the movement is limited to run and walk. Some complain about sluggish controls yet after 10 minutes of play they turn out to be very user friendly. Different genres require different styles and I can appreciate that Stealth games require more functions than the majority of other genres. Due to the fact that UBISOFT used drawings to create the characters rather than what SWAT 3 and Max Payne use (I aren't sure of the name but it is where they employ real people and record their movements for the game) it was harder to get the characters to move up and down stairs in a realistic manner. However even with this obsticle UBISFOT admitted that it could be done and this is why I was disappointed, spend more time in development and the results will show.
Don't you agree?
Great GAD win there mate.
Your replies alone are good enough to win
Your replies alone are good enough to win
Cheers Azul and Thanks SR :)