The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Having read a few details about Resident Evil 4, I gather that you spend part of the game infected, and have to find a cure.
No doubt you either do, or you die, but what about a game that evolved as you play it, so that if you got the virus, and turned into a zombie, then your priorities in the game would change.
No longer would you be playing to get a cure, as it would be too late for you, you would have already changed, so instead, the next thing you could do would perhaps be to go after your partner, to feast on their flesh.
There are games that give you more freedom now, where success isn't everything, for instance, in GTA if you failed a mission, you could carry on, try something else.
Mind you, most games, dying would be a natural place to draw a line, and say that if you want to progress, you have to do this...
But in Zelda games in the past, there have been things you have had to do to allow you to progress, for instance, beat someone in a race. If you lose, you can just keep trying, until you succeed. Wouldn't it be better if you failed then the other guy refused to race again right away, so you'd either have to find another way around the situation, or find something that would persuade the guy to race again, raise the stakes a little, make it worth his while.
This kind of thing would, to some extent, put an end to the mentality "it doesn't matter if I don't do it, I can go back to my old save file" as it would be worth progressing down the failure route to see what would happen.
But then again, developers can't keep putting in infinite options for failure, it would have to reach a point where you had to try and try again - unless there is another path through, which would lead to you seeing a different ending.
I'm very fond of the concept of radically different game endings, depending upon events that occur during the game. Resident Evil gave you different endings if you saved all of the characters, for instance. Super Metroid had Samus in various states of undress depending upon how quickly you finished the game. This second one isn't really what I'd be after, I'd prefer to have seen an ending which had you saving the lives of a bunch of people, as you were able to sort out the game in so little time.
Imagine you reached the end of the game, only to receive a bleak ending, because you missed something, or didn't do it quickly enough.
Gamers will either be annoyed, and never play it again, or go right back to the start, go through it again, and try to get it right this time.
Mario Sunshine was a great game, and though you had a number of levels you could attempt at any time, there were certain things you had to do to progress. The game was driven by how many shines that you had collected, and I feel that this type of game format could be on the way out. In fact Super Mario 64 was better in this respect, as the levels were less dynamic, they'd be the same every time you went in, so you could search for any of the 6 stars inside. With Mario Sunshine, because, of the dynamic changes in the levels after you had completed earlier tasks, gave you little choice over which shine to collect.
Imagine the old Space Invaders format. Aliens attacking from above.
Your ship gets blown up.
Does a new one immediately appear?
No, you'd better find shelter from those bombs. Worse still, they'll be landing soon, and you'll have to take them on in ground battles...
Imagine combining Harvest Moon with a typical RPG story line. You start on your farm, doing your day to day duties. Say you happen to befriend a certain character, what happens if their father goes missing, and they decide to go on a quest to save him, and ask you to accompany them?
Would you leave the farm in the capable hands of your manservant Rodriguez, and go on an adventure?
What if this guy wasn't a friend of yours; he'd just disappear from the village and you'd be none the wiser to the adventure that you could have gone on.
A drastic change in a game's style could have a huge impact on the player.
I remember when I first saw From Dusk Till Dawn. It started out as this cool road movie, but ending in vampire carnage. If a game could do this to you too, without you anticipating it, wouldn't that be great?
No doubt you either do, or you die, but what about a game that evolved as you play it, so that if you got the virus, and turned into a zombie, then your priorities in the game would change.
No longer would you be playing to get a cure, as it would be too late for you, you would have already changed, so instead, the next thing you could do would perhaps be to go after your partner, to feast on their flesh.
There are games that give you more freedom now, where success isn't everything, for instance, in GTA if you failed a mission, you could carry on, try something else.
Mind you, most games, dying would be a natural place to draw a line, and say that if you want to progress, you have to do this...
But in Zelda games in the past, there have been things you have had to do to allow you to progress, for instance, beat someone in a race. If you lose, you can just keep trying, until you succeed. Wouldn't it be better if you failed then the other guy refused to race again right away, so you'd either have to find another way around the situation, or find something that would persuade the guy to race again, raise the stakes a little, make it worth his while.
This kind of thing would, to some extent, put an end to the mentality "it doesn't matter if I don't do it, I can go back to my old save file" as it would be worth progressing down the failure route to see what would happen.
But then again, developers can't keep putting in infinite options for failure, it would have to reach a point where you had to try and try again - unless there is another path through, which would lead to you seeing a different ending.
I'm very fond of the concept of radically different game endings, depending upon events that occur during the game. Resident Evil gave you different endings if you saved all of the characters, for instance. Super Metroid had Samus in various states of undress depending upon how quickly you finished the game. This second one isn't really what I'd be after, I'd prefer to have seen an ending which had you saving the lives of a bunch of people, as you were able to sort out the game in so little time.
Imagine you reached the end of the game, only to receive a bleak ending, because you missed something, or didn't do it quickly enough.
Gamers will either be annoyed, and never play it again, or go right back to the start, go through it again, and try to get it right this time.
Mario Sunshine was a great game, and though you had a number of levels you could attempt at any time, there were certain things you had to do to progress. The game was driven by how many shines that you had collected, and I feel that this type of game format could be on the way out. In fact Super Mario 64 was better in this respect, as the levels were less dynamic, they'd be the same every time you went in, so you could search for any of the 6 stars inside. With Mario Sunshine, because, of the dynamic changes in the levels after you had completed earlier tasks, gave you little choice over which shine to collect.
Imagine the old Space Invaders format. Aliens attacking from above.
Your ship gets blown up.
Does a new one immediately appear?
No, you'd better find shelter from those bombs. Worse still, they'll be landing soon, and you'll have to take them on in ground battles...
Imagine combining Harvest Moon with a typical RPG story line. You start on your farm, doing your day to day duties. Say you happen to befriend a certain character, what happens if their father goes missing, and they decide to go on a quest to save him, and ask you to accompany them?
Would you leave the farm in the capable hands of your manservant Rodriguez, and go on an adventure?
What if this guy wasn't a friend of yours; he'd just disappear from the village and you'd be none the wiser to the adventure that you could have gone on.
A drastic change in a game's style could have a huge impact on the player.
I remember when I first saw From Dusk Till Dawn. It started out as this cool road movie, but ending in vampire carnage. If a game could do this to you too, without you anticipating it, wouldn't that be great?
Mr Snuggly wrote:
and there's nothing more furious or scary
> than an internet geek who's not allowed to play properly.
You should know eh...? ;-)
*wonders why he doesn't win GAD for another decade*
:D
and there's nothing more furious or scary
> than an internet geek who's not allowed to play properly.
You should know eh...? ;-)
*wonders why he doesn't win GAD for another decade*
:D
I've still, yet, to play a game as open as Ultimas 4-7 (Maybe Elite?)...
All these games placed you in a world, and then left th rest up to you.
Although there was an overall theme/story-line underlying the game, with the token bad-guy/evil to dispel, there was no forumula for completing the game...
You could take on any of the hundreds of quests in any order you chose, or you could go on a dungeon hack, build up your stats and skills...
Or become a trader, and buy and sell goods between towns..
Or do pretty much whatever you wanted... Even if you wanted to play it straight, and complete the game as you would any other, since there was not set path to completion, no correct (or incorrect) path to the end, you were never forced into any action (you could even run away from fights)
Though, since this was the eighties, the graphics were pretty limited, you were given a world to explore as and when you would, doing what you wanted when you wanted, yet still instilling a sense of context to the world, and an underlying, expanding story of your own devising.
All these games placed you in a world, and then left th rest up to you.
Although there was an overall theme/story-line underlying the game, with the token bad-guy/evil to dispel, there was no forumula for completing the game...
You could take on any of the hundreds of quests in any order you chose, or you could go on a dungeon hack, build up your stats and skills...
Or become a trader, and buy and sell goods between towns..
Or do pretty much whatever you wanted... Even if you wanted to play it straight, and complete the game as you would any other, since there was not set path to completion, no correct (or incorrect) path to the end, you were never forced into any action (you could even run away from fights)
Though, since this was the eighties, the graphics were pretty limited, you were given a world to explore as and when you would, doing what you wanted when you wanted, yet still instilling a sense of context to the world, and an underlying, expanding story of your own devising.
Oh, and about resident evil... that's always bugged me... during the course of the game you can get bitten loads of times by zombies and not become infected... sure, you heal your wounds, but I don't think just healing the wound would stop you getting infected would it...
Anyone know the science of zombies...? ;-)
Anyone know the science of zombies...? ;-)
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Would you leave the farm in the capable hands of your manservant
> Rodriguez, and go on an adventure?
hehe. Manservant.
Anyway. Good post. I would have liked it if in Eternal Darkness it wasn't 'pre-set' whether or not each character died at the end of each chapter. This would have given many of the characters two paths, and the final ending to the game could have varied depending on whether characters died or not (ie. sometimes it would be 'good' for the character to die, as they sacrifice themselves to help stop the ancients, other times their deaths may have been unnecessary, so it would be 'bad'...)
> Would you leave the farm in the capable hands of your manservant
> Rodriguez, and go on an adventure?
hehe. Manservant.
Anyway. Good post. I would have liked it if in Eternal Darkness it wasn't 'pre-set' whether or not each character died at the end of each chapter. This would have given many of the characters two paths, and the final ending to the game could have varied depending on whether characters died or not (ie. sometimes it would be 'good' for the character to die, as they sacrifice themselves to help stop the ancients, other times their deaths may have been unnecessary, so it would be 'bad'...)
Linearity is starting to become boring.
I think this change theme links in with doing things your own way.
With most games, there is normally only one way of doing things but when you can do things in your own style, it becomes that little more interesting...
Early examples are the Sonic and Mario games - secret passages, hidden levels, shortcuts to laters levels...
It always made a change to playing through it the same way again and again and again.
One of the best things about Goldeneye was how you could do things your own way. The level was there, the mission objectives were set, but how you sent about completing them was up to you.
Noisy gunfight or patient stealth - your call!
What I'd like to see is more "object oriented" game design.
Most game designs run on a script where you follow a set path through the game (Conker might've seemed random the first time round, but it was 100% linear so it would be EXACTLY the same the second time round).
If the game was just set with "objects" - zones, characters, places, or other entities that acted depending on how you react to them and they react with each other, that would create more possiblities and give a more interesting game to play.
Having said that, I don't think that processors are powerful enough yet to handle all that AI at once. Perhaps that'll be the next big thing for the next generation of super consoles/computers - interactivity.
I think Pikmin was a small step in in this direction...
I think this change theme links in with doing things your own way.
With most games, there is normally only one way of doing things but when you can do things in your own style, it becomes that little more interesting...
Early examples are the Sonic and Mario games - secret passages, hidden levels, shortcuts to laters levels...
It always made a change to playing through it the same way again and again and again.
One of the best things about Goldeneye was how you could do things your own way. The level was there, the mission objectives were set, but how you sent about completing them was up to you.
Noisy gunfight or patient stealth - your call!
What I'd like to see is more "object oriented" game design.
Most game designs run on a script where you follow a set path through the game (Conker might've seemed random the first time round, but it was 100% linear so it would be EXACTLY the same the second time round).
If the game was just set with "objects" - zones, characters, places, or other entities that acted depending on how you react to them and they react with each other, that would create more possiblities and give a more interesting game to play.
Having said that, I don't think that processors are powerful enough yet to handle all that AI at once. Perhaps that'll be the next big thing for the next generation of super consoles/computers - interactivity.
I think Pikmin was a small step in in this direction...
I think that gaming would still have that 'magical' touch if I didn't use the internet as much, read reviews or even be so mature.
I used to dream about what could go on in games - Super Mario World is my prime example of that. For months I wondered how the game would end, with a virtual party even entering my head. Once I finished it though, I was shocked, in a good way. The ending was nothing i could have thought of at such a tender age, and so it was like the game was doing something controversial.
I would like games where there are missed oppurtunities, as it would give lots more replay value, of which I always cherish in a game, as gamers played it again and again simply to get new storylines.
I can pray, can't I?
I used to dream about what could go on in games - Super Mario World is my prime example of that. For months I wondered how the game would end, with a virtual party even entering my head. Once I finished it though, I was shocked, in a good way. The ending was nothing i could have thought of at such a tender age, and so it was like the game was doing something controversial.
I would like games where there are missed oppurtunities, as it would give lots more replay value, of which I always cherish in a game, as gamers played it again and again simply to get new storylines.
I can pray, can't I?
Maybe some more comedy as well.
The great thing about Conkers Bad Fur Day was the complete randomness of events.
I didn't expect the Matrix spoof at that point at all and many other bits were just so random but executed beautifully.
Twas great in that manner. Some games have done it but as we enter into a more and more mainstream market the companies aren't willing to explore at different angles. :( They will settle for games that sell and that alone.
The great thing about Conkers Bad Fur Day was the complete randomness of events.
I didn't expect the Matrix spoof at that point at all and many other bits were just so random but executed beautifully.
Twas great in that manner. Some games have done it but as we enter into a more and more mainstream market the companies aren't willing to explore at different angles. :( They will settle for games that sell and that alone.
It's a good idea, which is why the new Star Wars game is doing something pretty similar. As you get force powers you can either choose to become a Jedi or dark Jedi. Your powers and priorities will change depending on the path you take.
Would be nice to see in a Resident Evil game though, it needs some kind of evolution, other than the graphics, in my opinion.
Would be nice to see in a Resident Evil game though, it needs some kind of evolution, other than the graphics, in my opinion.
Having read a few details about Resident Evil 4, I gather that you spend part of the game infected, and have to find a cure.
No doubt you either do, or you die, but what about a game that evolved as you play it, so that if you got the virus, and turned into a zombie, then your priorities in the game would change.
No longer would you be playing to get a cure, as it would be too late for you, you would have already changed, so instead, the next thing you could do would perhaps be to go after your partner, to feast on their flesh.
There are games that give you more freedom now, where success isn't everything, for instance, in GTA if you failed a mission, you could carry on, try something else.
Mind you, most games, dying would be a natural place to draw a line, and say that if you want to progress, you have to do this...
But in Zelda games in the past, there have been things you have had to do to allow you to progress, for instance, beat someone in a race. If you lose, you can just keep trying, until you succeed. Wouldn't it be better if you failed then the other guy refused to race again right away, so you'd either have to find another way around the situation, or find something that would persuade the guy to race again, raise the stakes a little, make it worth his while.
This kind of thing would, to some extent, put an end to the mentality "it doesn't matter if I don't do it, I can go back to my old save file" as it would be worth progressing down the failure route to see what would happen.
But then again, developers can't keep putting in infinite options for failure, it would have to reach a point where you had to try and try again - unless there is another path through, which would lead to you seeing a different ending.
I'm very fond of the concept of radically different game endings, depending upon events that occur during the game. Resident Evil gave you different endings if you saved all of the characters, for instance. Super Metroid had Samus in various states of undress depending upon how quickly you finished the game. This second one isn't really what I'd be after, I'd prefer to have seen an ending which had you saving the lives of a bunch of people, as you were able to sort out the game in so little time.
Imagine you reached the end of the game, only to receive a bleak ending, because you missed something, or didn't do it quickly enough.
Gamers will either be annoyed, and never play it again, or go right back to the start, go through it again, and try to get it right this time.
Mario Sunshine was a great game, and though you had a number of levels you could attempt at any time, there were certain things you had to do to progress. The game was driven by how many shines that you had collected, and I feel that this type of game format could be on the way out. In fact Super Mario 64 was better in this respect, as the levels were less dynamic, they'd be the same every time you went in, so you could search for any of the 6 stars inside. With Mario Sunshine, because, of the dynamic changes in the levels after you had completed earlier tasks, gave you little choice over which shine to collect.
Imagine the old Space Invaders format. Aliens attacking from above.
Your ship gets blown up.
Does a new one immediately appear?
No, you'd better find shelter from those bombs. Worse still, they'll be landing soon, and you'll have to take them on in ground battles...
Imagine combining Harvest Moon with a typical RPG story line. You start on your farm, doing your day to day duties. Say you happen to befriend a certain character, what happens if their father goes missing, and they decide to go on a quest to save him, and ask you to accompany them?
Would you leave the farm in the capable hands of your manservant Rodriguez, and go on an adventure?
What if this guy wasn't a friend of yours; he'd just disappear from the village and you'd be none the wiser to the adventure that you could have gone on.
A drastic change in a game's style could have a huge impact on the player.
I remember when I first saw From Dusk Till Dawn. It started out as this cool road movie, but ending in vampire carnage. If a game could do this to you too, without you anticipating it, wouldn't that be great?
No doubt you either do, or you die, but what about a game that evolved as you play it, so that if you got the virus, and turned into a zombie, then your priorities in the game would change.
No longer would you be playing to get a cure, as it would be too late for you, you would have already changed, so instead, the next thing you could do would perhaps be to go after your partner, to feast on their flesh.
There are games that give you more freedom now, where success isn't everything, for instance, in GTA if you failed a mission, you could carry on, try something else.
Mind you, most games, dying would be a natural place to draw a line, and say that if you want to progress, you have to do this...
But in Zelda games in the past, there have been things you have had to do to allow you to progress, for instance, beat someone in a race. If you lose, you can just keep trying, until you succeed. Wouldn't it be better if you failed then the other guy refused to race again right away, so you'd either have to find another way around the situation, or find something that would persuade the guy to race again, raise the stakes a little, make it worth his while.
This kind of thing would, to some extent, put an end to the mentality "it doesn't matter if I don't do it, I can go back to my old save file" as it would be worth progressing down the failure route to see what would happen.
But then again, developers can't keep putting in infinite options for failure, it would have to reach a point where you had to try and try again - unless there is another path through, which would lead to you seeing a different ending.
I'm very fond of the concept of radically different game endings, depending upon events that occur during the game. Resident Evil gave you different endings if you saved all of the characters, for instance. Super Metroid had Samus in various states of undress depending upon how quickly you finished the game. This second one isn't really what I'd be after, I'd prefer to have seen an ending which had you saving the lives of a bunch of people, as you were able to sort out the game in so little time.
Imagine you reached the end of the game, only to receive a bleak ending, because you missed something, or didn't do it quickly enough.
Gamers will either be annoyed, and never play it again, or go right back to the start, go through it again, and try to get it right this time.
Mario Sunshine was a great game, and though you had a number of levels you could attempt at any time, there were certain things you had to do to progress. The game was driven by how many shines that you had collected, and I feel that this type of game format could be on the way out. In fact Super Mario 64 was better in this respect, as the levels were less dynamic, they'd be the same every time you went in, so you could search for any of the 6 stars inside. With Mario Sunshine, because, of the dynamic changes in the levels after you had completed earlier tasks, gave you little choice over which shine to collect.
Imagine the old Space Invaders format. Aliens attacking from above.
Your ship gets blown up.
Does a new one immediately appear?
No, you'd better find shelter from those bombs. Worse still, they'll be landing soon, and you'll have to take them on in ground battles...
Imagine combining Harvest Moon with a typical RPG story line. You start on your farm, doing your day to day duties. Say you happen to befriend a certain character, what happens if their father goes missing, and they decide to go on a quest to save him, and ask you to accompany them?
Would you leave the farm in the capable hands of your manservant Rodriguez, and go on an adventure?
What if this guy wasn't a friend of yours; he'd just disappear from the village and you'd be none the wiser to the adventure that you could have gone on.
A drastic change in a game's style could have a huge impact on the player.
I remember when I first saw From Dusk Till Dawn. It started out as this cool road movie, but ending in vampire carnage. If a game could do this to you too, without you anticipating it, wouldn't that be great?