The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Rewards. Rewards are mainly why we do everything. So why is it in games that we often do not get what we want? Only a very very few top top games give us the rewards we want, and thats often just finishing the game. A rewad usualy comes at the end of a game - the final 'video' or whatever. Its why we play.
Nintendo have gone some way to rewarding players with 'proper' things. The VIP cards mean that you can get Stars to get certain prizes. Regardless of the fact that you spend more on games than the object itself, and thats just for buying, not playing. However, it is a way of getting people to play games, and so perhaps, a way of making them enjoy it more. On the other hand, the reward itself could be classified as the game - Mario Sunshine or Halo 2 would be rewarding just for themselves.
Hence there are two opposite ends of this. On one hand, we have games that are so good that they are rewarding in just being what they are, and for finishing them - Zelda OOT is the prime example of this. However, this depends on a perfect blend of life, difficulty and fun - if you don't want to, or can't play a game, the reward must be big for you to bother finishing. On the other hand, we have games that are far less well made, and provide less of a reward in playing them, and so are les enjoyable. Then we have the middle - good/bad games that offer great rewards at the end, or good/bad games that do not. We have even perhaps, gone to far - Mario Sunshine is so rewarding to play, just for enjoyment, that when you finish you are dissapointed - nothing 'appears'. The fact is the game itself is the good bit.
So. A less well made/popular game, to attract customers, apart from the usual, needs to have a reward at the end. Perhaps, now, that could actualy be a tangible product, that you actualy 'win' for completing a game. This could dramaticly 'help' a games life on the shelf, if it offered more than just (as is likely) a sub-standard plot, and so a sub-standard ending - i.e reward. Therefore, you would want to play, to actualy win something, especialy if the game is poorer than others.
On the other hand, 'better' games like Mario, Halo, Zelda and the FF series are so well made that they do not need to offer rewards - the reward itself is the game, and especial the ending, which you want (and don't want at times) to reach. What I am saying, is to establish a balance, lesser games should offer a more rewarding experiance - perhaps in the form of bribery, i.e. a product. Of course, I'd rather they actualy made a rewarding game, but it might mean they sell more. Some brilliant games are left alone, as they don't offer anything new - a new reward, in the form of an original story of idea. MechCommander 2 is an example. Only 15,000 people got it, me include, in the UK. Its a good, large and fun game. But it offered little reward compared to other games. An extra reward element could have saved it. As it is, it sank.
So, a reward can be a game in its entirity (in which case its very very special or anticpated) or less good, but one that offers a product? Maybe. What do you think? Should less well known games, 'bribe' the consumer with rewards in the form of products. I'd rather they made better games, but what do you think?
Nintendo have gone some way to rewarding players with 'proper' things. The VIP cards mean that you can get Stars to get certain prizes. Regardless of the fact that you spend more on games than the object itself, and thats just for buying, not playing. However, it is a way of getting people to play games, and so perhaps, a way of making them enjoy it more. On the other hand, the reward itself could be classified as the game - Mario Sunshine or Halo 2 would be rewarding just for themselves.
Hence there are two opposite ends of this. On one hand, we have games that are so good that they are rewarding in just being what they are, and for finishing them - Zelda OOT is the prime example of this. However, this depends on a perfect blend of life, difficulty and fun - if you don't want to, or can't play a game, the reward must be big for you to bother finishing. On the other hand, we have games that are far less well made, and provide less of a reward in playing them, and so are les enjoyable. Then we have the middle - good/bad games that offer great rewards at the end, or good/bad games that do not. We have even perhaps, gone to far - Mario Sunshine is so rewarding to play, just for enjoyment, that when you finish you are dissapointed - nothing 'appears'. The fact is the game itself is the good bit.
So. A less well made/popular game, to attract customers, apart from the usual, needs to have a reward at the end. Perhaps, now, that could actualy be a tangible product, that you actualy 'win' for completing a game. This could dramaticly 'help' a games life on the shelf, if it offered more than just (as is likely) a sub-standard plot, and so a sub-standard ending - i.e reward. Therefore, you would want to play, to actualy win something, especialy if the game is poorer than others.
On the other hand, 'better' games like Mario, Halo, Zelda and the FF series are so well made that they do not need to offer rewards - the reward itself is the game, and especial the ending, which you want (and don't want at times) to reach. What I am saying, is to establish a balance, lesser games should offer a more rewarding experiance - perhaps in the form of bribery, i.e. a product. Of course, I'd rather they actualy made a rewarding game, but it might mean they sell more. Some brilliant games are left alone, as they don't offer anything new - a new reward, in the form of an original story of idea. MechCommander 2 is an example. Only 15,000 people got it, me include, in the UK. Its a good, large and fun game. But it offered little reward compared to other games. An extra reward element could have saved it. As it is, it sank.
So, a reward can be a game in its entirity (in which case its very very special or anticpated) or less good, but one that offers a product? Maybe. What do you think? Should less well known games, 'bribe' the consumer with rewards in the form of products. I'd rather they made better games, but what do you think?
Would people quit harping on about rewards? Isn't it enough to unlock a new track or something? Just about all games do this. You don't win prizes for watching a film, or reading a book do you?
Thats the point - if a game is brilliant in itself, then thats the reward. Just for more bog-standard games, it would be nicer to have more rewarding aspects.
Rewards. Hm.
I can see your point, but surely the game itself, and the way the plot unfolds. The special weapons/features and the boss/ending should be the reward?
However. I do see your point. Maybe some extra features. Extra modes or something would be better?
Not entirely sure. But good point raised.
I can see your point, but surely the game itself, and the way the plot unfolds. The special weapons/features and the boss/ending should be the reward?
However. I do see your point. Maybe some extra features. Extra modes or something would be better?
Not entirely sure. But good point raised.
Rewards. Rewards are mainly why we do everything. So why is it in games that we often do not get what we want? Only a very very few top top games give us the rewards we want, and thats often just finishing the game. A rewad usualy comes at the end of a game - the final 'video' or whatever. Its why we play.
Nintendo have gone some way to rewarding players with 'proper' things. The VIP cards mean that you can get Stars to get certain prizes. Regardless of the fact that you spend more on games than the object itself, and thats just for buying, not playing. However, it is a way of getting people to play games, and so perhaps, a way of making them enjoy it more. On the other hand, the reward itself could be classified as the game - Mario Sunshine or Halo 2 would be rewarding just for themselves.
Hence there are two opposite ends of this. On one hand, we have games that are so good that they are rewarding in just being what they are, and for finishing them - Zelda OOT is the prime example of this. However, this depends on a perfect blend of life, difficulty and fun - if you don't want to, or can't play a game, the reward must be big for you to bother finishing. On the other hand, we have games that are far less well made, and provide less of a reward in playing them, and so are les enjoyable. Then we have the middle - good/bad games that offer great rewards at the end, or good/bad games that do not. We have even perhaps, gone to far - Mario Sunshine is so rewarding to play, just for enjoyment, that when you finish you are dissapointed - nothing 'appears'. The fact is the game itself is the good bit.
So. A less well made/popular game, to attract customers, apart from the usual, needs to have a reward at the end. Perhaps, now, that could actualy be a tangible product, that you actualy 'win' for completing a game. This could dramaticly 'help' a games life on the shelf, if it offered more than just (as is likely) a sub-standard plot, and so a sub-standard ending - i.e reward. Therefore, you would want to play, to actualy win something, especialy if the game is poorer than others.
On the other hand, 'better' games like Mario, Halo, Zelda and the FF series are so well made that they do not need to offer rewards - the reward itself is the game, and especial the ending, which you want (and don't want at times) to reach. What I am saying, is to establish a balance, lesser games should offer a more rewarding experiance - perhaps in the form of bribery, i.e. a product. Of course, I'd rather they actualy made a rewarding game, but it might mean they sell more. Some brilliant games are left alone, as they don't offer anything new - a new reward, in the form of an original story of idea. MechCommander 2 is an example. Only 15,000 people got it, me include, in the UK. Its a good, large and fun game. But it offered little reward compared to other games. An extra reward element could have saved it. As it is, it sank.
So, a reward can be a game in its entirity (in which case its very very special or anticpated) or less good, but one that offers a product? Maybe. What do you think? Should less well known games, 'bribe' the consumer with rewards in the form of products. I'd rather they made better games, but what do you think?
Nintendo have gone some way to rewarding players with 'proper' things. The VIP cards mean that you can get Stars to get certain prizes. Regardless of the fact that you spend more on games than the object itself, and thats just for buying, not playing. However, it is a way of getting people to play games, and so perhaps, a way of making them enjoy it more. On the other hand, the reward itself could be classified as the game - Mario Sunshine or Halo 2 would be rewarding just for themselves.
Hence there are two opposite ends of this. On one hand, we have games that are so good that they are rewarding in just being what they are, and for finishing them - Zelda OOT is the prime example of this. However, this depends on a perfect blend of life, difficulty and fun - if you don't want to, or can't play a game, the reward must be big for you to bother finishing. On the other hand, we have games that are far less well made, and provide less of a reward in playing them, and so are les enjoyable. Then we have the middle - good/bad games that offer great rewards at the end, or good/bad games that do not. We have even perhaps, gone to far - Mario Sunshine is so rewarding to play, just for enjoyment, that when you finish you are dissapointed - nothing 'appears'. The fact is the game itself is the good bit.
So. A less well made/popular game, to attract customers, apart from the usual, needs to have a reward at the end. Perhaps, now, that could actualy be a tangible product, that you actualy 'win' for completing a game. This could dramaticly 'help' a games life on the shelf, if it offered more than just (as is likely) a sub-standard plot, and so a sub-standard ending - i.e reward. Therefore, you would want to play, to actualy win something, especialy if the game is poorer than others.
On the other hand, 'better' games like Mario, Halo, Zelda and the FF series are so well made that they do not need to offer rewards - the reward itself is the game, and especial the ending, which you want (and don't want at times) to reach. What I am saying, is to establish a balance, lesser games should offer a more rewarding experiance - perhaps in the form of bribery, i.e. a product. Of course, I'd rather they actualy made a rewarding game, but it might mean they sell more. Some brilliant games are left alone, as they don't offer anything new - a new reward, in the form of an original story of idea. MechCommander 2 is an example. Only 15,000 people got it, me include, in the UK. Its a good, large and fun game. But it offered little reward compared to other games. An extra reward element could have saved it. As it is, it sank.
So, a reward can be a game in its entirity (in which case its very very special or anticpated) or less good, but one that offers a product? Maybe. What do you think? Should less well known games, 'bribe' the consumer with rewards in the form of products. I'd rather they made better games, but what do you think?