The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
After playing the MGS2 demo yesterday, and the Rez demo repeatedly yesterday and today (see a post in Sony forum), I realised something terrible.
MGS2 will go down as being a classic. And in my view, it's not. Rez is a far superior game, but the casual gamer, the mass market, won't see it that way.
They'll see MGS2 on the shelf, and buy it and buy it until it's the worlds best selling game. Or something like that. Then someone will say, "Well, it must be a classic."
So what *makes* a classic? Some definitions of the word for you:
An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.
A work recognized as definitive in its field.
Belonging to the highest rank or class. Serving as the established model or standard.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
So what does that mean then? What should a game rely on to become a proper classic?
Graphics? Nope. They get better with every new generation console, so if you go by that reasoning then all the early games are rubbish and todays are all classics.
Originality? Well, yes. To an extent. A lot of people will rate the original higher than the sequels. Be it in games or films. The original is always regarded as the best.
But then you could say that Quake wasn't original, Doom and Wolfenstein were both around before. Yet Quake is regarded as a genre defining title. The first to use 3D engine etc.
Sounds? Same as graphics really. You can't compare the beeps that came out of your telly when playing Mario 1 with the 3D surround sound we have now. Which is better? Does it matter? The sound was good enough for you back then, so why worry about it.
Maybe a "classic" is just a trend setting title? A title that takes that extra step in an existing genre? Like Quake, or Half Life.
Or maybe it's a title that succesfully manages to mix two existing genres, Deus Ex anyone?
Or is it just a game that you can keep coming back to, time and time again. In which case it's different for everyone, so is there much point in reading a review? Afterall, the reviewer will have different opinions to you.
Or, finally, maybe a classic is a game that will still be talked about fondly years after release. Mario Kart? Mario? Sonic? Tetris? Pong? Space Invaders? Asteroids?
All games that have been around for AGES, yet all games that are still mentioned on these very forums.
Or would your list be different? What makes a classic for you? Or is it just a word that's being used so much today that it has just become meaningless?
Thoughts?
MGS2 will go down as being a classic. And in my view, it's not. Rez is a far superior game, but the casual gamer, the mass market, won't see it that way.
They'll see MGS2 on the shelf, and buy it and buy it until it's the worlds best selling game. Or something like that. Then someone will say, "Well, it must be a classic."
So what *makes* a classic? Some definitions of the word for you:
An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.
A work recognized as definitive in its field.
Belonging to the highest rank or class. Serving as the established model or standard.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
So what does that mean then? What should a game rely on to become a proper classic?
Graphics? Nope. They get better with every new generation console, so if you go by that reasoning then all the early games are rubbish and todays are all classics.
Originality? Well, yes. To an extent. A lot of people will rate the original higher than the sequels. Be it in games or films. The original is always regarded as the best.
But then you could say that Quake wasn't original, Doom and Wolfenstein were both around before. Yet Quake is regarded as a genre defining title. The first to use 3D engine etc.
Sounds? Same as graphics really. You can't compare the beeps that came out of your telly when playing Mario 1 with the 3D surround sound we have now. Which is better? Does it matter? The sound was good enough for you back then, so why worry about it.
Maybe a "classic" is just a trend setting title? A title that takes that extra step in an existing genre? Like Quake, or Half Life.
Or maybe it's a title that succesfully manages to mix two existing genres, Deus Ex anyone?
Or is it just a game that you can keep coming back to, time and time again. In which case it's different for everyone, so is there much point in reading a review? Afterall, the reviewer will have different opinions to you.
Or, finally, maybe a classic is a game that will still be talked about fondly years after release. Mario Kart? Mario? Sonic? Tetris? Pong? Space Invaders? Asteroids?
All games that have been around for AGES, yet all games that are still mentioned on these very forums.
Or would your list be different? What makes a classic for you? Or is it just a word that's being used so much today that it has just become meaningless?
Thoughts?
Page:
I heard Rez takes under an hour to finish and underneath it's trance look is nothing but a simple shooter.
I didnt completly hate the Rez Demo, it was refreshing to play somthin new like that. But I can't see it offering me much of a long lifespan.
Or†ega wrote:
> Just becasue somthing is original doesnt make it a >classic.
Very true, I agree completely.
>To me, MGS2 is new and original becasue I never played MGS >properly. After completing the MGS2 demo I cant wait
> to buy the full version...after completing the Rez demo I >dont want to go anywhere near the full version.
Fair, that's your opinion.
I'm the other way around. There's no way I'd spend £40 on MGS2, but I would spend it on Rez.
> Just becasue somthing is original doesnt make it a >classic.
Very true, I agree completely.
>To me, MGS2 is new and original becasue I never played MGS >properly. After completing the MGS2 demo I cant wait
> to buy the full version...after completing the Rez demo I >dont want to go anywhere near the full version.
Fair, that's your opinion.
I'm the other way around. There's no way I'd spend £40 on MGS2, but I would spend it on Rez.
Zelda:OOT was a classic...Look at how many Zelda games went before it...
Monkey Island was a classic, but so was Broken Sword, so it's not the original in the series. Gameplay, pure and simple.
Just becasue somthing is original doesnt make it a classic.
Sure, Rez is very different to say the least, but it aint amazingly good. It gets very repetitive and I cant see me playing past the demo.
To me, MGS2 is new and original becasue I never played MGS properly. After completing the MGS2 demo I cant wait to buy the full version...after completing the Rez demo I dont want to go anywhere near the full version.
Sure, Rez is very different to say the least, but it aint amazingly good. It gets very repetitive and I cant see me playing past the demo.
To me, MGS2 is new and original becasue I never played MGS properly. After completing the MGS2 demo I cant wait to buy the full version...after completing the Rez demo I dont want to go anywhere near the full version.
I think that originality is needed for the classic label.
A game has to either be the first to do something, or something so well that it doesn't get bettered for a LONG time.
Micromachines and Bomberman are classics.
No game has bettered them other than their own sequels, and they're not really outdated either.
Goldeneye was a classic.
Although it is a bit out dated, it did bring in plenty of aspects into the FPS including stealth, sniping and headshots.
It'll be the four player mode that really put's Goldeneye's name in the books though.
I once saw a letter on Digitiser during the hot topic "which is better: GT3 or Mario Kart Advance"
One letter stood out from the rest by saying something along the lines of:
"In a few years time GT3 will be outdated by any racer with polished visuals and handling. Mario Kart will not be bettered so easily." I think that's another good way to distinguish between a classic and a "seemed good at the time" game.
Metal Gear Solid earned its classic status with lots of originality and by being like no other game madde before it.
I doubt that MGS2 will make nearly as much impact but, from what the reviews are saying, it's still a great game in a classic series, even if it's woefully short...
A game has to either be the first to do something, or something so well that it doesn't get bettered for a LONG time.
Micromachines and Bomberman are classics.
No game has bettered them other than their own sequels, and they're not really outdated either.
Goldeneye was a classic.
Although it is a bit out dated, it did bring in plenty of aspects into the FPS including stealth, sniping and headshots.
It'll be the four player mode that really put's Goldeneye's name in the books though.
I once saw a letter on Digitiser during the hot topic "which is better: GT3 or Mario Kart Advance"
One letter stood out from the rest by saying something along the lines of:
"In a few years time GT3 will be outdated by any racer with polished visuals and handling. Mario Kart will not be bettered so easily." I think that's another good way to distinguish between a classic and a "seemed good at the time" game.
Metal Gear Solid earned its classic status with lots of originality and by being like no other game madde before it.
I doubt that MGS2 will make nearly as much impact but, from what the reviews are saying, it's still a great game in a classic series, even if it's woefully short...
After playing the MGS2 demo yesterday, and the Rez demo repeatedly yesterday and today (see a post in Sony forum), I realised something terrible.
MGS2 will go down as being a classic. And in my view, it's not. Rez is a far superior game, but the casual gamer, the mass market, won't see it that way.
They'll see MGS2 on the shelf, and buy it and buy it until it's the worlds best selling game. Or something like that. Then someone will say, "Well, it must be a classic."
So what *makes* a classic? Some definitions of the word for you:
An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.
A work recognized as definitive in its field.
Belonging to the highest rank or class. Serving as the established model or standard.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
So what does that mean then? What should a game rely on to become a proper classic?
Graphics? Nope. They get better with every new generation console, so if you go by that reasoning then all the early games are rubbish and todays are all classics.
Originality? Well, yes. To an extent. A lot of people will rate the original higher than the sequels. Be it in games or films. The original is always regarded as the best.
But then you could say that Quake wasn't original, Doom and Wolfenstein were both around before. Yet Quake is regarded as a genre defining title. The first to use 3D engine etc.
Sounds? Same as graphics really. You can't compare the beeps that came out of your telly when playing Mario 1 with the 3D surround sound we have now. Which is better? Does it matter? The sound was good enough for you back then, so why worry about it.
Maybe a "classic" is just a trend setting title? A title that takes that extra step in an existing genre? Like Quake, or Half Life.
Or maybe it's a title that succesfully manages to mix two existing genres, Deus Ex anyone?
Or is it just a game that you can keep coming back to, time and time again. In which case it's different for everyone, so is there much point in reading a review? Afterall, the reviewer will have different opinions to you.
Or, finally, maybe a classic is a game that will still be talked about fondly years after release. Mario Kart? Mario? Sonic? Tetris? Pong? Space Invaders? Asteroids?
All games that have been around for AGES, yet all games that are still mentioned on these very forums.
Or would your list be different? What makes a classic for you? Or is it just a word that's being used so much today that it has just become meaningless?
Thoughts?
MGS2 will go down as being a classic. And in my view, it's not. Rez is a far superior game, but the casual gamer, the mass market, won't see it that way.
They'll see MGS2 on the shelf, and buy it and buy it until it's the worlds best selling game. Or something like that. Then someone will say, "Well, it must be a classic."
So what *makes* a classic? Some definitions of the word for you:
An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.
A work recognized as definitive in its field.
Belonging to the highest rank or class. Serving as the established model or standard.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
So what does that mean then? What should a game rely on to become a proper classic?
Graphics? Nope. They get better with every new generation console, so if you go by that reasoning then all the early games are rubbish and todays are all classics.
Originality? Well, yes. To an extent. A lot of people will rate the original higher than the sequels. Be it in games or films. The original is always regarded as the best.
But then you could say that Quake wasn't original, Doom and Wolfenstein were both around before. Yet Quake is regarded as a genre defining title. The first to use 3D engine etc.
Sounds? Same as graphics really. You can't compare the beeps that came out of your telly when playing Mario 1 with the 3D surround sound we have now. Which is better? Does it matter? The sound was good enough for you back then, so why worry about it.
Maybe a "classic" is just a trend setting title? A title that takes that extra step in an existing genre? Like Quake, or Half Life.
Or maybe it's a title that succesfully manages to mix two existing genres, Deus Ex anyone?
Or is it just a game that you can keep coming back to, time and time again. In which case it's different for everyone, so is there much point in reading a review? Afterall, the reviewer will have different opinions to you.
Or, finally, maybe a classic is a game that will still be talked about fondly years after release. Mario Kart? Mario? Sonic? Tetris? Pong? Space Invaders? Asteroids?
All games that have been around for AGES, yet all games that are still mentioned on these very forums.
Or would your list be different? What makes a classic for you? Or is it just a word that's being used so much today that it has just become meaningless?
Thoughts?
Page: