The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Do you game for the name? What I mean by this is, that do you play a game because a certain developer makes it? Or, do you play a game because of its name? I have noticed when reading a magazine or talking to some of my friend that they think a game is automatically good because a developer that is well know has made it, or do you automatically play a game because the name is catchy, or well known?
It you look at a certain developer and see what kind of games that they have made and the quality of them, they will automatically get a good reputation with the buyers and the critics. But when they make a game, that isn’t up to the standard that precedes them, you still might think it’s good because they have made it. I think a lot of supposed ‘gamers’ do this, as they think that if a developer makes a game, and here well known they will think it’s good. Weird.
The FIFA series is a good example of this. They come out every year and to be honest, there practically the same apart from the graphics have been enhanced. The gameplay is the same as always, the controls might change, but certainly not for the best and the way the players look and move is still the same. But, in spite of all this, I know for a fact that it is still one of the most popular games around. I can constantly hear my friends talking about how good the new (but still the same old game) FIFA game is.
I have known people that hear about a games name and automatically think that the game itself is going to be as good as the name. Take State of Emergency. I know for a fact that everyone thinks it’s a really good game. Now, is it the name of the game that attracts people, or is it because of the violence in it? I have hear people everywhere talking about how good it was, when really they had heard or read nothing about it, because they didn’t know what the actual game was about, all they know about the game is the name sounds good, and from what they had seen of it, it looks okay too. I think that is where people who play computer games, that consider themselves to be ‘gamers’ go in the wrong direction, as they rate a game by its graphics.
I have noticed that games that have a film license always do well, whether it is a Disney film/game or a James Bond film/game. Whatever the actual game is like, if it’s a rubbish game with rubbish graphics and poor gameplay value like Monsters Inc, or it’s a game like Goldeneye, which was a revolutionary shoot ‘em up, it will always sell because it is a well-known film and because most people will recognise the name. And that is the whole point of this post. That people will buy a game, or rent it out, because they are aware of the name, and because it might have been a good film they will automatically think it’s going to be a good game. Oh, of course, this doesn’t count for all games, like I have mentioned before, Goldeneye is definitely not like that. The graphics were great and the gameplay value was exception.
I think also, that the way the name is written on the box can attract an audience. If you saw a game that had a lot of typography and it was a good design, and there was a game that just had the name, that was just plain, you would get attracted to the one that looked good, when it might be the game with the plain writing that is the better box. Take Zelda: Ocarina of Time for example. That game doesn’t really have the best looking box, and compared to a game like Resident Evil, you might go and look at Resident Evil’s box first not knowing that Zelda is probably the better game.
So, I think overall, that some people to game for the name, and don’t always think about buying a game, before they actually know anything about it. The name of a game can attract people, because of the name itself, or the way it is written. And, as far as the gaming for the name, you have to take you time to find out about the game, and you never know, next time your in a games shop, check out the game with a dull box, you never know what could be in it.
Thanks for Reading
Liquid
It you look at a certain developer and see what kind of games that they have made and the quality of them, they will automatically get a good reputation with the buyers and the critics. But when they make a game, that isn’t up to the standard that precedes them, you still might think it’s good because they have made it. I think a lot of supposed ‘gamers’ do this, as they think that if a developer makes a game, and here well known they will think it’s good. Weird.
The FIFA series is a good example of this. They come out every year and to be honest, there practically the same apart from the graphics have been enhanced. The gameplay is the same as always, the controls might change, but certainly not for the best and the way the players look and move is still the same. But, in spite of all this, I know for a fact that it is still one of the most popular games around. I can constantly hear my friends talking about how good the new (but still the same old game) FIFA game is.
I have known people that hear about a games name and automatically think that the game itself is going to be as good as the name. Take State of Emergency. I know for a fact that everyone thinks it’s a really good game. Now, is it the name of the game that attracts people, or is it because of the violence in it? I have hear people everywhere talking about how good it was, when really they had heard or read nothing about it, because they didn’t know what the actual game was about, all they know about the game is the name sounds good, and from what they had seen of it, it looks okay too. I think that is where people who play computer games, that consider themselves to be ‘gamers’ go in the wrong direction, as they rate a game by its graphics.
I have noticed that games that have a film license always do well, whether it is a Disney film/game or a James Bond film/game. Whatever the actual game is like, if it’s a rubbish game with rubbish graphics and poor gameplay value like Monsters Inc, or it’s a game like Goldeneye, which was a revolutionary shoot ‘em up, it will always sell because it is a well-known film and because most people will recognise the name. And that is the whole point of this post. That people will buy a game, or rent it out, because they are aware of the name, and because it might have been a good film they will automatically think it’s going to be a good game. Oh, of course, this doesn’t count for all games, like I have mentioned before, Goldeneye is definitely not like that. The graphics were great and the gameplay value was exception.
I think also, that the way the name is written on the box can attract an audience. If you saw a game that had a lot of typography and it was a good design, and there was a game that just had the name, that was just plain, you would get attracted to the one that looked good, when it might be the game with the plain writing that is the better box. Take Zelda: Ocarina of Time for example. That game doesn’t really have the best looking box, and compared to a game like Resident Evil, you might go and look at Resident Evil’s box first not knowing that Zelda is probably the better game.
So, I think overall, that some people to game for the name, and don’t always think about buying a game, before they actually know anything about it. The name of a game can attract people, because of the name itself, or the way it is written. And, as far as the gaming for the name, you have to take you time to find out about the game, and you never know, next time your in a games shop, check out the game with a dull box, you never know what could be in it.
Thanks for Reading
Liquid
Page:
That was to Liquid by the way...
Yeah I saw it the first time you posted this aswell. This is the second time you have posted smething like this twice
;)
;)
This is where it was before
http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk /display_messages.php?threadid=41940&forumid=135
Remove Space after UK
It's identical but still a good post.
http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk /display_messages.php?threadid=41940&forumid=135
Remove Space after UK
It's identical but still a good post.
Ummm i am sure i saw this post before in the SONY forum about a month ago.
There are companies like Nintendo and RAre that actually take pride in what games they make and they actually care about their fans and that is why they always make great games because their not trying to con people all the time, like developers do, say for a game like Crazy Taxi, where the sequel is exactly like the first one.
And they'd be right (if it was Rare at least), I didn't buy KI Gold though because I don't like fighting games (they get soooo boring after an hour, thank God for games like Power Stone on the DC and Smash Bros). So for me, Rare have never dissapointed.
That's the one. Killer Instinct Gold was the only Rare game that hasn't been that good. Just proves that some people do 'Game for the Name' as as soon as they see Rare they think the game is going to be good.
Killer instinct was great, but the N64 version (Killer Instinct Gold) wasn't very good. I think Rare realised this and thats why they didn't make anymore. But they made up for it with Blast Corps!
Whitestripes wrote:
> I know what you mean, I do that. I always buy games that are made by
> Rare because they are definatly going to be good. I can honestly say
> I've never played a bad Rare game.
I think that killer instinct was probably the worst out of the games Rare have made. Still wasn't bad though.
> I know what you mean, I do that. I always buy games that are made by
> Rare because they are definatly going to be good. I can honestly say
> I've never played a bad Rare game.
I think that killer instinct was probably the worst out of the games Rare have made. Still wasn't bad though.
I know what you mean, I do that. I always buy games that are made by Rare because they are definatly going to be good. I can honestly say I've never played a bad Rare game.
Page: