The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 like Worms a lot. You have a team of little worms, and you move them around and blow up another team. It's fun.
I like Diablo 2. I click stuff and it dies. I click faster and it dies faster. I pick stuff up so I can kill stuff quicker and so I don't die. It's fun.
I like Minesweeper. I click stuff and it might blow me up or not. It's exciting.
I wonder how different Minesweeper really is to Diablo 2? What about a game where you have to burst balloons before they reach the top of the screen? How is that much different to Diablo 2?
They both have the same princible. Click stuff to win. Diablo 2 draws out the concept a lot more. It tries to add more excitment. Variety. But in the end, all you're doing is just clicking things in new locations.
And of course, adding the RPG element which seems to have been perfected in The Sims. I'm expecting a large amount of beardy people shouting at me now or something, but there has been no other game that has managed to capture such a large audience and become so addictive.
People are generally addicted to success perhaps because we have no true other reason for staying alive. For games are most fun when you have to make money and can't afford things. You desperately work harder so you can get that faster axe new tv etc.
And it always gets boring as soon as you can do anything you want. There's no challenge.
So could it be possible to make a game that truly never ends? Even though it doesn't seem to, Sim City, The Sims, all games like this do end. You get to the point where you've achieved what you want. And the only way that people can survive that way then, is to find new things that they want. Just like real life.
So it's not just a case of silly little desktop games echoing £40 odd games... it's a case of games echoing life all of a sudden.
Wives who preoccupy themselves by redecorating the house every year. Achievement and change. People who buy film after film after game after book of entertainment. If we could understand how to make the perfect game, then perhaps we could understand how we're supposed to live our lives properly.
But never mind. I think the perfect game's dangerous anyway. Don't make it Jim. Just think about it, and encourage others to live their lives that way.
Because that's what games/books/films should be. Not an escape, more inspiration. Encouragement to live our lives as we wish. Encouragement to have fun, to love, live and stuff.
And it'll be pretty cool if they're fun too. Hurray for fun.
I like Diablo 2. I click stuff and it dies. I click faster and it dies faster. I pick stuff up so I can kill stuff quicker and so I don't die. It's fun.
I like Minesweeper. I click stuff and it might blow me up or not. It's exciting.
I wonder how different Minesweeper really is to Diablo 2? What about a game where you have to burst balloons before they reach the top of the screen? How is that much different to Diablo 2?
They both have the same princible. Click stuff to win. Diablo 2 draws out the concept a lot more. It tries to add more excitment. Variety. But in the end, all you're doing is just clicking things in new locations.
And of course, adding the RPG element which seems to have been perfected in The Sims. I'm expecting a large amount of beardy people shouting at me now or something, but there has been no other game that has managed to capture such a large audience and become so addictive.
People are generally addicted to success perhaps because we have no true other reason for staying alive. For games are most fun when you have to make money and can't afford things. You desperately work harder so you can get that faster axe new tv etc.
And it always gets boring as soon as you can do anything you want. There's no challenge.
So could it be possible to make a game that truly never ends? Even though it doesn't seem to, Sim City, The Sims, all games like this do end. You get to the point where you've achieved what you want. And the only way that people can survive that way then, is to find new things that they want. Just like real life.
So it's not just a case of silly little desktop games echoing £40 odd games... it's a case of games echoing life all of a sudden.
Wives who preoccupy themselves by redecorating the house every year. Achievement and change. People who buy film after film after game after book of entertainment. If we could understand how to make the perfect game, then perhaps we could understand how we're supposed to live our lives properly.
But never mind. I think the perfect game's dangerous anyway. Don't make it Jim. Just think about it, and encourage others to live their lives that way.
Because that's what games/books/films should be. Not an escape, more inspiration. Encouragement to live our lives as we wish. Encouragement to have fun, to love, live and stuff.
And it'll be pretty cool if they're fun too. Hurray for fun.
Page:
Individually, every sentence is crystal clear. Put them all together, and the whole is far murkier than the sum of its parts.
Now, do I have a stab at guessing the meaning of the post, and replying to it? Or do I pick one sentence and go off on a tangent about that instead?
In the case of the former, I'll no doubt get it wrong. Or else there were several 'main points'. Or Grix will say "Actually, there wasn't any real point to it, I was just rambling and being a git again :0D0D0D".
(As I've mentioned this now, sod's law suggests that there was in fact some incredibly obvious and meaningful point to Grix's post)
Git.
:)
Now, do I have a stab at guessing the meaning of the post, and replying to it? Or do I pick one sentence and go off on a tangent about that instead?
In the case of the former, I'll no doubt get it wrong. Or else there were several 'main points'. Or Grix will say "Actually, there wasn't any real point to it, I was just rambling and being a git again :0D0D0D".
(As I've mentioned this now, sod's law suggests that there was in fact some incredibly obvious and meaningful point to Grix's post)
Git.
:)
I like worms.
Bloody hell Grix. Do you have to do a Grix even on posts about games? :D
Blame the crappy school computers... :-D
By the by, Worms 3 is meant to be 3D.
Wouldn't it be good if the whole game was like the FMV sequences in the original (they were FMV sequences that even YOU must've liked, Grix, and that's REALLY saying something! :-)).
That sniffing homing missile would be cool with modern AI...
Wouldn't it be good if the whole game was like the FMV sequences in the original (they were FMV sequences that even YOU must've liked, Grix, and that's REALLY saying something! :-)).
That sniffing homing missile would be cool with modern AI...
By the by, Worms 3 is meant to be 3D.
Wouldn't it be good if the whole game was like the FMV sequences in the original (they were FMV sequences that even YOU must've liked, Grix, and that's REALLY saying something! :-)).
That sniffing homing missile would be cool with modern AI...
Wouldn't it be good if the whole game was like the FMV sequences in the original (they were FMV sequences that even YOU must've liked, Grix, and that's REALLY saying something! :-)).
That sniffing homing missile would be cool with modern AI...
Grix Thraves wrote:
>I like the original better, the physics just feel much
> better.
Me too. Worms United was the ultimate worms game for me.
Unfortunately, it had a few bugs in it which crashed the machine (so badly that we had to get it repaired a couple of times), that my mum and dad banned the game from being played (they needed the PC for work you see).
Worms 2 was quite good, but I never liked it as much as the first.
>I like the original better, the physics just feel much
> better.
Me too. Worms United was the ultimate worms game for me.
Unfortunately, it had a few bugs in it which crashed the machine (so badly that we had to get it repaired a couple of times), that my mum and dad banned the game from being played (they needed the PC for work you see).
Worms 2 was quite good, but I never liked it as much as the first.
Worms armageddon is a good incarnation. The single player is quite vast.
It wasn't about pressing buttons.
I have Worms World Party now, haven't played it long, doesn't seem that bad. I like the original better, the physics just feel much better.
What don't you like about it?
I have Worms World Party now, haven't played it long, doesn't seem that bad. I like the original better, the physics just feel much better.
What don't you like about it?
All games are little more than a combination of button/key presses and mouse movements.
If you could set up a programme which recorded your action while playing a game, then played them back to you afterwards against a blank DOS screen, it would seem ludicrous.
If you could set up a programme which recorded your action while playing a game, then played them back to you afterwards against a blank DOS screen, it would seem ludicrous.
Page: