The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok before you read and tell me I am already a Regular i will admit it but I will never tell you who so don't bother asking :P.
*****
When I was a kid, video games didn't need gimmicks to sell. They sold themselves if they were good games. Publishers didn't have to print one-shot lines from positive reviews on their boxes, or even talk that far in-depth about what the game was about. In fact, I don't think people even reviewed video games back then. Most of the games in the late 1980's and early 1990's were marketed mostly through word of mouth, which to me is the least intrusive and most effective method of marketing. But as the story goes, The Man caught onto our love for gaming and has used it to fuel his love for money and power.
In the old days, video games came in a huge variety. You might be thinking, "They were all side-scrollers". This is true, but back then no one called them "side-scrollers", they were just games pure and simple. You could call Super Mario Brothers, Kid Icarus and Metroid side-scrollers, but they were almost nothing alike. Was this a good thing? It isn't as though Metroid would have been a better game if Samus jumped on enemies rather than blasting them, broke bricks with her head or dove down tube holes. This is a given for most of us, but one of the questions I've begun asking myself is, do developers realize this?
I think the root of the problem with current game developers lies in that they're trying too hard to make a strategic and structured money-making machine and not trying hard enough to make something fresh. Next time you're at your local video game store, go through and count all of the first person shooters. I assure you, the number of first person shooters doesn't grow by and large because developers enjoy coding them more than they enjoy coding other games. It grows because whoever is in charge of sales told some executive (who more than likely doesn't play games at all) that first person shooters were the latest craze, and that all the kids love them. You can't blame them. If I were in their position (supporting a family, wanted to impress the boss and didn't have time for video games), I would do the same. It's our capitalist nature; the great American way. It isn't a bad thing, and I say more power to that successful executive. However, this type of game development doesn't satisfy consumers such as myself, even if sales do go up allowing the company to make even better games.
Now before you flame my inbox, I'd like to say that I think different takes on one type of game have a very important place in the industry. Not only do great improvements and innovations come out of a different version of someone else's idea, but gaming has reached such a large margin (casual gamers who buy games about once every 5 months and otherwise don't think about it) that there's actually a market for games like that. I don't try to understand the logic of someone purchasing a console for 1 game on it, but people do it all the time. And those people would absolutely love to play a rehash - no matter how bad - of their favorite game.
I reluctantly admit that I own 10 console systems, 1 CD add-on, 2 computers and a Gameboy Advance. The idea is that -- at the cost of having a fire hazard behind my television and an ugly entertainment center doubling as girl repellant -- I have access to just about any game I'd really feel like playing. Let's go back to those first person shooters. I've compiled a list of them - old, current and upcoming alike - that I could think of. Fifty off the top of my head. You think I'm kidding, don't you? Granted, they're all different in their own ways. Plus, many of the games in the list are sequels (actually, about half of them are), and of course some of those date back to 1995. I'm not pointing my finger at any of the developers, because I feel that many of those games are unique breakthroughs in the FPS genre. But consider this: 12 of those are to be released within the next year. I ask you, how many different types of first person shooters can actually exist? I like variety and all, but good lord.
I'm not knocking first person shooters; quite the contrary … I love them. My point is that there are too many video game developers that are trying to make their game fit into a specific genre. Think about your basic video game genres, and how many games are developed hoping to be better than all the rest in that same genre. Role playing games. First person shooters. Fighters. Action. Sports. Do you know the reasons why Grand Theft Auto 3 was so well received by so many different audiences? One of the many reasons was that it was a breath of fresh air for gamers. There isn't a genre that GTA3 fits into, and the day that there is will be the day that it gets old. Now, companies are looking at the success of GTA3 and saying, "Oh, the kids like it because it's violent. Let's make a violent game" or "It's the freedom. Gentlemen, we need a game with lots of freedom." I like to believe it's that kind of meeting that spawns games like State Of Emergency.
Nintendo is a good example of a company that thinks outside the box. Super Mario Sunshine sold 320,000 copies in a mere 10 days and increased Nintendo's console sales by 50%. Most people I talk to say they believe it sold so well simply because Mario is in it, but I think differently. If that were the case, wouldn't that mean Mario Tennis, Mario Kart, Mario Golf and all of the Mario Parties would also have record breaking numbers? Mario Sunshine may be another adventure game, and it may play similar to Mario 64, but smart gamers know that Nintendo doesn't make uncreative, dull or repetitive games. They make mold-breakers. At the risk of sounding like a Nintendo fan boy, I'd go as far as to say they create new molds, and then later break those molds right when competition is starting to get settled into them. This is the same reason I love Pikmin so much, or Eternal Darkness. Like GTA3, they're in a class all their own.
The latter side of this redundancy coin is almost as bad as the former. As a result of there being so many developers making such a large amount of games in such a short time, casual gamers don't know what they like to play anymore. Moreover, since power gamers (such as myself) are bombarded with so many variations of the same type game at once, even we don't know what we want to play. I love first person shooters, but why would I play 12 demos or read 12 reviews when I could be spending that time doing something else -- like playing a game I know I enjoy? I'd rather play Chrono Trigger than research whether Xenosaga, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy XI or Grandia Xtreme is going to be the next addition to my RPG library. And looking back, there are so many seemingly good games that I've missed that are now half or less the cost of their original price. Then let's not forget that old games are being re-released on new systems, like Grandia II, Skies of Arcadia and Phantasy Star Online.
I don't think I'm alone when I say that my sweet spot for gaming has been inadvertently oozed with a sour coating. But what can you do? A motto I always live by is to purchase only games I really enjoy. Don't go out and buy SOCOM just because it comes with a head set or because it's getting great ratings. Play it for a little bit or even rent it to make sure you like it. Companies pay attention to sales charts, so if a company sells a million copies of one game, they'll think they're doing the right thing. When we buy just top choice games, they'll know better how to make good stuff and what it is. Plus, do you really like owning games that you don't play? You can always trade them into a place like Babbages or EB (or a Pawn Shop may be a better choice), but you'll end up getting half of what it's really worth and will have just wasted $20 or $25 on a game you don't like. Most importantly, have fun with your video games -- that's what they're there for.
*****
When I was a kid, video games didn't need gimmicks to sell. They sold themselves if they were good games. Publishers didn't have to print one-shot lines from positive reviews on their boxes, or even talk that far in-depth about what the game was about. In fact, I don't think people even reviewed video games back then. Most of the games in the late 1980's and early 1990's were marketed mostly through word of mouth, which to me is the least intrusive and most effective method of marketing. But as the story goes, The Man caught onto our love for gaming and has used it to fuel his love for money and power.
In the old days, video games came in a huge variety. You might be thinking, "They were all side-scrollers". This is true, but back then no one called them "side-scrollers", they were just games pure and simple. You could call Super Mario Brothers, Kid Icarus and Metroid side-scrollers, but they were almost nothing alike. Was this a good thing? It isn't as though Metroid would have been a better game if Samus jumped on enemies rather than blasting them, broke bricks with her head or dove down tube holes. This is a given for most of us, but one of the questions I've begun asking myself is, do developers realize this?
I think the root of the problem with current game developers lies in that they're trying too hard to make a strategic and structured money-making machine and not trying hard enough to make something fresh. Next time you're at your local video game store, go through and count all of the first person shooters. I assure you, the number of first person shooters doesn't grow by and large because developers enjoy coding them more than they enjoy coding other games. It grows because whoever is in charge of sales told some executive (who more than likely doesn't play games at all) that first person shooters were the latest craze, and that all the kids love them. You can't blame them. If I were in their position (supporting a family, wanted to impress the boss and didn't have time for video games), I would do the same. It's our capitalist nature; the great American way. It isn't a bad thing, and I say more power to that successful executive. However, this type of game development doesn't satisfy consumers such as myself, even if sales do go up allowing the company to make even better games.
Now before you flame my inbox, I'd like to say that I think different takes on one type of game have a very important place in the industry. Not only do great improvements and innovations come out of a different version of someone else's idea, but gaming has reached such a large margin (casual gamers who buy games about once every 5 months and otherwise don't think about it) that there's actually a market for games like that. I don't try to understand the logic of someone purchasing a console for 1 game on it, but people do it all the time. And those people would absolutely love to play a rehash - no matter how bad - of their favorite game.
I reluctantly admit that I own 10 console systems, 1 CD add-on, 2 computers and a Gameboy Advance. The idea is that -- at the cost of having a fire hazard behind my television and an ugly entertainment center doubling as girl repellant -- I have access to just about any game I'd really feel like playing. Let's go back to those first person shooters. I've compiled a list of them - old, current and upcoming alike - that I could think of. Fifty off the top of my head. You think I'm kidding, don't you? Granted, they're all different in their own ways. Plus, many of the games in the list are sequels (actually, about half of them are), and of course some of those date back to 1995. I'm not pointing my finger at any of the developers, because I feel that many of those games are unique breakthroughs in the FPS genre. But consider this: 12 of those are to be released within the next year. I ask you, how many different types of first person shooters can actually exist? I like variety and all, but good lord.
I'm not knocking first person shooters; quite the contrary … I love them. My point is that there are too many video game developers that are trying to make their game fit into a specific genre. Think about your basic video game genres, and how many games are developed hoping to be better than all the rest in that same genre. Role playing games. First person shooters. Fighters. Action. Sports. Do you know the reasons why Grand Theft Auto 3 was so well received by so many different audiences? One of the many reasons was that it was a breath of fresh air for gamers. There isn't a genre that GTA3 fits into, and the day that there is will be the day that it gets old. Now, companies are looking at the success of GTA3 and saying, "Oh, the kids like it because it's violent. Let's make a violent game" or "It's the freedom. Gentlemen, we need a game with lots of freedom." I like to believe it's that kind of meeting that spawns games like State Of Emergency.
Nintendo is a good example of a company that thinks outside the box. Super Mario Sunshine sold 320,000 copies in a mere 10 days and increased Nintendo's console sales by 50%. Most people I talk to say they believe it sold so well simply because Mario is in it, but I think differently. If that were the case, wouldn't that mean Mario Tennis, Mario Kart, Mario Golf and all of the Mario Parties would also have record breaking numbers? Mario Sunshine may be another adventure game, and it may play similar to Mario 64, but smart gamers know that Nintendo doesn't make uncreative, dull or repetitive games. They make mold-breakers. At the risk of sounding like a Nintendo fan boy, I'd go as far as to say they create new molds, and then later break those molds right when competition is starting to get settled into them. This is the same reason I love Pikmin so much, or Eternal Darkness. Like GTA3, they're in a class all their own.
The latter side of this redundancy coin is almost as bad as the former. As a result of there being so many developers making such a large amount of games in such a short time, casual gamers don't know what they like to play anymore. Moreover, since power gamers (such as myself) are bombarded with so many variations of the same type game at once, even we don't know what we want to play. I love first person shooters, but why would I play 12 demos or read 12 reviews when I could be spending that time doing something else -- like playing a game I know I enjoy? I'd rather play Chrono Trigger than research whether Xenosaga, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy XI or Grandia Xtreme is going to be the next addition to my RPG library. And looking back, there are so many seemingly good games that I've missed that are now half or less the cost of their original price. Then let's not forget that old games are being re-released on new systems, like Grandia II, Skies of Arcadia and Phantasy Star Online.
I don't think I'm alone when I say that my sweet spot for gaming has been inadvertently oozed with a sour coating. But what can you do? A motto I always live by is to purchase only games I really enjoy. Don't go out and buy SOCOM just because it comes with a head set or because it's getting great ratings. Play it for a little bit or even rent it to make sure you like it. Companies pay attention to sales charts, so if a company sells a million copies of one game, they'll think they're doing the right thing. When we buy just top choice games, they'll know better how to make good stuff and what it is. Plus, do you really like owning games that you don't play? You can always trade them into a place like Babbages or EB (or a Pawn Shop may be a better choice), but you'll end up getting half of what it's really worth and will have just wasted $20 or $25 on a game you don't like. Most importantly, have fun with your video games -- that's what they're there for.
Page:
Run Azul Run or the wrath of the evil one may finally reach you!
She'll lynch me if it's not, but going by the name, it could Mystique....
*cowars*
*cowars*
Heh i'm betting Shaneo.
Mystery wrote:
> Ok before you read and tell me I am already a Regular i will admit it
> but I will never tell you who so don't bother asking :P.
J Savo? Shaneo?
> Ok before you read and tell me I am already a Regular i will admit it
> but I will never tell you who so don't bother asking :P.
J Savo? Shaneo?
Thank Google
Ha you have got to laugh at the fools really
No, but I must have a spidey sense or something.
It's the JATs and N00bs who make ggod post - doesn't quite add up, does it?
Two of them were from the same site as well!
It's the JATs and N00bs who make ggod post - doesn't quite add up, does it?
Two of them were from the same site as well!
They always seem suspicious don't they. Had you read them before?
Heh good work FFF
That's 3 I've got in the last 5 minutes.
Fools
Fools
Page: