The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
(I could make this a poncy rant, but I don't want to. Nur.)
I'm not an intelligent gamer. I want simplicity and enjoyment.
Graphics are silly and stupid. They really are. I played a Gamecube, an N64 and a SNES today, and for some stupid reason, the N64's looked outdated, the Gamecube's good, and the Snes' good. Graphics don't matter, it's not about how realistic a game looks, it's about the playing of it. The Super Mario games for the SNES are far better and clearer than, say, the Final Fantasy games on the Playstation. It's clear and simple, not all blurred. This is quite familiar with the subject of 2-D games and 3-D games.
Sometimes, 3-D doesn't make a game good, sometimes it does, and vice-versa with 2-D. Why don't they make new 2-D games anymore? I can think of some real pieces of rubbish that come out these days, that no-one actually buys, and how brilliant some older stuff is, even if it's mainstream. If it's about making money, than I can tell you - a new Mario 2-D game would sell so much more than some advertisment material, from it's subject, the word of mouth and reviews. It could probably be made much cheaper, and would please the public by bringing out newer old-fashioned games faster.
Now for what I want out of my games:
In, shoot-em-ups I want mindless action, the possibility of blasting things even if no sense is involved, and a good multi-player. One word: Goldeneye. Not some stealth-obsessed thing; games for ME are about not thinking at all. Beat-em-ups need button-bashing enjoyement, fast-paced, and some good looking moves. Because it makes me feel better. The Tekken series were good for this. Not some slow Virtua Fighter rubbish. Racing? Simple. Press and hold A or X or whatever to move forward. Easy turning. The possibility of being to get some power-up that you can shoot/throw at others. Not slow, not sharp turns, just simple. A game should get harder as it goes on, because you should improve with it's difficulty pace, not force you into long and hard boredom, a la Turok. If you're gonna make a game original, make it SIMPLE.
*hiccups*
AND another thing...
*takes another swig*
Franchises are weird. In films, when it's a sequel, you've usually got crap on your hands, and the same can be said often for big blockbusters. In games, though, it's quite the opposite, and the best games are often from big developers, or based on films and books, eg. Goldeneye.
In conclusion, Coke is better than Pepsi.
I'm not an intelligent gamer. I want simplicity and enjoyment.
Graphics are silly and stupid. They really are. I played a Gamecube, an N64 and a SNES today, and for some stupid reason, the N64's looked outdated, the Gamecube's good, and the Snes' good. Graphics don't matter, it's not about how realistic a game looks, it's about the playing of it. The Super Mario games for the SNES are far better and clearer than, say, the Final Fantasy games on the Playstation. It's clear and simple, not all blurred. This is quite familiar with the subject of 2-D games and 3-D games.
Sometimes, 3-D doesn't make a game good, sometimes it does, and vice-versa with 2-D. Why don't they make new 2-D games anymore? I can think of some real pieces of rubbish that come out these days, that no-one actually buys, and how brilliant some older stuff is, even if it's mainstream. If it's about making money, than I can tell you - a new Mario 2-D game would sell so much more than some advertisment material, from it's subject, the word of mouth and reviews. It could probably be made much cheaper, and would please the public by bringing out newer old-fashioned games faster.
Now for what I want out of my games:
In, shoot-em-ups I want mindless action, the possibility of blasting things even if no sense is involved, and a good multi-player. One word: Goldeneye. Not some stealth-obsessed thing; games for ME are about not thinking at all. Beat-em-ups need button-bashing enjoyement, fast-paced, and some good looking moves. Because it makes me feel better. The Tekken series were good for this. Not some slow Virtua Fighter rubbish. Racing? Simple. Press and hold A or X or whatever to move forward. Easy turning. The possibility of being to get some power-up that you can shoot/throw at others. Not slow, not sharp turns, just simple. A game should get harder as it goes on, because you should improve with it's difficulty pace, not force you into long and hard boredom, a la Turok. If you're gonna make a game original, make it SIMPLE.
*hiccups*
AND another thing...
*takes another swig*
Franchises are weird. In films, when it's a sequel, you've usually got crap on your hands, and the same can be said often for big blockbusters. In games, though, it's quite the opposite, and the best games are often from big developers, or based on films and books, eg. Goldeneye.
In conclusion, Coke is better than Pepsi.
allardini wrote:
> In conclusion, Coke is better than Pepsi.
You go.... erm..... person!
Pepsi is a cheap knock off which is smelly when compared to the Real Thing!
> In conclusion, Coke is better than Pepsi.
You go.... erm..... person!
Pepsi is a cheap knock off which is smelly when compared to the Real Thing!
(I could make this a poncy rant, but I don't want to. Nur.)
I'm not an intelligent gamer. I want simplicity and enjoyment.
Graphics are silly and stupid. They really are. I played a Gamecube, an N64 and a SNES today, and for some stupid reason, the N64's looked outdated, the Gamecube's good, and the Snes' good. Graphics don't matter, it's not about how realistic a game looks, it's about the playing of it. The Super Mario games for the SNES are far better and clearer than, say, the Final Fantasy games on the Playstation. It's clear and simple, not all blurred. This is quite familiar with the subject of 2-D games and 3-D games.
Sometimes, 3-D doesn't make a game good, sometimes it does, and vice-versa with 2-D. Why don't they make new 2-D games anymore? I can think of some real pieces of rubbish that come out these days, that no-one actually buys, and how brilliant some older stuff is, even if it's mainstream. If it's about making money, than I can tell you - a new Mario 2-D game would sell so much more than some advertisment material, from it's subject, the word of mouth and reviews. It could probably be made much cheaper, and would please the public by bringing out newer old-fashioned games faster.
Now for what I want out of my games:
In, shoot-em-ups I want mindless action, the possibility of blasting things even if no sense is involved, and a good multi-player. One word: Goldeneye. Not some stealth-obsessed thing; games for ME are about not thinking at all. Beat-em-ups need button-bashing enjoyement, fast-paced, and some good looking moves. Because it makes me feel better. The Tekken series were good for this. Not some slow Virtua Fighter rubbish. Racing? Simple. Press and hold A or X or whatever to move forward. Easy turning. The possibility of being to get some power-up that you can shoot/throw at others. Not slow, not sharp turns, just simple. A game should get harder as it goes on, because you should improve with it's difficulty pace, not force you into long and hard boredom, a la Turok. If you're gonna make a game original, make it SIMPLE.
*hiccups*
AND another thing...
*takes another swig*
Franchises are weird. In films, when it's a sequel, you've usually got crap on your hands, and the same can be said often for big blockbusters. In games, though, it's quite the opposite, and the best games are often from big developers, or based on films and books, eg. Goldeneye.
In conclusion, Coke is better than Pepsi.
I'm not an intelligent gamer. I want simplicity and enjoyment.
Graphics are silly and stupid. They really are. I played a Gamecube, an N64 and a SNES today, and for some stupid reason, the N64's looked outdated, the Gamecube's good, and the Snes' good. Graphics don't matter, it's not about how realistic a game looks, it's about the playing of it. The Super Mario games for the SNES are far better and clearer than, say, the Final Fantasy games on the Playstation. It's clear and simple, not all blurred. This is quite familiar with the subject of 2-D games and 3-D games.
Sometimes, 3-D doesn't make a game good, sometimes it does, and vice-versa with 2-D. Why don't they make new 2-D games anymore? I can think of some real pieces of rubbish that come out these days, that no-one actually buys, and how brilliant some older stuff is, even if it's mainstream. If it's about making money, than I can tell you - a new Mario 2-D game would sell so much more than some advertisment material, from it's subject, the word of mouth and reviews. It could probably be made much cheaper, and would please the public by bringing out newer old-fashioned games faster.
Now for what I want out of my games:
In, shoot-em-ups I want mindless action, the possibility of blasting things even if no sense is involved, and a good multi-player. One word: Goldeneye. Not some stealth-obsessed thing; games for ME are about not thinking at all. Beat-em-ups need button-bashing enjoyement, fast-paced, and some good looking moves. Because it makes me feel better. The Tekken series were good for this. Not some slow Virtua Fighter rubbish. Racing? Simple. Press and hold A or X or whatever to move forward. Easy turning. The possibility of being to get some power-up that you can shoot/throw at others. Not slow, not sharp turns, just simple. A game should get harder as it goes on, because you should improve with it's difficulty pace, not force you into long and hard boredom, a la Turok. If you're gonna make a game original, make it SIMPLE.
*hiccups*
AND another thing...
*takes another swig*
Franchises are weird. In films, when it's a sequel, you've usually got crap on your hands, and the same can be said often for big blockbusters. In games, though, it's quite the opposite, and the best games are often from big developers, or based on films and books, eg. Goldeneye.
In conclusion, Coke is better than Pepsi.