The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
People are unique. We have short people, tall people, anorexic and obese. There are blondes, brunettes and ginger (:-D); pale people and tanned. There are ugly people and pretty people; greedy and kind. The world is a place where everyone and everything is different, unique and constantly changing. Why can't games be like this?
Don't get me wrong - I absolutely loathe games with claims to be realistic. Realism is the furthest from what I want; give me a sword over a gun any day. But games need to be unique, different, interesting for their own peculiarities. We need millionaires and beggars, scientists and bin men. What am I saying? Games need to be unique, but games also need to change. Games need to evolve as they grow older, rather than rehash themselves. I'll expand a bit, because I'm beginning to confuse even myself.
Originality isn't what I'm talking about. We all hate the Mario Kart clones, and we all want more of the likes of Rez and Mad Maestro. What gets at me, is that while there's all sorts of moaning and complaining that a game gets copied, nobody stops to think about just what that game is doing. Mario Kart is a prime example. Will the GameCube version bring us an evolution in gameplay, or will it be bigger levels, better graphics and probably online play? I think I know the answer, and this is what I'm getting at. Games need to evolve themselves, whether they're the originator of a series, or just another copycat. It's what makes them unique, and special in their own sense - like people. We were supposedly born equal, and as we grew up we've changed and grown into the people we are today. That is how we're unique. Games should do so.
So, an example. Well, for one, I'll stick with the Mario Kart example. Nintendo want a mature image, so why not expand here. Why stick with karts, when there could be other forms of transport as well. Granted, I don't mean for Nintendo to go the way of quantity over quality, but perhaps like Diddy Kong racing the game could expand. Or various ingenious ideas from other game genres interwoven into the game. Who's saying that there couldn't be two seater karts; with one player driving the other one shooting. Or what about two player karts the size of fire engines, with one player steering one end and the other steering the other end. You never know, it could be fun. Or who's to say that the game couldn't have a centrel hub type area, with platforming 'courses' in the vein of Muppet Racing? That would expand the game.
You see, games don't have to follow the rails to the end of the line; they're free to evolve as they see fit. In my humble opinion, there's nothing worse than a series which is milked and milked until the cash cow runs dry. I'm looking at Tony Hawk here, as well as Resident Evil. Resi 4 might at least see some really innovative improvement. Oh well.
But wait. That's not what I meant, honest. The worst thing that could happen is for our favourite series become compendiums of different games. There's nothing wrong with diversity, but if all games become so diverse then nothing will be unique. Haven: Call of the King, in my opinion, was an underrated gem. The platforming sections were dire, but there was the variety. An indoor section would be followed by a half hour long shooting, driving or travelling section, followed by an outdoor section. Lots of variety kept me playing, and it was great. However, the main game still didn't stray too much from the path of adventure game. It was a great concept if poorly executed. Mario could do it though.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that with a minimum amount of effort, games could get that all important diversity. A few missions in Morrowind where you play part of an army for example, is entirely feasable. On rails sections in typically free-roaming games wouldn't go amiss. And while most of the time they're crap, nobody says minigames are bad. That Mario Kart fire engine example could be great, when you think about it. Sure, it would only be suited to multiplayer, but it would make a right laugh. So what is the right genre for a game? Not a singe genre, but a few, bundled together skillfully in a way that the game can still be classified as racing, shooting or driving, but has that all important diversity which makes it unique.
Don't get me wrong - I absolutely loathe games with claims to be realistic. Realism is the furthest from what I want; give me a sword over a gun any day. But games need to be unique, different, interesting for their own peculiarities. We need millionaires and beggars, scientists and bin men. What am I saying? Games need to be unique, but games also need to change. Games need to evolve as they grow older, rather than rehash themselves. I'll expand a bit, because I'm beginning to confuse even myself.
Originality isn't what I'm talking about. We all hate the Mario Kart clones, and we all want more of the likes of Rez and Mad Maestro. What gets at me, is that while there's all sorts of moaning and complaining that a game gets copied, nobody stops to think about just what that game is doing. Mario Kart is a prime example. Will the GameCube version bring us an evolution in gameplay, or will it be bigger levels, better graphics and probably online play? I think I know the answer, and this is what I'm getting at. Games need to evolve themselves, whether they're the originator of a series, or just another copycat. It's what makes them unique, and special in their own sense - like people. We were supposedly born equal, and as we grew up we've changed and grown into the people we are today. That is how we're unique. Games should do so.
So, an example. Well, for one, I'll stick with the Mario Kart example. Nintendo want a mature image, so why not expand here. Why stick with karts, when there could be other forms of transport as well. Granted, I don't mean for Nintendo to go the way of quantity over quality, but perhaps like Diddy Kong racing the game could expand. Or various ingenious ideas from other game genres interwoven into the game. Who's saying that there couldn't be two seater karts; with one player driving the other one shooting. Or what about two player karts the size of fire engines, with one player steering one end and the other steering the other end. You never know, it could be fun. Or who's to say that the game couldn't have a centrel hub type area, with platforming 'courses' in the vein of Muppet Racing? That would expand the game.
You see, games don't have to follow the rails to the end of the line; they're free to evolve as they see fit. In my humble opinion, there's nothing worse than a series which is milked and milked until the cash cow runs dry. I'm looking at Tony Hawk here, as well as Resident Evil. Resi 4 might at least see some really innovative improvement. Oh well.
But wait. That's not what I meant, honest. The worst thing that could happen is for our favourite series become compendiums of different games. There's nothing wrong with diversity, but if all games become so diverse then nothing will be unique. Haven: Call of the King, in my opinion, was an underrated gem. The platforming sections were dire, but there was the variety. An indoor section would be followed by a half hour long shooting, driving or travelling section, followed by an outdoor section. Lots of variety kept me playing, and it was great. However, the main game still didn't stray too much from the path of adventure game. It was a great concept if poorly executed. Mario could do it though.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that with a minimum amount of effort, games could get that all important diversity. A few missions in Morrowind where you play part of an army for example, is entirely feasable. On rails sections in typically free-roaming games wouldn't go amiss. And while most of the time they're crap, nobody says minigames are bad. That Mario Kart fire engine example could be great, when you think about it. Sure, it would only be suited to multiplayer, but it would make a right laugh. So what is the right genre for a game? Not a singe genre, but a few, bundled together skillfully in a way that the game can still be classified as racing, shooting or driving, but has that all important diversity which makes it unique.
Page:
Why thank you.
pb, I too could say "Sony is winning the console race"
But it wouldn't be half as long, or interesting as your 2003 post. :-D
pb, I too could say "Sony is winning the console race"
But it wouldn't be half as long, or interesting as your 2003 post. :-D
I could write that in one sentence:
"What's the right genre? All of them. Viva Diversity."
Of course, it wouldn't have won GAD, or been half as interesting!
Well done, and a good topic to boot.
"What's the right genre? All of them. Viva Diversity."
Of course, it wouldn't have won GAD, or been half as interesting!
Well done, and a good topic to boot.
Great post pinty.
The thing is, everytime I see your name I feel I need a drink.
Here I come fridge!
The thing is, everytime I see your name I feel I need a drink.
Here I come fridge!
And thank you.
That's cos I have a novelty blow-up hammer. Made of brick.
So what is the right
> genre for a game? Not a singe genre, but a few, bundled together
> skillfully in a way that the game can still be classified as racing,
> shooting or driving, but has that all important diversity which makes
> it unique.
Sounds like Deus Ex to me. And remember how good that was? The similarly-endowed Metroid Prime has had some great reviews too. Sounds like you've hit the nail on the head there.
> genre for a game? Not a singe genre, but a few, bundled together
> skillfully in a way that the game can still be classified as racing,
> shooting or driving, but has that all important diversity which makes
> it unique.
Sounds like Deus Ex to me. And remember how good that was? The similarly-endowed Metroid Prime has had some great reviews too. Sounds like you've hit the nail on the head there.
Congats 1/2pint.
Well deserved.
Well deserved.
That made me want to go and play a shooting game, i really have no clue why.
Another good post.
Games can get very confused with their genres. Usually, when more than two - three at most - genres are mixed togeher every part suffers. It becomes to liquid - not enough familiarty to get you going and into the game. The last thing you want is to memorise 4 different control systems and have to swap between them every 5 minutes.
Then again, what I'd love to see more of is fun mini-games within the game to unlock. Two-player games whithin a one-player game whatever the genre.
The ones in Timsplitters 2 is what I like, gives you a short break from the action to relax and have fun - which is what they should be.
Games can get very confused with their genres. Usually, when more than two - three at most - genres are mixed togeher every part suffers. It becomes to liquid - not enough familiarty to get you going and into the game. The last thing you want is to memorise 4 different control systems and have to swap between them every 5 minutes.
Then again, what I'd love to see more of is fun mini-games within the game to unlock. Two-player games whithin a one-player game whatever the genre.
The ones in Timsplitters 2 is what I like, gives you a short break from the action to relax and have fun - which is what they should be.
What I'm looking for is a little diversity, not a lot. Quality over quantity. Better have a game with great stealth and shooting implemented rather than stealth, shooting, driving, flying and everything combined and not done very well.
Halo did it well because it didn't use loads of genres, just a few. It made the game better than the usual efforts, because there was a bit of diversity. And you could fly. :-D
Halo did it well because it didn't use loads of genres, just a few. It made the game better than the usual efforts, because there was a bit of diversity. And you could fly. :-D
Page: