The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Have you ever noticed how many game series’ are born year in year out? I mean the amount of new series’ created is phenomenal. When a series begins I actually feel a little sad, since this new generation started many new series’ of games have begun, from the top of my head I can name: Lost Kingdoms, Burnout, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, SSX, Midnight Club, Wreckless, Rocky, Blinx, Red Faction, Timesplitters, Devil May Cry, Harry Potter, Golden Sun, Dark Cloud and literally hundreds more.
So what is wrong with that, the amount of new series’ created surly goes to show that in this day and age there are still tones of games that are not only good enough to warrant a sequel but have enough innovation to stand out in the croud. And yet it worries me deeply that so many teams are working constantly on sequel after sequel. Burnout was a nice way of changing a traditional racing game and it worked a charm. My money is on the team currently working on Burnout 3 (or at least Burnout 2 for the other consoles). The team obviously had a lot of talent and inspiration behind them and yet all they can do is work on a follow up game? It is hardly their fault; I’d blame the money hungry publisher Acclaim. Now there is no questioning Burnout 2 is superior to the original but is it really a large enough to leap to warrant another £40? I mean what is the point of developing a game that soon after the first, why not wait a few years or so, keep it in mind and develop a new innovation in the mean time. At least Acclaim that way has one team developing two big selling games.
I’d use Nintendo as an example, they produced a follow up to Mario 64 six years later, the game had nice new touches, had loads of interactive elements and new twists on similar moves. Leaving such a gap meant Miyamoto could develop a new Zelda game, the original Luigi’s Mansion and the incredible Pikmin game. Mario Sunshine was definatly a sequel though and I am certainly not against them. There is nothing wrong with Mario Sunshine or Burnout 2; it is just that maybe waiting a while before following a game up would be better. But Nintendo are no saints, they ask Hudson to make the same sodding Mario Party game every damn year, and it looks like Pikmin may be a frequent game on Nintendo’s release lists. But the announcement of Pikmin 2 is an exception to the rule; in fact there are a few games that are announced shortly after the original for good reason. Pikmin is incredible. It oozes Nintendo brilliance and was a graphical marvel, a pure joy to play. But Pikmin was dogged with problems that have deterred some people from getting it, it was very short and although time management is a vital part of the gameplay something that would extend the game or actually making the time period longer would have made the game perfect. Miyamoto did try with the time attack idea but it didn’t keep people playing for long, a multiplayer would easily be possible, imagine Pikmin wars or even online. And so upgrading a game that was good but flawed is an ok thing to do, Blinx for example was a brilliant idea; sadly the fairly new team wasn’t up to scratch, give it a sequel and a platforming legend could be born.
Nevertheless the fight between money and innovation is an on-going conflict. Whereas Nintendo try to create new franchises all the time, smaller companies that don’t like risking it will opt for the cop out of releasing something they know will sell. But then again it isn’t impossible to do both simultaneously. A game series can be revolutionized beyond the point that it feels new and fresh and yet retain the rights for it to be similar. In an attempt to make sense I’ll use an example. When 2D games made the transition to 3D everything changed, Mario 64 felt fresh, new, innovative and different… yet the iconography and Mis ‘en scene (the objects and settings) made the game a Mario game. So if a developer was pestering me to develop Burnout 2 I would do, I’d keep the familiar re-play crashes, the same racing mechanics yet maybe make it faster and the year 3330, the vehicles could hover and the graphical style would dramatically change. It is still Burnout yet it is a revolution on it. GTA 3 is another evidence on how a 3D incarnation managed to be the same yet play totally different to it’s 2D prequels, wouldn’t it have been better to set GTA 4 a few centuries in the future than 20 years in the past?
It isn’t necessarily the time zone that can re-design a game series though. Perspective is another one, many FEARED the concept of Perfect Dark 0 being in third person? Why? A third person action adventure using similar iconography and gameplay mechanics and yet implementing a new perspective would make the game essentially new. It is the same with the up-coming Metroid Prime, whereas it is the first 3D Metroid game it is also a change in view point, a first person view for Samus is a brave step to make. Yet it still felt claustrophobic, creepy, had that easy to play feel and used similar bosses and ways of defeating baddies. But the game was still a revolution. The new Zelda uses a new graphical style in making the world more expressive; this is the design team of Majora’s Mask dabbling in a more original and different department. So what we have is a team of people doing something innovative whilst still having the brand name. This is what I would like to see more of in the future. It is just a shame less companies are as clever as Free Radical Design, their game (Timesplitters) means they will probably forever make a First Person shooter, but this FPS has each individual level have a radically different setting, time zone and feel. Now isn’t that nice.
Here’s to the future
Dringo.
So what is wrong with that, the amount of new series’ created surly goes to show that in this day and age there are still tones of games that are not only good enough to warrant a sequel but have enough innovation to stand out in the croud. And yet it worries me deeply that so many teams are working constantly on sequel after sequel. Burnout was a nice way of changing a traditional racing game and it worked a charm. My money is on the team currently working on Burnout 3 (or at least Burnout 2 for the other consoles). The team obviously had a lot of talent and inspiration behind them and yet all they can do is work on a follow up game? It is hardly their fault; I’d blame the money hungry publisher Acclaim. Now there is no questioning Burnout 2 is superior to the original but is it really a large enough to leap to warrant another £40? I mean what is the point of developing a game that soon after the first, why not wait a few years or so, keep it in mind and develop a new innovation in the mean time. At least Acclaim that way has one team developing two big selling games.
I’d use Nintendo as an example, they produced a follow up to Mario 64 six years later, the game had nice new touches, had loads of interactive elements and new twists on similar moves. Leaving such a gap meant Miyamoto could develop a new Zelda game, the original Luigi’s Mansion and the incredible Pikmin game. Mario Sunshine was definatly a sequel though and I am certainly not against them. There is nothing wrong with Mario Sunshine or Burnout 2; it is just that maybe waiting a while before following a game up would be better. But Nintendo are no saints, they ask Hudson to make the same sodding Mario Party game every damn year, and it looks like Pikmin may be a frequent game on Nintendo’s release lists. But the announcement of Pikmin 2 is an exception to the rule; in fact there are a few games that are announced shortly after the original for good reason. Pikmin is incredible. It oozes Nintendo brilliance and was a graphical marvel, a pure joy to play. But Pikmin was dogged with problems that have deterred some people from getting it, it was very short and although time management is a vital part of the gameplay something that would extend the game or actually making the time period longer would have made the game perfect. Miyamoto did try with the time attack idea but it didn’t keep people playing for long, a multiplayer would easily be possible, imagine Pikmin wars or even online. And so upgrading a game that was good but flawed is an ok thing to do, Blinx for example was a brilliant idea; sadly the fairly new team wasn’t up to scratch, give it a sequel and a platforming legend could be born.
Nevertheless the fight between money and innovation is an on-going conflict. Whereas Nintendo try to create new franchises all the time, smaller companies that don’t like risking it will opt for the cop out of releasing something they know will sell. But then again it isn’t impossible to do both simultaneously. A game series can be revolutionized beyond the point that it feels new and fresh and yet retain the rights for it to be similar. In an attempt to make sense I’ll use an example. When 2D games made the transition to 3D everything changed, Mario 64 felt fresh, new, innovative and different… yet the iconography and Mis ‘en scene (the objects and settings) made the game a Mario game. So if a developer was pestering me to develop Burnout 2 I would do, I’d keep the familiar re-play crashes, the same racing mechanics yet maybe make it faster and the year 3330, the vehicles could hover and the graphical style would dramatically change. It is still Burnout yet it is a revolution on it. GTA 3 is another evidence on how a 3D incarnation managed to be the same yet play totally different to it’s 2D prequels, wouldn’t it have been better to set GTA 4 a few centuries in the future than 20 years in the past?
It isn’t necessarily the time zone that can re-design a game series though. Perspective is another one, many FEARED the concept of Perfect Dark 0 being in third person? Why? A third person action adventure using similar iconography and gameplay mechanics and yet implementing a new perspective would make the game essentially new. It is the same with the up-coming Metroid Prime, whereas it is the first 3D Metroid game it is also a change in view point, a first person view for Samus is a brave step to make. Yet it still felt claustrophobic, creepy, had that easy to play feel and used similar bosses and ways of defeating baddies. But the game was still a revolution. The new Zelda uses a new graphical style in making the world more expressive; this is the design team of Majora’s Mask dabbling in a more original and different department. So what we have is a team of people doing something innovative whilst still having the brand name. This is what I would like to see more of in the future. It is just a shame less companies are as clever as Free Radical Design, their game (Timesplitters) means they will probably forever make a First Person shooter, but this FPS has each individual level have a radically different setting, time zone and feel. Now isn’t that nice.
Here’s to the future
Dringo.
Game producers want money. That is the only reason they are producing games. If they feel that a new game would sell better than a sequal they are going to produce it. They do this whether its in the interest of gamers or not. Money money money
Have you ever noticed how many game series’ are born year in year out? I mean the amount of new series’ created is phenomenal. When a series begins I actually feel a little sad, since this new generation started many new series’ of games have begun, from the top of my head I can name: Lost Kingdoms, Burnout, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, SSX, Midnight Club, Wreckless, Rocky, Blinx, Red Faction, Timesplitters, Devil May Cry, Harry Potter, Golden Sun, Dark Cloud and literally hundreds more.
So what is wrong with that, the amount of new series’ created surly goes to show that in this day and age there are still tones of games that are not only good enough to warrant a sequel but have enough innovation to stand out in the croud. And yet it worries me deeply that so many teams are working constantly on sequel after sequel. Burnout was a nice way of changing a traditional racing game and it worked a charm. My money is on the team currently working on Burnout 3 (or at least Burnout 2 for the other consoles). The team obviously had a lot of talent and inspiration behind them and yet all they can do is work on a follow up game? It is hardly their fault; I’d blame the money hungry publisher Acclaim. Now there is no questioning Burnout 2 is superior to the original but is it really a large enough to leap to warrant another £40? I mean what is the point of developing a game that soon after the first, why not wait a few years or so, keep it in mind and develop a new innovation in the mean time. At least Acclaim that way has one team developing two big selling games.
I’d use Nintendo as an example, they produced a follow up to Mario 64 six years later, the game had nice new touches, had loads of interactive elements and new twists on similar moves. Leaving such a gap meant Miyamoto could develop a new Zelda game, the original Luigi’s Mansion and the incredible Pikmin game. Mario Sunshine was definatly a sequel though and I am certainly not against them. There is nothing wrong with Mario Sunshine or Burnout 2; it is just that maybe waiting a while before following a game up would be better. But Nintendo are no saints, they ask Hudson to make the same sodding Mario Party game every damn year, and it looks like Pikmin may be a frequent game on Nintendo’s release lists. But the announcement of Pikmin 2 is an exception to the rule; in fact there are a few games that are announced shortly after the original for good reason. Pikmin is incredible. It oozes Nintendo brilliance and was a graphical marvel, a pure joy to play. But Pikmin was dogged with problems that have deterred some people from getting it, it was very short and although time management is a vital part of the gameplay something that would extend the game or actually making the time period longer would have made the game perfect. Miyamoto did try with the time attack idea but it didn’t keep people playing for long, a multiplayer would easily be possible, imagine Pikmin wars or even online. And so upgrading a game that was good but flawed is an ok thing to do, Blinx for example was a brilliant idea; sadly the fairly new team wasn’t up to scratch, give it a sequel and a platforming legend could be born.
Nevertheless the fight between money and innovation is an on-going conflict. Whereas Nintendo try to create new franchises all the time, smaller companies that don’t like risking it will opt for the cop out of releasing something they know will sell. But then again it isn’t impossible to do both simultaneously. A game series can be revolutionized beyond the point that it feels new and fresh and yet retain the rights for it to be similar. In an attempt to make sense I’ll use an example. When 2D games made the transition to 3D everything changed, Mario 64 felt fresh, new, innovative and different… yet the iconography and Mis ‘en scene (the objects and settings) made the game a Mario game. So if a developer was pestering me to develop Burnout 2 I would do, I’d keep the familiar re-play crashes, the same racing mechanics yet maybe make it faster and the year 3330, the vehicles could hover and the graphical style would dramatically change. It is still Burnout yet it is a revolution on it. GTA 3 is another evidence on how a 3D incarnation managed to be the same yet play totally different to it’s 2D prequels, wouldn’t it have been better to set GTA 4 a few centuries in the future than 20 years in the past?
It isn’t necessarily the time zone that can re-design a game series though. Perspective is another one, many FEARED the concept of Perfect Dark 0 being in third person? Why? A third person action adventure using similar iconography and gameplay mechanics and yet implementing a new perspective would make the game essentially new. It is the same with the up-coming Metroid Prime, whereas it is the first 3D Metroid game it is also a change in view point, a first person view for Samus is a brave step to make. Yet it still felt claustrophobic, creepy, had that easy to play feel and used similar bosses and ways of defeating baddies. But the game was still a revolution. The new Zelda uses a new graphical style in making the world more expressive; this is the design team of Majora’s Mask dabbling in a more original and different department. So what we have is a team of people doing something innovative whilst still having the brand name. This is what I would like to see more of in the future. It is just a shame less companies are as clever as Free Radical Design, their game (Timesplitters) means they will probably forever make a First Person shooter, but this FPS has each individual level have a radically different setting, time zone and feel. Now isn’t that nice.
Here’s to the future
Dringo.
So what is wrong with that, the amount of new series’ created surly goes to show that in this day and age there are still tones of games that are not only good enough to warrant a sequel but have enough innovation to stand out in the croud. And yet it worries me deeply that so many teams are working constantly on sequel after sequel. Burnout was a nice way of changing a traditional racing game and it worked a charm. My money is on the team currently working on Burnout 3 (or at least Burnout 2 for the other consoles). The team obviously had a lot of talent and inspiration behind them and yet all they can do is work on a follow up game? It is hardly their fault; I’d blame the money hungry publisher Acclaim. Now there is no questioning Burnout 2 is superior to the original but is it really a large enough to leap to warrant another £40? I mean what is the point of developing a game that soon after the first, why not wait a few years or so, keep it in mind and develop a new innovation in the mean time. At least Acclaim that way has one team developing two big selling games.
I’d use Nintendo as an example, they produced a follow up to Mario 64 six years later, the game had nice new touches, had loads of interactive elements and new twists on similar moves. Leaving such a gap meant Miyamoto could develop a new Zelda game, the original Luigi’s Mansion and the incredible Pikmin game. Mario Sunshine was definatly a sequel though and I am certainly not against them. There is nothing wrong with Mario Sunshine or Burnout 2; it is just that maybe waiting a while before following a game up would be better. But Nintendo are no saints, they ask Hudson to make the same sodding Mario Party game every damn year, and it looks like Pikmin may be a frequent game on Nintendo’s release lists. But the announcement of Pikmin 2 is an exception to the rule; in fact there are a few games that are announced shortly after the original for good reason. Pikmin is incredible. It oozes Nintendo brilliance and was a graphical marvel, a pure joy to play. But Pikmin was dogged with problems that have deterred some people from getting it, it was very short and although time management is a vital part of the gameplay something that would extend the game or actually making the time period longer would have made the game perfect. Miyamoto did try with the time attack idea but it didn’t keep people playing for long, a multiplayer would easily be possible, imagine Pikmin wars or even online. And so upgrading a game that was good but flawed is an ok thing to do, Blinx for example was a brilliant idea; sadly the fairly new team wasn’t up to scratch, give it a sequel and a platforming legend could be born.
Nevertheless the fight between money and innovation is an on-going conflict. Whereas Nintendo try to create new franchises all the time, smaller companies that don’t like risking it will opt for the cop out of releasing something they know will sell. But then again it isn’t impossible to do both simultaneously. A game series can be revolutionized beyond the point that it feels new and fresh and yet retain the rights for it to be similar. In an attempt to make sense I’ll use an example. When 2D games made the transition to 3D everything changed, Mario 64 felt fresh, new, innovative and different… yet the iconography and Mis ‘en scene (the objects and settings) made the game a Mario game. So if a developer was pestering me to develop Burnout 2 I would do, I’d keep the familiar re-play crashes, the same racing mechanics yet maybe make it faster and the year 3330, the vehicles could hover and the graphical style would dramatically change. It is still Burnout yet it is a revolution on it. GTA 3 is another evidence on how a 3D incarnation managed to be the same yet play totally different to it’s 2D prequels, wouldn’t it have been better to set GTA 4 a few centuries in the future than 20 years in the past?
It isn’t necessarily the time zone that can re-design a game series though. Perspective is another one, many FEARED the concept of Perfect Dark 0 being in third person? Why? A third person action adventure using similar iconography and gameplay mechanics and yet implementing a new perspective would make the game essentially new. It is the same with the up-coming Metroid Prime, whereas it is the first 3D Metroid game it is also a change in view point, a first person view for Samus is a brave step to make. Yet it still felt claustrophobic, creepy, had that easy to play feel and used similar bosses and ways of defeating baddies. But the game was still a revolution. The new Zelda uses a new graphical style in making the world more expressive; this is the design team of Majora’s Mask dabbling in a more original and different department. So what we have is a team of people doing something innovative whilst still having the brand name. This is what I would like to see more of in the future. It is just a shame less companies are as clever as Free Radical Design, their game (Timesplitters) means they will probably forever make a First Person shooter, but this FPS has each individual level have a radically different setting, time zone and feel. Now isn’t that nice.
Here’s to the future
Dringo.