The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Sequel by Gornid
One of the more frequent attacks from particularly Nintendo fans is the concept of sequels, apparently sequels is all that is on the Playstation and therefore it is bad other than it blatantly not being the only type of game available on the Playstation and in particular the consoles sequel, but it since when were sequels a bad thing????
Lets look at Nintendo for a moment, Pikmin that I must admit is a mighty fine game has recently been released on the Gamecube. Now Pikmin has been praised for its originality, which I agree strongly with but is it that good? Well yeah it is good but how good would it be if Pikmin got its first release as a top down game back in the SNES days? Lets face it through years of improvement on the Gameboy and N64 this version of Pikmin would not have been too short or feature irritating moments such as your Pikmin stopping to pull grass out of the ground. Look at Resident Evil, yep it still features many problems but by releasing multiple sequels this series of games have gone through many improvements storyline wise, character wise, cut scene wise, graphically and sound wise. Yep problems such as space in the inventory and turning is done poorly but then the Gamecube release of Resident Evil already takes steps in improving turning and Resident Evil 0 plans to allow players to “drop items” just in case you run out of room. Devil May Cry on the PS2 may be good and original but it hasn’t been polished to perfection like the Resident Evil series.
So when is it really worth making major changes to a game series? Well virtually all games were upgraded to 3D making a huge overhaul to it all, most games were done effectively whilst some developers couldn’t make the transition in to 3D successful in particular Hudson with Bomberman and RARE’s Killer Instinct. So Hudson learnt that by being “original” with there series they were effectively ruining it and so decided to stick with the main thing that made the game good, the multiplayer. So when is a good time to try something new and fresh? When that game has reaches its peak of course, With Final Fantasy the best it’ll ever be attempting an online version is an excellent idea, Ocarina of Time saw Zelda hit its highest heights yet, why not try a cartoony version? Metroid, has well and truly conquered side scrolling action platformers, with Mario doing the rounds for jumping why not make a first person exploring game. It is worth changing a game when it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
So Sequels are good, despite what selected Nintys have said, but after a while that game series will reached its best version and after which nothing else can improve, then it is time for the designer to be original again. That is why Shigeru Miyamoto is so good, he can do that, he can constantly reinvent things, I hope Sony and co. will get a designer like whim one-day.
One of the more frequent attacks from particularly Nintendo fans is the concept of sequels, apparently sequels is all that is on the Playstation and therefore it is bad other than it blatantly not being the only type of game available on the Playstation and in particular the consoles sequel, but it since when were sequels a bad thing????
Lets look at Nintendo for a moment, Pikmin that I must admit is a mighty fine game has recently been released on the Gamecube. Now Pikmin has been praised for its originality, which I agree strongly with but is it that good? Well yeah it is good but how good would it be if Pikmin got its first release as a top down game back in the SNES days? Lets face it through years of improvement on the Gameboy and N64 this version of Pikmin would not have been too short or feature irritating moments such as your Pikmin stopping to pull grass out of the ground. Look at Resident Evil, yep it still features many problems but by releasing multiple sequels this series of games have gone through many improvements storyline wise, character wise, cut scene wise, graphically and sound wise. Yep problems such as space in the inventory and turning is done poorly but then the Gamecube release of Resident Evil already takes steps in improving turning and Resident Evil 0 plans to allow players to “drop items” just in case you run out of room. Devil May Cry on the PS2 may be good and original but it hasn’t been polished to perfection like the Resident Evil series.
So when is it really worth making major changes to a game series? Well virtually all games were upgraded to 3D making a huge overhaul to it all, most games were done effectively whilst some developers couldn’t make the transition in to 3D successful in particular Hudson with Bomberman and RARE’s Killer Instinct. So Hudson learnt that by being “original” with there series they were effectively ruining it and so decided to stick with the main thing that made the game good, the multiplayer. So when is a good time to try something new and fresh? When that game has reaches its peak of course, With Final Fantasy the best it’ll ever be attempting an online version is an excellent idea, Ocarina of Time saw Zelda hit its highest heights yet, why not try a cartoony version? Metroid, has well and truly conquered side scrolling action platformers, with Mario doing the rounds for jumping why not make a first person exploring game. It is worth changing a game when it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
So Sequels are good, despite what selected Nintys have said, but after a while that game series will reached its best version and after which nothing else can improve, then it is time for the designer to be original again. That is why Shigeru Miyamoto is so good, he can do that, he can constantly reinvent things, I hope Sony and co. will get a designer like whim one-day.
I love the play on words in the topic heading. Brilliant.
mikelar10 wrote:
> Gornid wrote:
> It is worth changing a game when
> it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the
> same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar
> to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
>
> A good post Gornid, I enjoyed reading it except I got to
> this....offending item. I'm going to have to argue and say that your
> wrong. You contradict yourself because earlier in the post you said
> about the Zelda being changed to the cell shaded idea. Then you say
> Majora's Mask is similar to OOT and granted and that Zelda has reached
> it's peak when the afore mentioned Cell Zelda hasn't been released
> yet! Majora's Mask was a bit samey but look at how original it was in
> it's own little way. When have you ever played a game where the
> character lives for 3 days? EXACTLY, it was a refreshing idea and
> only the gameplay was the same but let's face it, the gameplay was
> brilliant anyway - if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
He's right in a way, Majora's Mask was more of a spin on the original concept, Ocarina reached the dizzying heights of Zelda's success, Majora's Mask meley added a different idea to it all... id say majora's mask was better than ocarina of time... interactivity wise. But it was a similar idea that allowed extra abilities by mask changing. The time system excelled Interactivity, brilliant really but it was just an enhanced version of the two time frames in ocarina of time.
Majora's Mask was original with new ideas but did it do anything dramatic enough to make it conquer the massive ocarina of time? It was more of the same with slight additions, making the series fresh is what shigsy did well done too him...
> Gornid wrote:
> It is worth changing a game when
> it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the
> same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar
> to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
>
> A good post Gornid, I enjoyed reading it except I got to
> this....offending item. I'm going to have to argue and say that your
> wrong. You contradict yourself because earlier in the post you said
> about the Zelda being changed to the cell shaded idea. Then you say
> Majora's Mask is similar to OOT and granted and that Zelda has reached
> it's peak when the afore mentioned Cell Zelda hasn't been released
> yet! Majora's Mask was a bit samey but look at how original it was in
> it's own little way. When have you ever played a game where the
> character lives for 3 days? EXACTLY, it was a refreshing idea and
> only the gameplay was the same but let's face it, the gameplay was
> brilliant anyway - if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
He's right in a way, Majora's Mask was more of a spin on the original concept, Ocarina reached the dizzying heights of Zelda's success, Majora's Mask meley added a different idea to it all... id say majora's mask was better than ocarina of time... interactivity wise. But it was a similar idea that allowed extra abilities by mask changing. The time system excelled Interactivity, brilliant really but it was just an enhanced version of the two time frames in ocarina of time.
Majora's Mask was original with new ideas but did it do anything dramatic enough to make it conquer the massive ocarina of time? It was more of the same with slight additions, making the series fresh is what shigsy did well done too him...
I love origional games
I am desperate for Star Fox adventures.
Looks loverly.
And some day a LOTR game :D
I am desperate for Star Fox adventures.
Looks loverly.
And some day a LOTR game :D
Gornid wrote:
> It is worth changing a game when
> it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the
> same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar
> to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
A good post Gornid, I enjoyed reading it except I got to this....offending item. I'm going to have to argue and say that your wrong. You contradict yourself because earlier in the post you said about the Zelda being changed to the cell shaded idea. Then you say Majora's Mask is similar to OOT and granted and that Zelda has reached it's peak when the afore mentioned Cell Zelda hasn't been released yet! Majora's Mask was a bit samey but look at how original it was in it's own little way. When have you ever played a game where the character lives for 3 days? EXACTLY, it was a refreshing idea and only the gameplay was the same but let's face it, the gameplay was brilliant anyway - if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Still. Good post :)
> It is worth changing a game when
> it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the
> same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar
> to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
A good post Gornid, I enjoyed reading it except I got to this....offending item. I'm going to have to argue and say that your wrong. You contradict yourself because earlier in the post you said about the Zelda being changed to the cell shaded idea. Then you say Majora's Mask is similar to OOT and granted and that Zelda has reached it's peak when the afore mentioned Cell Zelda hasn't been released yet! Majora's Mask was a bit samey but look at how original it was in it's own little way. When have you ever played a game where the character lives for 3 days? EXACTLY, it was a refreshing idea and only the gameplay was the same but let's face it, the gameplay was brilliant anyway - if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Still. Good post :)
Interesting... I always believe in original concepts over sequels... yet somehow you've managed to make me feel i dunno, different towards sequels. It is an intresting thought that by developing sequels you will be in development ofa classic, it may start off crap but later it'll be very good. By a sweet game like Pikmin what will that be like in ten years? A classic thats what.
Sequel by Gornid
One of the more frequent attacks from particularly Nintendo fans is the concept of sequels, apparently sequels is all that is on the Playstation and therefore it is bad other than it blatantly not being the only type of game available on the Playstation and in particular the consoles sequel, but it since when were sequels a bad thing????
Lets look at Nintendo for a moment, Pikmin that I must admit is a mighty fine game has recently been released on the Gamecube. Now Pikmin has been praised for its originality, which I agree strongly with but is it that good? Well yeah it is good but how good would it be if Pikmin got its first release as a top down game back in the SNES days? Lets face it through years of improvement on the Gameboy and N64 this version of Pikmin would not have been too short or feature irritating moments such as your Pikmin stopping to pull grass out of the ground. Look at Resident Evil, yep it still features many problems but by releasing multiple sequels this series of games have gone through many improvements storyline wise, character wise, cut scene wise, graphically and sound wise. Yep problems such as space in the inventory and turning is done poorly but then the Gamecube release of Resident Evil already takes steps in improving turning and Resident Evil 0 plans to allow players to “drop items” just in case you run out of room. Devil May Cry on the PS2 may be good and original but it hasn’t been polished to perfection like the Resident Evil series.
So when is it really worth making major changes to a game series? Well virtually all games were upgraded to 3D making a huge overhaul to it all, most games were done effectively whilst some developers couldn’t make the transition in to 3D successful in particular Hudson with Bomberman and RARE’s Killer Instinct. So Hudson learnt that by being “original” with there series they were effectively ruining it and so decided to stick with the main thing that made the game good, the multiplayer. So when is a good time to try something new and fresh? When that game has reaches its peak of course, With Final Fantasy the best it’ll ever be attempting an online version is an excellent idea, Ocarina of Time saw Zelda hit its highest heights yet, why not try a cartoony version? Metroid, has well and truly conquered side scrolling action platformers, with Mario doing the rounds for jumping why not make a first person exploring game. It is worth changing a game when it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
So Sequels are good, despite what selected Nintys have said, but after a while that game series will reached its best version and after which nothing else can improve, then it is time for the designer to be original again. That is why Shigeru Miyamoto is so good, he can do that, he can constantly reinvent things, I hope Sony and co. will get a designer like whim one-day.
One of the more frequent attacks from particularly Nintendo fans is the concept of sequels, apparently sequels is all that is on the Playstation and therefore it is bad other than it blatantly not being the only type of game available on the Playstation and in particular the consoles sequel, but it since when were sequels a bad thing????
Lets look at Nintendo for a moment, Pikmin that I must admit is a mighty fine game has recently been released on the Gamecube. Now Pikmin has been praised for its originality, which I agree strongly with but is it that good? Well yeah it is good but how good would it be if Pikmin got its first release as a top down game back in the SNES days? Lets face it through years of improvement on the Gameboy and N64 this version of Pikmin would not have been too short or feature irritating moments such as your Pikmin stopping to pull grass out of the ground. Look at Resident Evil, yep it still features many problems but by releasing multiple sequels this series of games have gone through many improvements storyline wise, character wise, cut scene wise, graphically and sound wise. Yep problems such as space in the inventory and turning is done poorly but then the Gamecube release of Resident Evil already takes steps in improving turning and Resident Evil 0 plans to allow players to “drop items” just in case you run out of room. Devil May Cry on the PS2 may be good and original but it hasn’t been polished to perfection like the Resident Evil series.
So when is it really worth making major changes to a game series? Well virtually all games were upgraded to 3D making a huge overhaul to it all, most games were done effectively whilst some developers couldn’t make the transition in to 3D successful in particular Hudson with Bomberman and RARE’s Killer Instinct. So Hudson learnt that by being “original” with there series they were effectively ruining it and so decided to stick with the main thing that made the game good, the multiplayer. So when is a good time to try something new and fresh? When that game has reaches its peak of course, With Final Fantasy the best it’ll ever be attempting an online version is an excellent idea, Ocarina of Time saw Zelda hit its highest heights yet, why not try a cartoony version? Metroid, has well and truly conquered side scrolling action platformers, with Mario doing the rounds for jumping why not make a first person exploring game. It is worth changing a game when it has reached its peak, if you don’t then you’ll be releasing the same game over and over, like Majora’s Mask which was way to similar to ocarina of time, proof that Zelda has reached its peak.
So Sequels are good, despite what selected Nintys have said, but after a while that game series will reached its best version and after which nothing else can improve, then it is time for the designer to be original again. That is why Shigeru Miyamoto is so good, he can do that, he can constantly reinvent things, I hope Sony and co. will get a designer like whim one-day.