The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Naff title, I know... but rather rant on about it being:
"A dynamic mixture of superb graphics, emotion evoking storylines, groundbreaking gameplay...."
I'm going for the more cynical approach. Only one thing makes a game good. Oh, and before I tell you what that is, I'd just like to point out that when I say "good", I mean a game that will be played for years to come and trandiscent generation barriers.
What makes games good is simplicity.
Think about any truely classic game. Tetris, Pacman, and even more modern games like SNES mario cart and Street Fighter are all totally simplistic.
Simplicity in games instantly makes them playable to anyone, and means they're easy to pick up. It is also the reason for their huge adictivness!
Of course, that's not quite enough to make a classic. To be truely great, the player has to feel he has achieved something by repeated playing. Oh, and fancy FMV sequences are not the answer! Instead most classics either give you a harder level to tackle, or in the case of games like Street Fighter, give the true expert player the cutting edge. Winning is entirely dependent on skill, and nothing else.
Now, coming back to the usual list of what makes great games....
Originality follows on from simplicity. If a game is simplistic to the level that it's becoming a true classic, it's either totally original or a copy of another game.
Oh, and simplicity leads directly to gameply too. If a games simplistic, then it'll obviously be easy to pick up and play. And ideally, more play time shouldn't make you bored of the game!
As for great graphics and sound... I don't think these are at all important to truely classic games. A thousand years ago people were playing chess- and they still will be in a thousand years time. Game like Tetris will follow suite- the number of hours spent playing the game is unbelievable! And that doesn't have great garphics.
So, there's my view on games. Simplicity is key. Let's see which modern games make it into the classic list. After all, Virua Tennis is a Pong Clone, and Rez is just an advanced old skool shooter!
Sonic
"A dynamic mixture of superb graphics, emotion evoking storylines, groundbreaking gameplay...."
I'm going for the more cynical approach. Only one thing makes a game good. Oh, and before I tell you what that is, I'd just like to point out that when I say "good", I mean a game that will be played for years to come and trandiscent generation barriers.
What makes games good is simplicity.
Think about any truely classic game. Tetris, Pacman, and even more modern games like SNES mario cart and Street Fighter are all totally simplistic.
Simplicity in games instantly makes them playable to anyone, and means they're easy to pick up. It is also the reason for their huge adictivness!
Of course, that's not quite enough to make a classic. To be truely great, the player has to feel he has achieved something by repeated playing. Oh, and fancy FMV sequences are not the answer! Instead most classics either give you a harder level to tackle, or in the case of games like Street Fighter, give the true expert player the cutting edge. Winning is entirely dependent on skill, and nothing else.
Now, coming back to the usual list of what makes great games....
Originality follows on from simplicity. If a game is simplistic to the level that it's becoming a true classic, it's either totally original or a copy of another game.
Oh, and simplicity leads directly to gameply too. If a games simplistic, then it'll obviously be easy to pick up and play. And ideally, more play time shouldn't make you bored of the game!
As for great graphics and sound... I don't think these are at all important to truely classic games. A thousand years ago people were playing chess- and they still will be in a thousand years time. Game like Tetris will follow suite- the number of hours spent playing the game is unbelievable! And that doesn't have great garphics.
So, there's my view on games. Simplicity is key. Let's see which modern games make it into the classic list. After all, Virua Tennis is a Pong Clone, and Rez is just an advanced old skool shooter!
Sonic
Page:
I think that a game can only be called a classic when it is used as a benchmark across multiple platforms.
Take Mario 64 for example. people compare a game, on a separate format, from a different generation of consoles, and it compares well to the current offerings. Some may say that reflects badly on the current standard of games, but it just may be because a team of people spent a lot of time and effort making a game play well, and in this is case, look impressive as well. The latter is not necessarily important, as most of the games have excellent gameplay, with any advanced graphics used acting as a complement to gameplay, making it even more emersive, as apossed to using it as a raw selling point.
Another game, even though it has had no competition in the genre is Metal Gear Solid. The game was not rushed, as will be its sequel. The game has many vital features in the game which in real life we assume, but in the game, are a technological leap.
A good game however, has no set formula or recipe (Despite what some games companies may think) and is only a good game if it is targeted at the right audience. The PS was sucessful because it had many games aimed at the right audience. Some of those games could be considered classics, because the gaming masses experienced them. hey may be many great games out there, that deserve to be classics, but will be ignored due to poor marketing.
Congratulations to Sony for making the world realise how important marketing is, even if they had the hardware to back it up, and shame on you Microsoft for just taking so over the top by spending half a billion pound on marketing alone.
Take Mario 64 for example. people compare a game, on a separate format, from a different generation of consoles, and it compares well to the current offerings. Some may say that reflects badly on the current standard of games, but it just may be because a team of people spent a lot of time and effort making a game play well, and in this is case, look impressive as well. The latter is not necessarily important, as most of the games have excellent gameplay, with any advanced graphics used acting as a complement to gameplay, making it even more emersive, as apossed to using it as a raw selling point.
Another game, even though it has had no competition in the genre is Metal Gear Solid. The game was not rushed, as will be its sequel. The game has many vital features in the game which in real life we assume, but in the game, are a technological leap.
A good game however, has no set formula or recipe (Despite what some games companies may think) and is only a good game if it is targeted at the right audience. The PS was sucessful because it had many games aimed at the right audience. Some of those games could be considered classics, because the gaming masses experienced them. hey may be many great games out there, that deserve to be classics, but will be ignored due to poor marketing.
Congratulations to Sony for making the world realise how important marketing is, even if they had the hardware to back it up, and shame on you Microsoft for just taking so over the top by spending half a billion pound on marketing alone.
YH, good point about papers, scissors, stones, but this is found in gaming too.
How long can you play Pong for. Or Tetrise for that matter? I get bored after 5 mins.
It's the underlying concept of the game that makes it classic- and not necessarily the game itself. Pong may be boring by today's standards, but the underlying ideas of the game have been modified with the times to give games like Virtua Tennis. The same applies to every other classic... it need not be the game itself that is played... just updates of the ideas expressed by the game.
For example, Quake could, by some people, be called classic because of its influence in 3D FPS games. However, how many people still play Quake. Not many. How many play games that have evolved the ideas of Quake... well, any 3D FPS!
What goes around...
Sonic
How long can you play Pong for. Or Tetrise for that matter? I get bored after 5 mins.
It's the underlying concept of the game that makes it classic- and not necessarily the game itself. Pong may be boring by today's standards, but the underlying ideas of the game have been modified with the times to give games like Virtua Tennis. The same applies to every other classic... it need not be the game itself that is played... just updates of the ideas expressed by the game.
For example, Quake could, by some people, be called classic because of its influence in 3D FPS games. However, how many people still play Quake. Not many. How many play games that have evolved the ideas of Quake... well, any 3D FPS!
What goes around...
Sonic
Good post, and you make some whorthy points.
However, Paper Scissors Stone is a simple game. Is that a classic? It is if you go by the definiton that it will still be played by kids in playgrounds in years to come.
But it isn't classic if you go by the replayability definition. You get bored after a few goes.
So which do you go by?
It's a difficult question. One which probably doesn't have any actual answers.
Rez is a good example. I love it, I think it's more of an experience than a game, and totally defies anything I have ever played before.
But some people hate it.
Who is right. (Me of course :-P)
We could argue this 'til the cows come home, but that would be boring.
However, Paper Scissors Stone is a simple game. Is that a classic? It is if you go by the definiton that it will still be played by kids in playgrounds in years to come.
But it isn't classic if you go by the replayability definition. You get bored after a few goes.
So which do you go by?
It's a difficult question. One which probably doesn't have any actual answers.
Rez is a good example. I love it, I think it's more of an experience than a game, and totally defies anything I have ever played before.
But some people hate it.
Who is right. (Me of course :-P)
We could argue this 'til the cows come home, but that would be boring.
popping for YH...
sorry, I don't usually do this, but it's better than copying the whole topic into his post...
Sonic
sorry, I don't usually do this, but it's better than copying the whole topic into his post...
Sonic
My appologies...
I meant "fools" is the "WAahahahahah [evil laugh] FOOLS!" way... I often do that in my posts- apologies if you haven't seen it before!
As for the Xfactor... describe it! What does it look like! There's obviously SOMETHING in a game that makes you go "WOW".
Sonic
I meant "fools" is the "WAahahahahah [evil laugh] FOOLS!" way... I often do that in my posts- apologies if you haven't seen it before!
As for the Xfactor... describe it! What does it look like! There's obviously SOMETHING in a game that makes you go "WOW".
Sonic
So I'm stupid and a fool.
You know what get on my nerves: people who say "no offence" then straightaway say something offensive.
Cinnamon
You know what get on my nerves: people who say "no offence" then straightaway say something offensive.
Cinnamon
No offence, but people who talk about the "Xfactor" are just people too stupid to articulate their views cohesively.
Fools!
Sonic
Fools!
Sonic
Hey, calm down. Take a deep breath.
Oh no!
Watch out!
Here it comes again:
"X-FACTOR!"
Oh no!
Watch out!
Here it comes again:
"X-FACTOR!"
AH!H!H!HH!H!!!
I hate people who say that this is good because of "the X factor"....
stupid, stupid, stupid idea! It just makes me think of Xbox or something!
Sonic
I hate people who say that this is good because of "the X factor"....
stupid, stupid, stupid idea! It just makes me think of Xbox or something!
Sonic
I would agree that in essence simplicity is the key to what makes a game good. But in the end it comes down to that special x-factor: when all the component parts of a game gel to create a final product that has something beyond the normal.
It's like music: when you start recording you never really know how it's going to sound when it's fully produced. A song you thought would be brilliant might turn out to be just okay, whereas a song you thought was just average might end up having that certain special "something". It's one thing to have an original idea, but it's another thing to be able to execute it perfectly. With so many people involved in game development, I'm not surprised that many games end up being filed under "Mediocre".
It's like music: when you start recording you never really know how it's going to sound when it's fully produced. A song you thought would be brilliant might turn out to be just okay, whereas a song you thought was just average might end up having that certain special "something". It's one thing to have an original idea, but it's another thing to be able to execute it perfectly. With so many people involved in game development, I'm not surprised that many games end up being filed under "Mediocre".
Page: