The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So what makes a good game? Graphics? Sound? Gameplay? Lifespan? I prefer to use the motto "quality, not quantity", which helps to justify my opinion that innovation is the key to a great game.
Many people say that innovation is dead. And to a degree it is. But, like the leap to the third dimension, things are just being bottled up, and very soon will all explode in a whizz bang of great new ideas. So I am here to speculate and accumulate what could, and should, be part of tomorrow's games.
My first, and primary concern is online gaming. This topic has been covered many times, and it is unanimous that the future is online. However, with only one console online yet buried deep under the ground, online gaming hasn't kicked off yet. Online gaming does sound like a very complicated procedure, which may detter certain people, casual gamers being the majority. If it was a simple case of plug-lead-into-socket, then online gaming would be a very, very successful business.
Secondly, I think that the use of cheaper and more specified peripherals would, while not be very revenue-accumulating, innovative and would prove massively popular if marketed in a good enough way. An example. Those dance mats with 'The jungle book Groove Party', and 'Dancing Stage Euromix' were very, very fun. But few people realised how great it was. I got a workout, and played games at the same time. Mint! If people realised how great these things were, they would be bought. I think a sniper rifle peripheral could also be really popular, if marketed in the same way as the G-Con. Silent Scope would suddenly be up in the elite gaming charts and be like a modern-day Time Crisis.
A more ergonomic PlayStation 2 controller would go down swell with me. I hate the way that I have to bend my thumbs downwards to reach the joysticks; after extended play it starts to hurt. Which is why the D-pad is much more used on PS2 games than N64 and GameCube.
A third thing, is innovation in the games. Games like Rez and Tony Hawk's are hard to come by nowadays. Top releases all steal from something, refining and bettering the genre. While in no sense is this bad, but there feels like a big plughole in the innovation department.
Here's an idea for a game: A game like Final Fantasy, with a riveting plot and fantasy battles, but based on real life. Similar things have been done (Shenmue), but if you could have a city twice the size of liberty with proper interactivity with everything, it would be great. Advance through childhood, warding off bullies with your psychic kung-fu, then reach adulthood when you are pursued by the FBI for having knowledge of certain things. As I have said before, Interactive movies would be great, since they haven't been seen for some time now.
Innovation IS dead. Its official. But I think the tidal wave of originality will pass again with the coming of true online entertainment in the console business. I'm looking forward to it with true anticipation. But everyone, what would YOUR ideas be if you were to design a new concept for a game? A tough challenge, I can tell you now, but not impossible. With a little though, every could be like a new Mario 64 every time. I remember playing Mario 64 with glee; so innovative, so fun. Innovation is the key to fun. Remember, get your own ideas, don't exploit those of others.
Many people say that innovation is dead. And to a degree it is. But, like the leap to the third dimension, things are just being bottled up, and very soon will all explode in a whizz bang of great new ideas. So I am here to speculate and accumulate what could, and should, be part of tomorrow's games.
My first, and primary concern is online gaming. This topic has been covered many times, and it is unanimous that the future is online. However, with only one console online yet buried deep under the ground, online gaming hasn't kicked off yet. Online gaming does sound like a very complicated procedure, which may detter certain people, casual gamers being the majority. If it was a simple case of plug-lead-into-socket, then online gaming would be a very, very successful business.
Secondly, I think that the use of cheaper and more specified peripherals would, while not be very revenue-accumulating, innovative and would prove massively popular if marketed in a good enough way. An example. Those dance mats with 'The jungle book Groove Party', and 'Dancing Stage Euromix' were very, very fun. But few people realised how great it was. I got a workout, and played games at the same time. Mint! If people realised how great these things were, they would be bought. I think a sniper rifle peripheral could also be really popular, if marketed in the same way as the G-Con. Silent Scope would suddenly be up in the elite gaming charts and be like a modern-day Time Crisis.
A more ergonomic PlayStation 2 controller would go down swell with me. I hate the way that I have to bend my thumbs downwards to reach the joysticks; after extended play it starts to hurt. Which is why the D-pad is much more used on PS2 games than N64 and GameCube.
A third thing, is innovation in the games. Games like Rez and Tony Hawk's are hard to come by nowadays. Top releases all steal from something, refining and bettering the genre. While in no sense is this bad, but there feels like a big plughole in the innovation department.
Here's an idea for a game: A game like Final Fantasy, with a riveting plot and fantasy battles, but based on real life. Similar things have been done (Shenmue), but if you could have a city twice the size of liberty with proper interactivity with everything, it would be great. Advance through childhood, warding off bullies with your psychic kung-fu, then reach adulthood when you are pursued by the FBI for having knowledge of certain things. As I have said before, Interactive movies would be great, since they haven't been seen for some time now.
Innovation IS dead. Its official. But I think the tidal wave of originality will pass again with the coming of true online entertainment in the console business. I'm looking forward to it with true anticipation. But everyone, what would YOUR ideas be if you were to design a new concept for a game? A tough challenge, I can tell you now, but not impossible. With a little though, every could be like a new Mario 64 every time. I remember playing Mario 64 with glee; so innovative, so fun. Innovation is the key to fun. Remember, get your own ideas, don't exploit those of others.
I've held the GameCube pad quite a few times... and despite its ergonimicity (:D) - it's definitely designed with Children and Japanese people in mind... it's tiny.
My hand span is 23cm and a stretch, so as you can imagine it fells small to begin with, but in time, it almost moulds perfectly to your hands.
One thing I would have liked is pressure sensitive buttons, and more spring in them, rather than the tacky 8-bit era 'click'. But still... we have the trigger buttons, and they're more than satisfactory for racing games and what not.
My hand span is 23cm and a stretch, so as you can imagine it fells small to begin with, but in time, it almost moulds perfectly to your hands.
One thing I would have liked is pressure sensitive buttons, and more spring in them, rather than the tacky 8-bit era 'click'. But still... we have the trigger buttons, and they're more than satisfactory for racing games and what not.
I'm having this debate in the PS2 forum in a topic about the PS2 controller right now!
The PSX original controller wasn't designed with an analogue stick, and the subsequent addition was made AROUND the digital pad, and not to replace it. The fact is that the controller should be designed around analogue control and not around digital control! WAKE UP SONY!
Sonic
The PSX original controller wasn't designed with an analogue stick, and the subsequent addition was made AROUND the digital pad, and not to replace it. The fact is that the controller should be designed around analogue control and not around digital control! WAKE UP SONY!
Sonic
I agree entirely that PS2 fans are too protective of the controller. It is common knowledge that the GameCube controller is extremely ergonic, yet my friend, laughably, thinks that the PS2 controller is better.
I agree also, that a lot of Nintys are very immature, but that is the price to pay since Nintendo is, generally, youth orientated. Nintendo Official Magazine is proof of that, it is written by people with intellects of five year olds. Both sides are very competitive and protective of themselves, but they should see the faults with each. Zelda wasn't a 100% deserver, and 96% was a very fair score. The PS2 controller IS a bad shape, and sonyphiles should wake up and see the truth.
I agree also, that a lot of Nintys are very immature, but that is the price to pay since Nintendo is, generally, youth orientated. Nintendo Official Magazine is proof of that, it is written by people with intellects of five year olds. Both sides are very competitive and protective of themselves, but they should see the faults with each. Zelda wasn't a 100% deserver, and 96% was a very fair score. The PS2 controller IS a bad shape, and sonyphiles should wake up and see the truth.
Nope. You get idiots on both sides of the console war.
Remember when Digitiser reviewed Zelda 64 a few years back?
They gave it 96% and said that it wasn't quite perfect.
They got a billion letters moaning at them for "slagging the best game ever - Zelda - off!" or saying "go on! Give it another 4%."
It was a good 4 months before I got an N64 so I was free to call these people idiots at the time.
96% was a great score you know...
Remember when Digitiser reviewed Zelda 64 a few years back?
They gave it 96% and said that it wasn't quite perfect.
They got a billion letters moaning at them for "slagging the best game ever - Zelda - off!" or saying "go on! Give it another 4%."
It was a good 4 months before I got an N64 so I was free to call these people idiots at the time.
96% was a great score you know...
Playstation zealots are the worst. I was having an argument with my friend about how the N64 controller is better than the PS2 controller. He went very defensive and said, get this, that the PS2 controller is better "'cause it has two analogue sticks"; is this the way all absent-minded Playstation2-ites think?
I have a topic on the PS2 controllers in the PS2 room- it seems that everyone there WORSHIPS the controller (bar one or 2 people). One person evenb told me to get lost... clearly being unable to hear anything negative about his lord (Sony).
Sonic
Sonic
I also feel the PS2 analogue sticks could be placed better.
As Sonic said, the games are out there. But the majority of games will always be in the shape of somthing that has done well in the past. Its good business sense, why bother bringing somthin new out when you can just pump out an old game with better graphics and a few tweaks. Want that trend to change? Just stop buying these types of games...but that aint gonna happen on a national scale is it...
As Sonic said, the games are out there. But the majority of games will always be in the shape of somthing that has done well in the past. Its good business sense, why bother bringing somthin new out when you can just pump out an old game with better graphics and a few tweaks. Want that trend to change? Just stop buying these types of games...but that aint gonna happen on a national scale is it...
Look, someone else who agrees that the PS2 analogue sticks are in the wrong place!!!
Anyway, innovation is a dying idea now- developers are just too happy to pump out tried and tested ideas. Maybe it's something to do with middleware- meaning that companies just use the same game engine for every game?
This means that most companies play it safe and don't try new ideas- which commercially is very good... name a revolutionary game that has matched the sales of a cop-cat sequal like GT3. None that I cna think of- Jet Set flopped in Japan, Rez has done well but not exceptionally, and monkey ball is fun but certainly not AAA quality!
The fact is that the developers cater for the majority of gamers... who go on graphics. So, keep the old gameplay and make ever better graphics is the idea.
That said, some companies are really making the effort to stand out. Halo has revolutionary gameplay and AI, Rez is a revolutionary genre and graphical style, Jet set has given another new graphical style.
The games are out there...
Sonic
Anyway, innovation is a dying idea now- developers are just too happy to pump out tried and tested ideas. Maybe it's something to do with middleware- meaning that companies just use the same game engine for every game?
This means that most companies play it safe and don't try new ideas- which commercially is very good... name a revolutionary game that has matched the sales of a cop-cat sequal like GT3. None that I cna think of- Jet Set flopped in Japan, Rez has done well but not exceptionally, and monkey ball is fun but certainly not AAA quality!
The fact is that the developers cater for the majority of gamers... who go on graphics. So, keep the old gameplay and make ever better graphics is the idea.
That said, some companies are really making the effort to stand out. Halo has revolutionary gameplay and AI, Rez is a revolutionary genre and graphical style, Jet set has given another new graphical style.
The games are out there...
Sonic
So what makes a good game? Graphics? Sound? Gameplay? Lifespan? I prefer to use the motto "quality, not quantity", which helps to justify my opinion that innovation is the key to a great game.
Many people say that innovation is dead. And to a degree it is. But, like the leap to the third dimension, things are just being bottled up, and very soon will all explode in a whizz bang of great new ideas. So I am here to speculate and accumulate what could, and should, be part of tomorrow's games.
My first, and primary concern is online gaming. This topic has been covered many times, and it is unanimous that the future is online. However, with only one console online yet buried deep under the ground, online gaming hasn't kicked off yet. Online gaming does sound like a very complicated procedure, which may detter certain people, casual gamers being the majority. If it was a simple case of plug-lead-into-socket, then online gaming would be a very, very successful business.
Secondly, I think that the use of cheaper and more specified peripherals would, while not be very revenue-accumulating, innovative and would prove massively popular if marketed in a good enough way. An example. Those dance mats with 'The jungle book Groove Party', and 'Dancing Stage Euromix' were very, very fun. But few people realised how great it was. I got a workout, and played games at the same time. Mint! If people realised how great these things were, they would be bought. I think a sniper rifle peripheral could also be really popular, if marketed in the same way as the G-Con. Silent Scope would suddenly be up in the elite gaming charts and be like a modern-day Time Crisis.
A more ergonomic PlayStation 2 controller would go down swell with me. I hate the way that I have to bend my thumbs downwards to reach the joysticks; after extended play it starts to hurt. Which is why the D-pad is much more used on PS2 games than N64 and GameCube.
A third thing, is innovation in the games. Games like Rez and Tony Hawk's are hard to come by nowadays. Top releases all steal from something, refining and bettering the genre. While in no sense is this bad, but there feels like a big plughole in the innovation department.
Here's an idea for a game: A game like Final Fantasy, with a riveting plot and fantasy battles, but based on real life. Similar things have been done (Shenmue), but if you could have a city twice the size of liberty with proper interactivity with everything, it would be great. Advance through childhood, warding off bullies with your psychic kung-fu, then reach adulthood when you are pursued by the FBI for having knowledge of certain things. As I have said before, Interactive movies would be great, since they haven't been seen for some time now.
Innovation IS dead. Its official. But I think the tidal wave of originality will pass again with the coming of true online entertainment in the console business. I'm looking forward to it with true anticipation. But everyone, what would YOUR ideas be if you were to design a new concept for a game? A tough challenge, I can tell you now, but not impossible. With a little though, every could be like a new Mario 64 every time. I remember playing Mario 64 with glee; so innovative, so fun. Innovation is the key to fun. Remember, get your own ideas, don't exploit those of others.
Many people say that innovation is dead. And to a degree it is. But, like the leap to the third dimension, things are just being bottled up, and very soon will all explode in a whizz bang of great new ideas. So I am here to speculate and accumulate what could, and should, be part of tomorrow's games.
My first, and primary concern is online gaming. This topic has been covered many times, and it is unanimous that the future is online. However, with only one console online yet buried deep under the ground, online gaming hasn't kicked off yet. Online gaming does sound like a very complicated procedure, which may detter certain people, casual gamers being the majority. If it was a simple case of plug-lead-into-socket, then online gaming would be a very, very successful business.
Secondly, I think that the use of cheaper and more specified peripherals would, while not be very revenue-accumulating, innovative and would prove massively popular if marketed in a good enough way. An example. Those dance mats with 'The jungle book Groove Party', and 'Dancing Stage Euromix' were very, very fun. But few people realised how great it was. I got a workout, and played games at the same time. Mint! If people realised how great these things were, they would be bought. I think a sniper rifle peripheral could also be really popular, if marketed in the same way as the G-Con. Silent Scope would suddenly be up in the elite gaming charts and be like a modern-day Time Crisis.
A more ergonomic PlayStation 2 controller would go down swell with me. I hate the way that I have to bend my thumbs downwards to reach the joysticks; after extended play it starts to hurt. Which is why the D-pad is much more used on PS2 games than N64 and GameCube.
A third thing, is innovation in the games. Games like Rez and Tony Hawk's are hard to come by nowadays. Top releases all steal from something, refining and bettering the genre. While in no sense is this bad, but there feels like a big plughole in the innovation department.
Here's an idea for a game: A game like Final Fantasy, with a riveting plot and fantasy battles, but based on real life. Similar things have been done (Shenmue), but if you could have a city twice the size of liberty with proper interactivity with everything, it would be great. Advance through childhood, warding off bullies with your psychic kung-fu, then reach adulthood when you are pursued by the FBI for having knowledge of certain things. As I have said before, Interactive movies would be great, since they haven't been seen for some time now.
Innovation IS dead. Its official. But I think the tidal wave of originality will pass again with the coming of true online entertainment in the console business. I'm looking forward to it with true anticipation. But everyone, what would YOUR ideas be if you were to design a new concept for a game? A tough challenge, I can tell you now, but not impossible. With a little though, every could be like a new Mario 64 every time. I remember playing Mario 64 with glee; so innovative, so fun. Innovation is the key to fun. Remember, get your own ideas, don't exploit those of others.