The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yes, punks, that's a quote from Top Gun........
Anyone who was looking for Hard Drugs, look elsewhere, and don't forget to pay your rent this month............
Right, I'm going to laugh at anyone who decided that releasing a game based on the Top Gun license was a good idea.......
*snigger*
Now I'm going to appluad Namco for releasing the best Top Gun game ever.
*applauds*
Yes, I know Ace combat 4 wasn't an officially licensed Top Gun product, but anyone who tells me that they didn't try to buy an F-14 Tomcat as soon as they possibly could, or even pretend that they could here Goose singing great balls of fire from the co-pilot seat, is a liar.......
There is a thing about this game that very few others have, and it was made all the more special by the fact that I love planes, and Top Gun. GT3 was the same, I love cars, and I usually love movies about cars. GT3 and The Fast and The Furious had a good tie in last summer. This usually makes games all a little more pleasant having a good movie to watch and put you in the mood for a go at whatever game it was.
So why is it that movie tie in games suck? Well, it's simple. Officially licenced movie titles are design to folow the script, atmosphere and style of a movie, and as we have already seen, this isn't always a pretty transition. You could probably count the number of good licenced games on one hand from the past 5 years, and still be struggling with any more than one.
Yep Goldeneye had what it takes to be a brilliant game in it's own right. That's what sets it apart from any other movie tie in. The multiplayer aspect of Goldeneye was a joyful experience, especially with enough mates to actually enjoy playing the game with. The single player followed the locations of the film, but it didn't try to tell the story of the game, merely use events in the film as set targets for the player to achieve.
That's where Goldeneye was a complete package, it was a kick *backside*(damn filter) game, and it had kick *backside*(damn filter) objectives set for the single player experience. On the other side if the games industry, some excellently realised games don't hold a light to the completeness of Goldeneye because they don't have this brilliant story/single player objectiveness about them. Timesplitters being an obvious example in recent times.
What I'm really trying to say is, games come as different sections. And for a game to be good, it really needs to have lots of different things done well to stand a chance of being successful. There are many examples, but the next big one to hit our shores will be MGS2. The demo, and the length of time people have spent playing it, shows that this game rocks on the basic gameplay level, whether it holds the same classic status which Goldeneye achieved will be determined on how good the objectives for the single player game are, and how well the game engine is used to challenge the player.
Anyone who was looking for Hard Drugs, look elsewhere, and don't forget to pay your rent this month............
Right, I'm going to laugh at anyone who decided that releasing a game based on the Top Gun license was a good idea.......
*snigger*
Now I'm going to appluad Namco for releasing the best Top Gun game ever.
*applauds*
Yes, I know Ace combat 4 wasn't an officially licensed Top Gun product, but anyone who tells me that they didn't try to buy an F-14 Tomcat as soon as they possibly could, or even pretend that they could here Goose singing great balls of fire from the co-pilot seat, is a liar.......
There is a thing about this game that very few others have, and it was made all the more special by the fact that I love planes, and Top Gun. GT3 was the same, I love cars, and I usually love movies about cars. GT3 and The Fast and The Furious had a good tie in last summer. This usually makes games all a little more pleasant having a good movie to watch and put you in the mood for a go at whatever game it was.
So why is it that movie tie in games suck? Well, it's simple. Officially licenced movie titles are design to folow the script, atmosphere and style of a movie, and as we have already seen, this isn't always a pretty transition. You could probably count the number of good licenced games on one hand from the past 5 years, and still be struggling with any more than one.
Yep Goldeneye had what it takes to be a brilliant game in it's own right. That's what sets it apart from any other movie tie in. The multiplayer aspect of Goldeneye was a joyful experience, especially with enough mates to actually enjoy playing the game with. The single player followed the locations of the film, but it didn't try to tell the story of the game, merely use events in the film as set targets for the player to achieve.
That's where Goldeneye was a complete package, it was a kick *backside*(damn filter) game, and it had kick *backside*(damn filter) objectives set for the single player experience. On the other side if the games industry, some excellently realised games don't hold a light to the completeness of Goldeneye because they don't have this brilliant story/single player objectiveness about them. Timesplitters being an obvious example in recent times.
What I'm really trying to say is, games come as different sections. And for a game to be good, it really needs to have lots of different things done well to stand a chance of being successful. There are many examples, but the next big one to hit our shores will be MGS2. The demo, and the length of time people have spent playing it, shows that this game rocks on the basic gameplay level, whether it holds the same classic status which Goldeneye achieved will be determined on how good the objectives for the single player game are, and how well the game engine is used to challenge the player.
Agreed, although I'm sure Die Hard counts as "The Last 5 years".
Yes, punks, that's a quote from Top Gun........
Anyone who was looking for Hard Drugs, look elsewhere, and don't forget to pay your rent this month............
Right, I'm going to laugh at anyone who decided that releasing a game based on the Top Gun license was a good idea.......
*snigger*
Now I'm going to appluad Namco for releasing the best Top Gun game ever.
*applauds*
Yes, I know Ace combat 4 wasn't an officially licensed Top Gun product, but anyone who tells me that they didn't try to buy an F-14 Tomcat as soon as they possibly could, or even pretend that they could here Goose singing great balls of fire from the co-pilot seat, is a liar.......
There is a thing about this game that very few others have, and it was made all the more special by the fact that I love planes, and Top Gun. GT3 was the same, I love cars, and I usually love movies about cars. GT3 and The Fast and The Furious had a good tie in last summer. This usually makes games all a little more pleasant having a good movie to watch and put you in the mood for a go at whatever game it was.
So why is it that movie tie in games suck? Well, it's simple. Officially licenced movie titles are design to folow the script, atmosphere and style of a movie, and as we have already seen, this isn't always a pretty transition. You could probably count the number of good licenced games on one hand from the past 5 years, and still be struggling with any more than one.
Yep Goldeneye had what it takes to be a brilliant game in it's own right. That's what sets it apart from any other movie tie in. The multiplayer aspect of Goldeneye was a joyful experience, especially with enough mates to actually enjoy playing the game with. The single player followed the locations of the film, but it didn't try to tell the story of the game, merely use events in the film as set targets for the player to achieve.
That's where Goldeneye was a complete package, it was a kick *backside*(damn filter) game, and it had kick *backside*(damn filter) objectives set for the single player experience. On the other side if the games industry, some excellently realised games don't hold a light to the completeness of Goldeneye because they don't have this brilliant story/single player objectiveness about them. Timesplitters being an obvious example in recent times.
What I'm really trying to say is, games come as different sections. And for a game to be good, it really needs to have lots of different things done well to stand a chance of being successful. There are many examples, but the next big one to hit our shores will be MGS2. The demo, and the length of time people have spent playing it, shows that this game rocks on the basic gameplay level, whether it holds the same classic status which Goldeneye achieved will be determined on how good the objectives for the single player game are, and how well the game engine is used to challenge the player.
Anyone who was looking for Hard Drugs, look elsewhere, and don't forget to pay your rent this month............
Right, I'm going to laugh at anyone who decided that releasing a game based on the Top Gun license was a good idea.......
*snigger*
Now I'm going to appluad Namco for releasing the best Top Gun game ever.
*applauds*
Yes, I know Ace combat 4 wasn't an officially licensed Top Gun product, but anyone who tells me that they didn't try to buy an F-14 Tomcat as soon as they possibly could, or even pretend that they could here Goose singing great balls of fire from the co-pilot seat, is a liar.......
There is a thing about this game that very few others have, and it was made all the more special by the fact that I love planes, and Top Gun. GT3 was the same, I love cars, and I usually love movies about cars. GT3 and The Fast and The Furious had a good tie in last summer. This usually makes games all a little more pleasant having a good movie to watch and put you in the mood for a go at whatever game it was.
So why is it that movie tie in games suck? Well, it's simple. Officially licenced movie titles are design to folow the script, atmosphere and style of a movie, and as we have already seen, this isn't always a pretty transition. You could probably count the number of good licenced games on one hand from the past 5 years, and still be struggling with any more than one.
Yep Goldeneye had what it takes to be a brilliant game in it's own right. That's what sets it apart from any other movie tie in. The multiplayer aspect of Goldeneye was a joyful experience, especially with enough mates to actually enjoy playing the game with. The single player followed the locations of the film, but it didn't try to tell the story of the game, merely use events in the film as set targets for the player to achieve.
That's where Goldeneye was a complete package, it was a kick *backside*(damn filter) game, and it had kick *backside*(damn filter) objectives set for the single player experience. On the other side if the games industry, some excellently realised games don't hold a light to the completeness of Goldeneye because they don't have this brilliant story/single player objectiveness about them. Timesplitters being an obvious example in recent times.
What I'm really trying to say is, games come as different sections. And for a game to be good, it really needs to have lots of different things done well to stand a chance of being successful. There are many examples, but the next big one to hit our shores will be MGS2. The demo, and the length of time people have spent playing it, shows that this game rocks on the basic gameplay level, whether it holds the same classic status which Goldeneye achieved will be determined on how good the objectives for the single player game are, and how well the game engine is used to challenge the player.