The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Something that came to me earlier on today, Good idea, pants game. Many many times I have thought this after reading about or playing/watching a game. The idea behind the game is good and one that you feel could make a very interesting and decent game but then it comes to the final version and we see that it hasn't turned out exactly the way they said and the way we hoped it would.
I have played games, well at least tried too for nearly 14 years, if not more. In that time I have seen a lot of good games, a fair number of brilliant games but also some very poor games. The latter probably containing the most number of games. I thought that as the technology improved the standard of games would also improve and it has but still there are games that spoil it all.
All games are made for one reason. Money. Sure some developers like producing games for us all to play but they ultimately do it for the profits. It is an industry that if you do well you will be rewarded in a big way. These days most games cost millions to make but the profits that can be made are well worth the risk.
On average with every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has over 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors which then leads on to the release of fixes and patches) so there isn't much surprise that games have bugs but most developers can keep these to a minimum which don't spoil the game at all.
There are a few reasons why some games don't match expectations and can only be described as pants.
Many games have turned out similar to this. All games released have an idea, a storyline behind them. Sometimes the developers and all the rest of the people who work on the games production get it right and release a game that can only be described as a classic or as a great game. I'm not sure whether it is the hype surrounding most games or the way we know so much about games because of advertising in magazines etc that make the final versions sometimes not as good as we hoped. But the basic ideas behind most games good or bad usually make us think "hey maybe another developer could make a game like this but better."
Anyone remember the bouncer? A scrolling beat em up that looked good and was a good idea as games like this were popular and also had little competition. But sadly the gameplay sucked, spoiled the game completely. An example as a good idea but a pants game.
What started me on all this today was looking through a magaizne and seeing "Knightrider" the game comming out for the PS2 in the future. Now to me knightrider was what television was about as a kid, but the game just looked pants. All in car action which would bore you to bits within a few hours. Surely the idea could have been made a lot better, look at games like GTA3, Mafia, Hitman etc. These are the standards we will compare every game to know so we could walk about town as Michael Knight, Call on KIT to come to our need etc and make a much better game out of it all. If only.
To me the best game ever would be one based on "The A-Team", already have the basic characters in Mr T, Face, Hanibal and Murdoch. The storyline is the same, beat the bad guys but other than that the developer would have the artistic licence to make it as they wish. Now maybe they just can't get teh rights to do it. Or don't think it would be popular or just don't want too.
For me it would be like GTA3/Mafia in that you control the character you wish in a third person view and can interact with the city you are in and the buildings/vehicles etc. Is it too much to ask for the majority of games we see released to be more than just a good idea but also to be a good game? I just hope one day an A-Team game is released which is as good as the idea for it.
There is a new game due out for the PS2 later this year, "Good cop, Bad cop" where you take control of a cop and can decide if they are a straight - stick to the laws cop or maybe a crooked - Dirty Harry style cop who breaks some of the rules to nail the bad guys. I don't know a lot about this game but hopefully it will be as good as the idea sounds. I did a game idea on a police game a while back (In the game ideas forum), maybe it will be a little like that. Now to me the idea of this game does sound good, along with many other ideas that have come and been used but will the final game be good?
One thing that annoys me about all this is the fact that when one developer tries an idea others don't usually want to try it no matter how succesful the other developers was. So we see games that have a great idea and potential to be great but don't turn out the way we sometimes hoped. So what could the industry learn from all this. Well I guess that in a perfect world every game released would be great. The best they could be to match the time they were released. But we don't live in a perfect world, so why don't other developers take ideas from games that don't do so well. There are so many games that come and go that are disapointing and sometimes you just wish that some other decent developer would have a go at the same kind of thing - well I do anyway. What about you?
I have played games, well at least tried too for nearly 14 years, if not more. In that time I have seen a lot of good games, a fair number of brilliant games but also some very poor games. The latter probably containing the most number of games. I thought that as the technology improved the standard of games would also improve and it has but still there are games that spoil it all.
All games are made for one reason. Money. Sure some developers like producing games for us all to play but they ultimately do it for the profits. It is an industry that if you do well you will be rewarded in a big way. These days most games cost millions to make but the profits that can be made are well worth the risk.
On average with every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has over 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors which then leads on to the release of fixes and patches) so there isn't much surprise that games have bugs but most developers can keep these to a minimum which don't spoil the game at all.
There are a few reasons why some games don't match expectations and can only be described as pants.
Many games have turned out similar to this. All games released have an idea, a storyline behind them. Sometimes the developers and all the rest of the people who work on the games production get it right and release a game that can only be described as a classic or as a great game. I'm not sure whether it is the hype surrounding most games or the way we know so much about games because of advertising in magazines etc that make the final versions sometimes not as good as we hoped. But the basic ideas behind most games good or bad usually make us think "hey maybe another developer could make a game like this but better."
Anyone remember the bouncer? A scrolling beat em up that looked good and was a good idea as games like this were popular and also had little competition. But sadly the gameplay sucked, spoiled the game completely. An example as a good idea but a pants game.
What started me on all this today was looking through a magaizne and seeing "Knightrider" the game comming out for the PS2 in the future. Now to me knightrider was what television was about as a kid, but the game just looked pants. All in car action which would bore you to bits within a few hours. Surely the idea could have been made a lot better, look at games like GTA3, Mafia, Hitman etc. These are the standards we will compare every game to know so we could walk about town as Michael Knight, Call on KIT to come to our need etc and make a much better game out of it all. If only.
To me the best game ever would be one based on "The A-Team", already have the basic characters in Mr T, Face, Hanibal and Murdoch. The storyline is the same, beat the bad guys but other than that the developer would have the artistic licence to make it as they wish. Now maybe they just can't get teh rights to do it. Or don't think it would be popular or just don't want too.
For me it would be like GTA3/Mafia in that you control the character you wish in a third person view and can interact with the city you are in and the buildings/vehicles etc. Is it too much to ask for the majority of games we see released to be more than just a good idea but also to be a good game? I just hope one day an A-Team game is released which is as good as the idea for it.
There is a new game due out for the PS2 later this year, "Good cop, Bad cop" where you take control of a cop and can decide if they are a straight - stick to the laws cop or maybe a crooked - Dirty Harry style cop who breaks some of the rules to nail the bad guys. I don't know a lot about this game but hopefully it will be as good as the idea sounds. I did a game idea on a police game a while back (In the game ideas forum), maybe it will be a little like that. Now to me the idea of this game does sound good, along with many other ideas that have come and been used but will the final game be good?
One thing that annoys me about all this is the fact that when one developer tries an idea others don't usually want to try it no matter how succesful the other developers was. So we see games that have a great idea and potential to be great but don't turn out the way we sometimes hoped. So what could the industry learn from all this. Well I guess that in a perfect world every game released would be great. The best they could be to match the time they were released. But we don't live in a perfect world, so why don't other developers take ideas from games that don't do so well. There are so many games that come and go that are disapointing and sometimes you just wish that some other decent developer would have a go at the same kind of thing - well I do anyway. What about you?
The A Team 'I pity you fool'
Worth spending £40 on.
Worth spending £40 on.
Hey.....I liked The Bouncer.....
Something that came to me earlier on today, Good idea, pants game. Many many times I have thought this after reading about or playing/watching a game. The idea behind the game is good and one that you feel could make a very interesting and decent game but then it comes to the final version and we see that it hasn't turned out exactly the way they said and the way we hoped it would.
I have played games, well at least tried too for nearly 14 years, if not more. In that time I have seen a lot of good games, a fair number of brilliant games but also some very poor games. The latter probably containing the most number of games. I thought that as the technology improved the standard of games would also improve and it has but still there are games that spoil it all.
All games are made for one reason. Money. Sure some developers like producing games for us all to play but they ultimately do it for the profits. It is an industry that if you do well you will be rewarded in a big way. These days most games cost millions to make but the profits that can be made are well worth the risk.
On average with every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has over 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors which then leads on to the release of fixes and patches) so there isn't much surprise that games have bugs but most developers can keep these to a minimum which don't spoil the game at all.
There are a few reasons why some games don't match expectations and can only be described as pants.
Many games have turned out similar to this. All games released have an idea, a storyline behind them. Sometimes the developers and all the rest of the people who work on the games production get it right and release a game that can only be described as a classic or as a great game. I'm not sure whether it is the hype surrounding most games or the way we know so much about games because of advertising in magazines etc that make the final versions sometimes not as good as we hoped. But the basic ideas behind most games good or bad usually make us think "hey maybe another developer could make a game like this but better."
Anyone remember the bouncer? A scrolling beat em up that looked good and was a good idea as games like this were popular and also had little competition. But sadly the gameplay sucked, spoiled the game completely. An example as a good idea but a pants game.
What started me on all this today was looking through a magaizne and seeing "Knightrider" the game comming out for the PS2 in the future. Now to me knightrider was what television was about as a kid, but the game just looked pants. All in car action which would bore you to bits within a few hours. Surely the idea could have been made a lot better, look at games like GTA3, Mafia, Hitman etc. These are the standards we will compare every game to know so we could walk about town as Michael Knight, Call on KIT to come to our need etc and make a much better game out of it all. If only.
To me the best game ever would be one based on "The A-Team", already have the basic characters in Mr T, Face, Hanibal and Murdoch. The storyline is the same, beat the bad guys but other than that the developer would have the artistic licence to make it as they wish. Now maybe they just can't get teh rights to do it. Or don't think it would be popular or just don't want too.
For me it would be like GTA3/Mafia in that you control the character you wish in a third person view and can interact with the city you are in and the buildings/vehicles etc. Is it too much to ask for the majority of games we see released to be more than just a good idea but also to be a good game? I just hope one day an A-Team game is released which is as good as the idea for it.
There is a new game due out for the PS2 later this year, "Good cop, Bad cop" where you take control of a cop and can decide if they are a straight - stick to the laws cop or maybe a crooked - Dirty Harry style cop who breaks some of the rules to nail the bad guys. I don't know a lot about this game but hopefully it will be as good as the idea sounds. I did a game idea on a police game a while back (In the game ideas forum), maybe it will be a little like that. Now to me the idea of this game does sound good, along with many other ideas that have come and been used but will the final game be good?
One thing that annoys me about all this is the fact that when one developer tries an idea others don't usually want to try it no matter how succesful the other developers was. So we see games that have a great idea and potential to be great but don't turn out the way we sometimes hoped. So what could the industry learn from all this. Well I guess that in a perfect world every game released would be great. The best they could be to match the time they were released. But we don't live in a perfect world, so why don't other developers take ideas from games that don't do so well. There are so many games that come and go that are disapointing and sometimes you just wish that some other decent developer would have a go at the same kind of thing - well I do anyway. What about you?
I have played games, well at least tried too for nearly 14 years, if not more. In that time I have seen a lot of good games, a fair number of brilliant games but also some very poor games. The latter probably containing the most number of games. I thought that as the technology improved the standard of games would also improve and it has but still there are games that spoil it all.
All games are made for one reason. Money. Sure some developers like producing games for us all to play but they ultimately do it for the profits. It is an industry that if you do well you will be rewarded in a big way. These days most games cost millions to make but the profits that can be made are well worth the risk.
On average with every 1000 lines of programming code, the number of errors will be around 10, these take between 2 and 9 hours to fix. This means for a whole game it could take a very long time to completely rid it of bugs and faults. (remember windows 2000 has over 30 million lines of code, it was released still with a lot of unfixed errors which then leads on to the release of fixes and patches) so there isn't much surprise that games have bugs but most developers can keep these to a minimum which don't spoil the game at all.
There are a few reasons why some games don't match expectations and can only be described as pants.
Many games have turned out similar to this. All games released have an idea, a storyline behind them. Sometimes the developers and all the rest of the people who work on the games production get it right and release a game that can only be described as a classic or as a great game. I'm not sure whether it is the hype surrounding most games or the way we know so much about games because of advertising in magazines etc that make the final versions sometimes not as good as we hoped. But the basic ideas behind most games good or bad usually make us think "hey maybe another developer could make a game like this but better."
Anyone remember the bouncer? A scrolling beat em up that looked good and was a good idea as games like this were popular and also had little competition. But sadly the gameplay sucked, spoiled the game completely. An example as a good idea but a pants game.
What started me on all this today was looking through a magaizne and seeing "Knightrider" the game comming out for the PS2 in the future. Now to me knightrider was what television was about as a kid, but the game just looked pants. All in car action which would bore you to bits within a few hours. Surely the idea could have been made a lot better, look at games like GTA3, Mafia, Hitman etc. These are the standards we will compare every game to know so we could walk about town as Michael Knight, Call on KIT to come to our need etc and make a much better game out of it all. If only.
To me the best game ever would be one based on "The A-Team", already have the basic characters in Mr T, Face, Hanibal and Murdoch. The storyline is the same, beat the bad guys but other than that the developer would have the artistic licence to make it as they wish. Now maybe they just can't get teh rights to do it. Or don't think it would be popular or just don't want too.
For me it would be like GTA3/Mafia in that you control the character you wish in a third person view and can interact with the city you are in and the buildings/vehicles etc. Is it too much to ask for the majority of games we see released to be more than just a good idea but also to be a good game? I just hope one day an A-Team game is released which is as good as the idea for it.
There is a new game due out for the PS2 later this year, "Good cop, Bad cop" where you take control of a cop and can decide if they are a straight - stick to the laws cop or maybe a crooked - Dirty Harry style cop who breaks some of the rules to nail the bad guys. I don't know a lot about this game but hopefully it will be as good as the idea sounds. I did a game idea on a police game a while back (In the game ideas forum), maybe it will be a little like that. Now to me the idea of this game does sound good, along with many other ideas that have come and been used but will the final game be good?
One thing that annoys me about all this is the fact that when one developer tries an idea others don't usually want to try it no matter how succesful the other developers was. So we see games that have a great idea and potential to be great but don't turn out the way we sometimes hoped. So what could the industry learn from all this. Well I guess that in a perfect world every game released would be great. The best they could be to match the time they were released. But we don't live in a perfect world, so why don't other developers take ideas from games that don't do so well. There are so many games that come and go that are disapointing and sometimes you just wish that some other decent developer would have a go at the same kind of thing - well I do anyway. What about you?