The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Recently I have been thinking, What makes a 'classic' a 'classic'? What makes games like GTA3, Halo and Mario such killer games? Iventivity? Yes, but also development within a certain genre. Games like Pikmin prove how new, inventive games can be a new experience to gamers while being successful and fun to play, these games are the 'originals'. In the future there will be new games, a new experience to new gamers, but looking back we would be able to see where the inspiration came from. Much like today. Retro gamers would be able to see the development of games like Halo throughout the years. Please continue to read..
When someone operates outside of these sorts of clichés and decides to model a game after their own conception of fun we sometimes end up with renowned, genre defining titles like Resident Evil, Virtua Fighter and the Command & Conquer series. Yet all of these titles are perched at the top of a long list of cascading clones and spin-off genres that quickly turn their originality into annoying regulars.
While Resident Evil was not the first of it’s kind, through marketing and appealing game play it became the standard and encouraged the birth of crappy copies like Carrier and inventive titles like Silent Hill. In the case of Silent Hill, the clichés were taken, acknowledged, manipulated and splintered into a respectfully inspired product. On the other hand, what “Doom” was to the “Halo” - a bastardization of all that made the original as notable as it was.
In recent times titles like Final Fantasy X and Grand Theft Auto III have reformed, to some extent, what we expect from a game for better or worse. Grand Theft Auto III has all but ruined me for urban action/driving titles that lack the same scope of freedom and elbowroom. Accordingly, Final Fantasy X has driven the commercial stake that much deeper into the heart of the genre (and gaming as a whole) and formed something less like an RPG and more like an interactive blockbuster film with an extreme emphasis on graphics and a healthy helping of everything we already seen before - giving the people what they seem to want.
Ultimately the industry benefits from the progression caused by these evolving games but far too often good games capable of dissolving clichés are largely overlooked and never revisited because of their lack of profit. It’s a shame to see games like Out of this World (SNES), Fade to Black (PS) and about 1/3 of the late Dreamcast’s line up being so disregarded but my favorite example is Shadowrun for SNES. It took a gritty, futuristic street setting and turned it into a strategy/RPG/action game that involved infiltrating corporations, local gangs and complex computer systems. Based on a story from the popular Shadowrun sci-fi technology series it had a novel storyline and an interesting concept akin to movies like the Matrix or Blade Runner. It would be great to see more cliché breaking titles of this sort on the new generation of hardware but content is seemingly being buried underneath the glamorous graphics of the times.
In these times of such commercialism it’s hard to say who has the leading influence on the gaming industry’s direction - the gamers, the marketers, individual developers or the community of developers as a whole. Considering this, it’s clear that the entire system works like a web with each segment in some way manipulating another - we want to play the games we like but where do you draw the line. If developers are so concerned about us when they create games aren’t we bound to play the same thing over and over simply because we keep buying it? Does a development team ever get to realize their own vision and nix the proven clichés if their spectators are looking over their shoulder and into their minds while they’re working? Can creativity ever prevail if their minds are on their money and their money’s on their minds?
Yes. We sit on our couches and armchairs at the threshold of what is hopefully a new era of gaming. Along with new hardware capabilities should come the unbridled potential for new gaming concepts. Hopefully as more independent developers get their wings and the market stream widens to fit three major consoles, the competitive spirit of the days before Playstation will return somewhat. In such a crowded market, you can’t possibly sustain an upwardly moving economy with careless uniformity of concepts and design - original content becomes the ace up the corporate sleeve. With that said, let’s hope these are the bloodiest console wars since the advent of gaming.
That Is the longest post I have ever typed, please read as I have spent a lot of time creating this. Thank you.
Sam41
When someone operates outside of these sorts of clichés and decides to model a game after their own conception of fun we sometimes end up with renowned, genre defining titles like Resident Evil, Virtua Fighter and the Command & Conquer series. Yet all of these titles are perched at the top of a long list of cascading clones and spin-off genres that quickly turn their originality into annoying regulars.
While Resident Evil was not the first of it’s kind, through marketing and appealing game play it became the standard and encouraged the birth of crappy copies like Carrier and inventive titles like Silent Hill. In the case of Silent Hill, the clichés were taken, acknowledged, manipulated and splintered into a respectfully inspired product. On the other hand, what “Doom” was to the “Halo” - a bastardization of all that made the original as notable as it was.
In recent times titles like Final Fantasy X and Grand Theft Auto III have reformed, to some extent, what we expect from a game for better or worse. Grand Theft Auto III has all but ruined me for urban action/driving titles that lack the same scope of freedom and elbowroom. Accordingly, Final Fantasy X has driven the commercial stake that much deeper into the heart of the genre (and gaming as a whole) and formed something less like an RPG and more like an interactive blockbuster film with an extreme emphasis on graphics and a healthy helping of everything we already seen before - giving the people what they seem to want.
Ultimately the industry benefits from the progression caused by these evolving games but far too often good games capable of dissolving clichés are largely overlooked and never revisited because of their lack of profit. It’s a shame to see games like Out of this World (SNES), Fade to Black (PS) and about 1/3 of the late Dreamcast’s line up being so disregarded but my favorite example is Shadowrun for SNES. It took a gritty, futuristic street setting and turned it into a strategy/RPG/action game that involved infiltrating corporations, local gangs and complex computer systems. Based on a story from the popular Shadowrun sci-fi technology series it had a novel storyline and an interesting concept akin to movies like the Matrix or Blade Runner. It would be great to see more cliché breaking titles of this sort on the new generation of hardware but content is seemingly being buried underneath the glamorous graphics of the times.
In these times of such commercialism it’s hard to say who has the leading influence on the gaming industry’s direction - the gamers, the marketers, individual developers or the community of developers as a whole. Considering this, it’s clear that the entire system works like a web with each segment in some way manipulating another - we want to play the games we like but where do you draw the line. If developers are so concerned about us when they create games aren’t we bound to play the same thing over and over simply because we keep buying it? Does a development team ever get to realize their own vision and nix the proven clichés if their spectators are looking over their shoulder and into their minds while they’re working? Can creativity ever prevail if their minds are on their money and their money’s on their minds?
Yes. We sit on our couches and armchairs at the threshold of what is hopefully a new era of gaming. Along with new hardware capabilities should come the unbridled potential for new gaming concepts. Hopefully as more independent developers get their wings and the market stream widens to fit three major consoles, the competitive spirit of the days before Playstation will return somewhat. In such a crowded market, you can’t possibly sustain an upwardly moving economy with careless uniformity of concepts and design - original content becomes the ace up the corporate sleeve. With that said, let’s hope these are the bloodiest console wars since the advent of gaming.
That Is the longest post I have ever typed, please read as I have spent a lot of time creating this. Thank you.
Sam41
Page:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Recently I have been thinking, What makes a 'classic' a 'classic'? What makes games like GTA3, Halo and Mario such killer games? Iventivity? Yes, but also development within a certain genre. Games like Pikmin prove how new, inventive games can be a new experience to gamers while being successful and fun to play, these games are the 'originals'. In the future there will be new games, a new experience to new gamers, but looking back we would be able to see where the inspiration came from. Much like today. Retro gamers would be able to see the development of games like Halo throughout the years. Please continue to read..
When someone operates outside of these sorts of clichés and decides to model a game after their own conception of fun we sometimes end up with renowned, genre defining titles like Resident Evil, Virtua Fighter and the Command & Conquer series. Yet all of these titles are perched at the top of a long list of cascading clones and spin-off genres that quickly turn their originality into annoying regulars.
While Resident Evil was not the first of it’s kind, through marketing and appealing game play it became the standard and encouraged the birth of crappy copies like Carrier and inventive titles like Silent Hill. In the case of Silent Hill, the clichés were taken, acknowledged, manipulated and splintered into a respectfully inspired product. On the other hand, what “Doom” was to the “Halo” - a bastardization of all that made the original as notable as it was.
In recent times titles like Final Fantasy X and Grand Theft Auto III have reformed, to some extent, what we expect from a game for better or worse. Grand Theft Auto III has all but ruined me for urban action/driving titles that lack the same scope of freedom and elbowroom. Accordingly, Final Fantasy X has driven the commercial stake that much deeper into the heart of the genre (and gaming as a whole) and formed something less like an RPG and more like an interactive blockbuster film with an extreme emphasis on graphics and a healthy helping of everything we already seen before - giving the people what they seem to want.
Ultimately the industry benefits from the progression caused by these evolving games but far too often good games capable of dissolving clichés are largely overlooked and never revisited because of their lack of profit. It’s a shame to see games like Out of this World (SNES), Fade to Black (PS) and about 1/3 of the late Dreamcast’s line up being so disregarded but my favorite example is Shadowrun for SNES. It took a gritty, futuristic street setting and turned it into a strategy/RPG/action game that involved infiltrating corporations, local gangs and complex computer systems. Based on a story from the popular Shadowrun sci-fi technology series it had a novel storyline and an interesting concept akin to movies like the Matrix or Blade Runner. It would be great to see more cliché breaking titles of this sort on the new generation of hardware but content is seemingly being buried underneath the glamorous graphics of the times.
In these times of such commercialism it’s hard to say who has the leading influence on the gaming industry’s direction - the gamers, the marketers, individual developers or the community of developers as a whole. Considering this, it’s clear that the entire system works like a web with each segment in some way manipulating another - we want to play the games we like but where do you draw the line. If developers are so concerned about us when they create games aren’t we bound to play the same thing over and over simply because we keep buying it? Does a development team ever get to realize their own vision and nix the proven clichés if their spectators are looking over their shoulder and into their minds while they’re working? Can creativity ever prevail if their minds are on their money and their money’s on their minds?
Yes. We sit on our couches and armchairs at the threshold of what is hopefully a new era of gaming. Along with new hardware capabilities should come the unbridled potential for new gaming concepts. Hopefully as more independent developers get their wings and the market stream widens to fit three major consoles, the competitive spirit of the days before Playstation will return somewhat. In such a crowded market, you can’t possibly sustain an upwardly moving economy with careless uniformity of concepts and design - original content becomes the ace up the corporate sleeve. With that said, let’s hope these are the bloodiest console wars since the advent of gaming.
That Is the longest post I have ever typed, please read as I have spent a lot of time creating this. Thank you.
Sam41
When someone operates outside of these sorts of clichés and decides to model a game after their own conception of fun we sometimes end up with renowned, genre defining titles like Resident Evil, Virtua Fighter and the Command & Conquer series. Yet all of these titles are perched at the top of a long list of cascading clones and spin-off genres that quickly turn their originality into annoying regulars.
While Resident Evil was not the first of it’s kind, through marketing and appealing game play it became the standard and encouraged the birth of crappy copies like Carrier and inventive titles like Silent Hill. In the case of Silent Hill, the clichés were taken, acknowledged, manipulated and splintered into a respectfully inspired product. On the other hand, what “Doom” was to the “Halo” - a bastardization of all that made the original as notable as it was.
In recent times titles like Final Fantasy X and Grand Theft Auto III have reformed, to some extent, what we expect from a game for better or worse. Grand Theft Auto III has all but ruined me for urban action/driving titles that lack the same scope of freedom and elbowroom. Accordingly, Final Fantasy X has driven the commercial stake that much deeper into the heart of the genre (and gaming as a whole) and formed something less like an RPG and more like an interactive blockbuster film with an extreme emphasis on graphics and a healthy helping of everything we already seen before - giving the people what they seem to want.
Ultimately the industry benefits from the progression caused by these evolving games but far too often good games capable of dissolving clichés are largely overlooked and never revisited because of their lack of profit. It’s a shame to see games like Out of this World (SNES), Fade to Black (PS) and about 1/3 of the late Dreamcast’s line up being so disregarded but my favorite example is Shadowrun for SNES. It took a gritty, futuristic street setting and turned it into a strategy/RPG/action game that involved infiltrating corporations, local gangs and complex computer systems. Based on a story from the popular Shadowrun sci-fi technology series it had a novel storyline and an interesting concept akin to movies like the Matrix or Blade Runner. It would be great to see more cliché breaking titles of this sort on the new generation of hardware but content is seemingly being buried underneath the glamorous graphics of the times.
In these times of such commercialism it’s hard to say who has the leading influence on the gaming industry’s direction - the gamers, the marketers, individual developers or the community of developers as a whole. Considering this, it’s clear that the entire system works like a web with each segment in some way manipulating another - we want to play the games we like but where do you draw the line. If developers are so concerned about us when they create games aren’t we bound to play the same thing over and over simply because we keep buying it? Does a development team ever get to realize their own vision and nix the proven clichés if their spectators are looking over their shoulder and into their minds while they’re working? Can creativity ever prevail if their minds are on their money and their money’s on their minds?
Yes. We sit on our couches and armchairs at the threshold of what is hopefully a new era of gaming. Along with new hardware capabilities should come the unbridled potential for new gaming concepts. Hopefully as more independent developers get their wings and the market stream widens to fit three major consoles, the competitive spirit of the days before Playstation will return somewhat. In such a crowded market, you can’t possibly sustain an upwardly moving economy with careless uniformity of concepts and design - original content becomes the ace up the corporate sleeve. With that said, let’s hope these are the bloodiest console wars since the advent of gaming.
That Is the longest post I have ever typed, please read as I have spent a lot of time creating this. Thank you.
Sam41
Page: