The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When you really like something, even love something, it's no surprise to comprehend that you can't get enough of it: too much is never enough. So when a game comes along that you really like, it's only natural to find yourself looking forward with great anticipation to the sequel.
Some criticize sequels for being nothing else but the same game rehashed - they label them "cash-ins". But I would argue that most games are too short - there's not enough in them - so a sequel is in effect just giving you the full package, as well as giving you more of what you want.
Take Gran Turismo for example. Yes it was a great game, but after a while I found myself longing for more tracks to race around, and the sequel gave me this. Some said that Gran Turismo 2 was way too similar to the original game, but that is exactly what I wanted: basically an extension of the first instalment.... and that's in many ways what I got, so why should I complain? If developers want to milk a franchise then so be it. No one puts a shotgun to your head and snatches the cash from your pocket.
I'm pretty sure that Tekken fans were jumping with joy when they heard the news that Tekken Tag was in the works for the PS2. The same goes for fans of the FIFA Soccer, ISS and others.
If pushed though, I suppose I would have to say that perhaps three sequels on the same console is about the limit. The Tomb Raider games for example where milked too much without changing in a significant way, and in the end the reputation of a great game was marred by overkill.
The fact of the matter is this: if you really like a game, if it had an big impact on you, then it is only natural for you to want the sequel as soon as is humanly possible. I'm sure Grand Theft Auto 3 fans are already looking forward to Grand Theft Auto 4....
Some criticize sequels for being nothing else but the same game rehashed - they label them "cash-ins". But I would argue that most games are too short - there's not enough in them - so a sequel is in effect just giving you the full package, as well as giving you more of what you want.
Take Gran Turismo for example. Yes it was a great game, but after a while I found myself longing for more tracks to race around, and the sequel gave me this. Some said that Gran Turismo 2 was way too similar to the original game, but that is exactly what I wanted: basically an extension of the first instalment.... and that's in many ways what I got, so why should I complain? If developers want to milk a franchise then so be it. No one puts a shotgun to your head and snatches the cash from your pocket.
I'm pretty sure that Tekken fans were jumping with joy when they heard the news that Tekken Tag was in the works for the PS2. The same goes for fans of the FIFA Soccer, ISS and others.
If pushed though, I suppose I would have to say that perhaps three sequels on the same console is about the limit. The Tomb Raider games for example where milked too much without changing in a significant way, and in the end the reputation of a great game was marred by overkill.
The fact of the matter is this: if you really like a game, if it had an big impact on you, then it is only natural for you to want the sequel as soon as is humanly possible. I'm sure Grand Theft Auto 3 fans are already looking forward to Grand Theft Auto 4....
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
> ssxpro, just out of interest, what are the "huge improvements" in
> GT3?
>I didn't own a PSX, as you know, but I did play GT2 a bit on a mates
> console. GT3 is just the same with better graphics.
I guess the main improvement is the graphics as you say, but when the improvement is so huge, it really does justify the purchase when its a game that needs to look good. If you play the two games side by side, which I tried on the first day I got GT3 you can see the massive step that was taken. The roads in GT2 look like brick roads, when they are meant to be smooth, simply because the blocks making the road/polygons used had to be so much bigger before. The jump from console to console has caused this graphical improvement, and this jump also means that people are potentially seeing the GT series for the first time. However, for those who have played them before (I owned GT1 and GT2):
On top of the graphical improvements, there are loads more subtle things. The difference in modes is quite significant. In GT2, after the main competitions, you were left to visit each manufacturer in turn and enter their car specific cup, which got very boring, where as GT3, it was all within the same set of leagues, which allowed you to focus more on one car, rather than upgrading hundreds at once.
There are great improvements to the tuning as well. Before, things tended to be "all or nothing" meaning that alterations often resulted in drastic results. For example, the Viper GTS would either spin, or not turn at all. In GT3, the tuning is far better balanced allowing you to tweak as much as you like. I once spent four hours perfecting the Viper GTS`s tuning so that I could take on competition far better than the car would normally allow.
The rally mode is another fantastic improvement. The handling almost rivals Colin Mcrae, where as before, it was a little more like ice skating. The graphical improvements, as mentioned above, are also of great importance here, in the form of dust...which is great! The handling in the rally modes in particular has been tweaked and improved to near-perfection, but things have also been refined on regular road surfaces as well. Virtually ever other racing game in existance is made to look like an arcade game when compared to GT3s ultra realistic handling.
There are also changes to the sound. Continuing with the theme of sticking a microphone up the exhaust pipe of a real car, polyphony have taken the realism of the sound to an even higher level. The engine noises, tyre squealing and all, are improvements over the original - listen to the Viper, or some other heavily tuned car to hear just how throaty those engines can get.
The water effects are again mostly graphical style improvements, but the handling again comes into play. It can really feel like you are actually slipping and skidding whilst your on the wet roads. Notice the tunnel on Route 5, and the way that as you enter, your grip suddenly improves, which, if you`re unprepared, could send you into the barrier on the inside of the course... as you`d expect.
There are also many more courses. Things like the Monaco circuit are fantastic, making F1 game versions look extremely poor. Its not alone either, with other circuits like complex string, R11, and more.
An example of a poor GT sequel is GT concept. It will have the same courses, the same music, the same graphics, less options, less tweaking, and only a basic arcade mode. The only improvement will be the use of concept cars and futuristic models. However, notice that it`ll be sold at a far reduced price as a result, showing that the polyphony/sony do know when a game is a true sequel or not.
If you wanted something majorly/radically different to GT, you wouldn`t have had GT any more. It got things right first time round, you can`t expect hover cars and super weapons.
I enjoy GT3 as I hadn't
> played either of the first two extensively, so I can enjoy it. But I imagine
> that someone who had bought the first two may feel just a little let down with
> 3, perhaps?
Possibly some people, but only if they weren`t particularly into racing to start with. If you like racing, then GT3 is perfect for you.
>The same could be said of WipEout Fusion. I've seen some people
> on here say that it's no huge improvement over the last one, except in the
> graphical department. Again, as I haven't owned or played the previous ones, I
> don't notice this too much.
Oddly, it is a major improvement over the previous wipeout game, but not over the one before. Compared to Wip3out, the game is a major change, however, it has gone back to its routes a little more, to the highly successful Wipeout 2097, easily the best in the series.
As you mentioned, the graphics are a step up, though not in the league of GT3, but this is to be expected when going from one console generation to the next. Apart from that, its things like sound. The music is possibly less good, as 2097 was literally award winning. However, effects for the weapons and explosions are significant improvements, in particular the missiles during flight, which sound almost Star Wars like.
In a similar way to GT3, the handling was good to start with, but again this has been tuned to help the gameplay. The airbrakes work differently to 2097, and its taking me a while to adapt, but I`m beginning to see how this will be a benefit later on. The use of the analog sticks feels suited to the handling perfectly as the steering alterations caused by the stick take into account its small size, and the way that it is easier to turn the stick between 45 and 90 degrees than it is between 0 and 45 with any accuracy.
There are plenty of new modes to enjoy, including zone, and more. Bringing forward an idea from Wip3out is challenge mode, which has been improved to include more varied missions. This has also been used in conjunction with the fact that weapons are now unlockable rather than coming as standard. Where as before you`d have everything from the start, you now have to complete the challenges to unlock the super weapons.
The teams/pilots and their relationships have been worked on a little, though as yet no game other than SSX Tricky has managed to hit on the kind of rivalry/friendship relationships between characters that they boast. However, Fusion does seem to have the feature that enemies remember you... and take revenge. If you hit them, you can guarentee that if they catch you again, they`ll be wanting to hit you back.
There are unlockables spread all over the game, and its an exciting challenge to attempt. The number of courses to open up, and the picture galleries, challenges, modes, characters etc... all add up to a lot of worthwhile hours playing the game, and whilst previous games had similar longevity, they perhaps have less in the way of surprises than Fusion.
Anyway, my fingers are almost dead now, and the paint is wearing off the keyboard. I hope that helped though.
> ssxpro, just out of interest, what are the "huge improvements" in
> GT3?
>I didn't own a PSX, as you know, but I did play GT2 a bit on a mates
> console. GT3 is just the same with better graphics.
I guess the main improvement is the graphics as you say, but when the improvement is so huge, it really does justify the purchase when its a game that needs to look good. If you play the two games side by side, which I tried on the first day I got GT3 you can see the massive step that was taken. The roads in GT2 look like brick roads, when they are meant to be smooth, simply because the blocks making the road/polygons used had to be so much bigger before. The jump from console to console has caused this graphical improvement, and this jump also means that people are potentially seeing the GT series for the first time. However, for those who have played them before (I owned GT1 and GT2):
On top of the graphical improvements, there are loads more subtle things. The difference in modes is quite significant. In GT2, after the main competitions, you were left to visit each manufacturer in turn and enter their car specific cup, which got very boring, where as GT3, it was all within the same set of leagues, which allowed you to focus more on one car, rather than upgrading hundreds at once.
There are great improvements to the tuning as well. Before, things tended to be "all or nothing" meaning that alterations often resulted in drastic results. For example, the Viper GTS would either spin, or not turn at all. In GT3, the tuning is far better balanced allowing you to tweak as much as you like. I once spent four hours perfecting the Viper GTS`s tuning so that I could take on competition far better than the car would normally allow.
The rally mode is another fantastic improvement. The handling almost rivals Colin Mcrae, where as before, it was a little more like ice skating. The graphical improvements, as mentioned above, are also of great importance here, in the form of dust...which is great! The handling in the rally modes in particular has been tweaked and improved to near-perfection, but things have also been refined on regular road surfaces as well. Virtually ever other racing game in existance is made to look like an arcade game when compared to GT3s ultra realistic handling.
There are also changes to the sound. Continuing with the theme of sticking a microphone up the exhaust pipe of a real car, polyphony have taken the realism of the sound to an even higher level. The engine noises, tyre squealing and all, are improvements over the original - listen to the Viper, or some other heavily tuned car to hear just how throaty those engines can get.
The water effects are again mostly graphical style improvements, but the handling again comes into play. It can really feel like you are actually slipping and skidding whilst your on the wet roads. Notice the tunnel on Route 5, and the way that as you enter, your grip suddenly improves, which, if you`re unprepared, could send you into the barrier on the inside of the course... as you`d expect.
There are also many more courses. Things like the Monaco circuit are fantastic, making F1 game versions look extremely poor. Its not alone either, with other circuits like complex string, R11, and more.
An example of a poor GT sequel is GT concept. It will have the same courses, the same music, the same graphics, less options, less tweaking, and only a basic arcade mode. The only improvement will be the use of concept cars and futuristic models. However, notice that it`ll be sold at a far reduced price as a result, showing that the polyphony/sony do know when a game is a true sequel or not.
If you wanted something majorly/radically different to GT, you wouldn`t have had GT any more. It got things right first time round, you can`t expect hover cars and super weapons.
I enjoy GT3 as I hadn't
> played either of the first two extensively, so I can enjoy it. But I imagine
> that someone who had bought the first two may feel just a little let down with
> 3, perhaps?
Possibly some people, but only if they weren`t particularly into racing to start with. If you like racing, then GT3 is perfect for you.
>The same could be said of WipEout Fusion. I've seen some people
> on here say that it's no huge improvement over the last one, except in the
> graphical department. Again, as I haven't owned or played the previous ones, I
> don't notice this too much.
Oddly, it is a major improvement over the previous wipeout game, but not over the one before. Compared to Wip3out, the game is a major change, however, it has gone back to its routes a little more, to the highly successful Wipeout 2097, easily the best in the series.
As you mentioned, the graphics are a step up, though not in the league of GT3, but this is to be expected when going from one console generation to the next. Apart from that, its things like sound. The music is possibly less good, as 2097 was literally award winning. However, effects for the weapons and explosions are significant improvements, in particular the missiles during flight, which sound almost Star Wars like.
In a similar way to GT3, the handling was good to start with, but again this has been tuned to help the gameplay. The airbrakes work differently to 2097, and its taking me a while to adapt, but I`m beginning to see how this will be a benefit later on. The use of the analog sticks feels suited to the handling perfectly as the steering alterations caused by the stick take into account its small size, and the way that it is easier to turn the stick between 45 and 90 degrees than it is between 0 and 45 with any accuracy.
There are plenty of new modes to enjoy, including zone, and more. Bringing forward an idea from Wip3out is challenge mode, which has been improved to include more varied missions. This has also been used in conjunction with the fact that weapons are now unlockable rather than coming as standard. Where as before you`d have everything from the start, you now have to complete the challenges to unlock the super weapons.
The teams/pilots and their relationships have been worked on a little, though as yet no game other than SSX Tricky has managed to hit on the kind of rivalry/friendship relationships between characters that they boast. However, Fusion does seem to have the feature that enemies remember you... and take revenge. If you hit them, you can guarentee that if they catch you again, they`ll be wanting to hit you back.
There are unlockables spread all over the game, and its an exciting challenge to attempt. The number of courses to open up, and the picture galleries, challenges, modes, characters etc... all add up to a lot of worthwhile hours playing the game, and whilst previous games had similar longevity, they perhaps have less in the way of surprises than Fusion.
Anyway, my fingers are almost dead now, and the paint is wearing off the keyboard. I hope that helped though.
SSXPRO, just out of interest, what are the "huge improvements" in GT3?
I didn't own a PSX, as you know, but I did play GT2 a bit on a mates console. GT3 is just the same with better graphics.
I enjoy GT3 as I hadn't played either of the first two extensively, so I can enjoy it. But I imagine that someone who had bought the first two may feel just a little let down with 3, perhaps?
The same could be said of WipEout Fusion. I've seen some people on here say that it's no huge improvement over the last one, except in the graphical department. Again, as I haven't owned or played the previous ones, I don't notice this too much.
I didn't own a PSX, as you know, but I did play GT2 a bit on a mates console. GT3 is just the same with better graphics.
I enjoy GT3 as I hadn't played either of the first two extensively, so I can enjoy it. But I imagine that someone who had bought the first two may feel just a little let down with 3, perhaps?
The same could be said of WipEout Fusion. I've seen some people on here say that it's no huge improvement over the last one, except in the graphical department. Again, as I haven't owned or played the previous ones, I don't notice this too much.
I think it sometimes depends on what they do to the sequel. If the progress is significant, then things are alright, but if the sequel is a lazy update, then thats when the game will receive the label "cash-in".
Take Tekken Tag. Before that, I`d only owned Tekken 2, so the jump was massive, and I haven`t stopped enjoying Tag - its fantastic. However, it wasn`t a huge update over Tekken 3, so those who had both games were a little disappointed that there wasn`t a significant reason to buy the new version.
You mentioned that you want more of the same, which I agree with, but when the Tekkens were so alike, it could seem like playing the same game. Fortunately, thanks to the console generation jump that was made, Tekken Tag looked sufficiently better, and had enough new modes to make it acceptable - just - as a sequel.
Then there are games like SSX. The first was possibly one of the only good things about the PS2 launch. Amidst all that was going wrong, SSX showed that there were amazing titles to be bought at launch. However, within a year the sequel is released... and to be honest, whilst it was amazing, it was a little too similar. There were Ubers, and things were all improved, but it still felt a little too similar.
So, some games, FIFA being the worst culprit, are basically not enough of an update to be a creditable sequel... but as you say, there are plenty of games out there that really are fantastic sequels, and should be allowed the full success they deserve. Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo 3, Tony Hawks 3 and more are all sequels that are significantly better than their predecessors, and as a result, have become very successful games. Others like Silent Hill 2, and many more have also managed to make a top quality sequel.
Perhaps the key to a great sequel is to avoid EA`s tactics. EA canada/big haven`t done too bad a job with SSX/SSX Tricky, but EA in general are responsible for a lot of poor sequels that are released only months after the previous game. With the length of time it takes to develop games for PS2, you can imagine that the FIFA series probably has 2004 in developement already - which is wrong.
To conclude: Its all about improvement. Do a good job, and you should avoid criticism from rational people (ignore the rival "zealots"), but if you do a poor job, and rush the game... then you truly deserve the word cash-in being splattered across your games.
Take Tekken Tag. Before that, I`d only owned Tekken 2, so the jump was massive, and I haven`t stopped enjoying Tag - its fantastic. However, it wasn`t a huge update over Tekken 3, so those who had both games were a little disappointed that there wasn`t a significant reason to buy the new version.
You mentioned that you want more of the same, which I agree with, but when the Tekkens were so alike, it could seem like playing the same game. Fortunately, thanks to the console generation jump that was made, Tekken Tag looked sufficiently better, and had enough new modes to make it acceptable - just - as a sequel.
Then there are games like SSX. The first was possibly one of the only good things about the PS2 launch. Amidst all that was going wrong, SSX showed that there were amazing titles to be bought at launch. However, within a year the sequel is released... and to be honest, whilst it was amazing, it was a little too similar. There were Ubers, and things were all improved, but it still felt a little too similar.
So, some games, FIFA being the worst culprit, are basically not enough of an update to be a creditable sequel... but as you say, there are plenty of games out there that really are fantastic sequels, and should be allowed the full success they deserve. Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo 3, Tony Hawks 3 and more are all sequels that are significantly better than their predecessors, and as a result, have become very successful games. Others like Silent Hill 2, and many more have also managed to make a top quality sequel.
Perhaps the key to a great sequel is to avoid EA`s tactics. EA canada/big haven`t done too bad a job with SSX/SSX Tricky, but EA in general are responsible for a lot of poor sequels that are released only months after the previous game. With the length of time it takes to develop games for PS2, you can imagine that the FIFA series probably has 2004 in developement already - which is wrong.
To conclude: Its all about improvement. Do a good job, and you should avoid criticism from rational people (ignore the rival "zealots"), but if you do a poor job, and rush the game... then you truly deserve the word cash-in being splattered across your games.
When you really like something, even love something, it's no surprise to comprehend that you can't get enough of it: too much is never enough. So when a game comes along that you really like, it's only natural to find yourself looking forward with great anticipation to the sequel.
Some criticize sequels for being nothing else but the same game rehashed - they label them "cash-ins". But I would argue that most games are too short - there's not enough in them - so a sequel is in effect just giving you the full package, as well as giving you more of what you want.
Take Gran Turismo for example. Yes it was a great game, but after a while I found myself longing for more tracks to race around, and the sequel gave me this. Some said that Gran Turismo 2 was way too similar to the original game, but that is exactly what I wanted: basically an extension of the first instalment.... and that's in many ways what I got, so why should I complain? If developers want to milk a franchise then so be it. No one puts a shotgun to your head and snatches the cash from your pocket.
I'm pretty sure that Tekken fans were jumping with joy when they heard the news that Tekken Tag was in the works for the PS2. The same goes for fans of the FIFA Soccer, ISS and others.
If pushed though, I suppose I would have to say that perhaps three sequels on the same console is about the limit. The Tomb Raider games for example where milked too much without changing in a significant way, and in the end the reputation of a great game was marred by overkill.
The fact of the matter is this: if you really like a game, if it had an big impact on you, then it is only natural for you to want the sequel as soon as is humanly possible. I'm sure Grand Theft Auto 3 fans are already looking forward to Grand Theft Auto 4....
Some criticize sequels for being nothing else but the same game rehashed - they label them "cash-ins". But I would argue that most games are too short - there's not enough in them - so a sequel is in effect just giving you the full package, as well as giving you more of what you want.
Take Gran Turismo for example. Yes it was a great game, but after a while I found myself longing for more tracks to race around, and the sequel gave me this. Some said that Gran Turismo 2 was way too similar to the original game, but that is exactly what I wanted: basically an extension of the first instalment.... and that's in many ways what I got, so why should I complain? If developers want to milk a franchise then so be it. No one puts a shotgun to your head and snatches the cash from your pocket.
I'm pretty sure that Tekken fans were jumping with joy when they heard the news that Tekken Tag was in the works for the PS2. The same goes for fans of the FIFA Soccer, ISS and others.
If pushed though, I suppose I would have to say that perhaps three sequels on the same console is about the limit. The Tomb Raider games for example where milked too much without changing in a significant way, and in the end the reputation of a great game was marred by overkill.
The fact of the matter is this: if you really like a game, if it had an big impact on you, then it is only natural for you to want the sequel as soon as is humanly possible. I'm sure Grand Theft Auto 3 fans are already looking forward to Grand Theft Auto 4....
Page: