The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
1988: Arcades bustling with many gaming fans. Such titles as Double Dragon, Pole Position and Jet Set Willy all being crowded round.
The gamers here are having the time of their lives. they get to play a small amount to have a go on games which offer exciting new concepts and are great fun to play. The games look very simple and lack any real detail, but at this stage in the world's life gameplay is king.
But, has anything new gaming wise croped up sice then, or are we essentially playing the same games in fancier packaging?
Double Dragon is an arcade legend, and many unofficial gaming mags refer to it a lot. DD was a scrolling beat em-up - you walk along a path and dispose of whatever gets in your way by attacking them in various ways. It is considered better than the ageing Fighting Force, Tekken 3's force mode, and more importantly, better than flashy PS2 game The Bouncer. The Bouncer is a simplistic scrolling beat em-up - you just walk around and punch in combinations of buttons - no interactivity, and the main selling point was the fabulous graphics. And I'll be honest - the graphics are excellent. But in the old-skool Double Dragon you could pick up weapons and use them, and break bits of the scenery, you could even use bits of the scenenry as the weapons. Was this too much to ask for in the Bouncer?
Metal Gear Solid 2 was, in my opinion, massively over-hyped. Magazines & people thought it would be the best thing ever. When they realised that it wasn't, they decided to ignore it and just say it ruled to make themselves happy. Not many people know about the 1987 NES version of Metal Gear. It looked rubbish, but the gameplay was so much better. Okay, so the guards weren't as fun to play with, but it didn't rely on special-effects and attention to detail to promote itself. It was a great game, great fun, the codec messages were short and snappy rather than long... and... irritating. Wouldn't it have been wiser with MGS2 to stick to the 'gameplay rules' formula of the original?
Although a lot of people seem to like Gran Turismo (why?), my favourite racing games have to be the Tocas. They are fast fun, and you don't have to worry about any pointless driving tests. Back in days gone by, the only racing game around was Namco's Pole Position. It was fairly simplistic - get from A to B quicker than the oposition. No rivalries, no car damage, no realistic reflections on the cars - in fact, the biggest detail in Pole Position was on the cars, which consisted of 3 colours. But, scratch away the fancy stuff on Toca and what you have is a game that requires you to get from A to B faster than the opponents. Hmm, sounds familiar...
Forget Tekken. Older gamers had to make do with Ultimate Karate Champ. It was a game which placed to men in dressing gowns against each other as they hit each other. As each hit was made, a small segment from a bar at the top of the screen was removed, and first one to knock off all the segments of the enemies bar won. Every fighting game, sans the wrestling ones, uses this forumla, and it works well. UKC allowed you to be placed in an arena, and move around it as you pleased, trying to get into a good position to hit 'em where it hurts. We are yet to see a PS2 fighting game which places you in a full 3D environment. If they could pull it off on a dusty old machine, why is it so hard to do on a 'next-gen' console?
Final Fantasy is one of the few cases in which the games have actually developed gameplay-wise over time. Back in 1987, when the first instalment came out, it was fairly linear, and extremely repetitive. The story rocked, and featured the same-old 'Kill evil man who wants to destroy earth' plot. But now the FFs have greater depth. Loads of elemental fights; ATB; Overdrives; Overkill; Combining; Customising weapons; excellent mini-games; nearly every gameplay aspect has been tweaked. Squaresoft can eveolve their franchises - we're just waiting for every one else to follow suit.
Even the more 'original' titles are not quite as original as they seem. Take Red Card Soccer, for example. It was supposed to be refreshingly original. But in truth, the title owes more to ageing coin-op Soccer Brawl, and too a lesser extent, the Speedball games. In fact, the only real originality I've seen of late has been in Rez and Frequency - is finding new concepts that hard?
So you've read through this, and seen that not very much has changed since the 80s other than graphics. So, ask yourself. Are we really playing next-gen games, or are we all being ripped off by old games in fancy packaging?
The gamers here are having the time of their lives. they get to play a small amount to have a go on games which offer exciting new concepts and are great fun to play. The games look very simple and lack any real detail, but at this stage in the world's life gameplay is king.
But, has anything new gaming wise croped up sice then, or are we essentially playing the same games in fancier packaging?
Double Dragon is an arcade legend, and many unofficial gaming mags refer to it a lot. DD was a scrolling beat em-up - you walk along a path and dispose of whatever gets in your way by attacking them in various ways. It is considered better than the ageing Fighting Force, Tekken 3's force mode, and more importantly, better than flashy PS2 game The Bouncer. The Bouncer is a simplistic scrolling beat em-up - you just walk around and punch in combinations of buttons - no interactivity, and the main selling point was the fabulous graphics. And I'll be honest - the graphics are excellent. But in the old-skool Double Dragon you could pick up weapons and use them, and break bits of the scenery, you could even use bits of the scenenry as the weapons. Was this too much to ask for in the Bouncer?
Metal Gear Solid 2 was, in my opinion, massively over-hyped. Magazines & people thought it would be the best thing ever. When they realised that it wasn't, they decided to ignore it and just say it ruled to make themselves happy. Not many people know about the 1987 NES version of Metal Gear. It looked rubbish, but the gameplay was so much better. Okay, so the guards weren't as fun to play with, but it didn't rely on special-effects and attention to detail to promote itself. It was a great game, great fun, the codec messages were short and snappy rather than long... and... irritating. Wouldn't it have been wiser with MGS2 to stick to the 'gameplay rules' formula of the original?
Although a lot of people seem to like Gran Turismo (why?), my favourite racing games have to be the Tocas. They are fast fun, and you don't have to worry about any pointless driving tests. Back in days gone by, the only racing game around was Namco's Pole Position. It was fairly simplistic - get from A to B quicker than the oposition. No rivalries, no car damage, no realistic reflections on the cars - in fact, the biggest detail in Pole Position was on the cars, which consisted of 3 colours. But, scratch away the fancy stuff on Toca and what you have is a game that requires you to get from A to B faster than the opponents. Hmm, sounds familiar...
Forget Tekken. Older gamers had to make do with Ultimate Karate Champ. It was a game which placed to men in dressing gowns against each other as they hit each other. As each hit was made, a small segment from a bar at the top of the screen was removed, and first one to knock off all the segments of the enemies bar won. Every fighting game, sans the wrestling ones, uses this forumla, and it works well. UKC allowed you to be placed in an arena, and move around it as you pleased, trying to get into a good position to hit 'em where it hurts. We are yet to see a PS2 fighting game which places you in a full 3D environment. If they could pull it off on a dusty old machine, why is it so hard to do on a 'next-gen' console?
Final Fantasy is one of the few cases in which the games have actually developed gameplay-wise over time. Back in 1987, when the first instalment came out, it was fairly linear, and extremely repetitive. The story rocked, and featured the same-old 'Kill evil man who wants to destroy earth' plot. But now the FFs have greater depth. Loads of elemental fights; ATB; Overdrives; Overkill; Combining; Customising weapons; excellent mini-games; nearly every gameplay aspect has been tweaked. Squaresoft can eveolve their franchises - we're just waiting for every one else to follow suit.
Even the more 'original' titles are not quite as original as they seem. Take Red Card Soccer, for example. It was supposed to be refreshingly original. But in truth, the title owes more to ageing coin-op Soccer Brawl, and too a lesser extent, the Speedball games. In fact, the only real originality I've seen of late has been in Rez and Frequency - is finding new concepts that hard?
So you've read through this, and seen that not very much has changed since the 80s other than graphics. So, ask yourself. Are we really playing next-gen games, or are we all being ripped off by old games in fancy packaging?
I think gameplay has actually regressed instead of progressed over time.
Almost all excellent games from the past have ended up with a PS1/PS2 remake or sequel which fails to capture the brilliance of the original, instead replacing it with flashy graphics. Blame Sony! OK, I'll stop the Sony bashing now
Na†ßu© wrote:
> MGS2 suffered from the gameplay coming second syndrome,
Yes, and back in the days this was un-heard of. people HAD to create excellent gameplay otherwise it wouldn't stand out from the crowd.
>
> The Pro Evo series is a great example. Not only have we seen great
> improvements in graphics since ISS Pro but also the gameplay has
> vastly improved. We thought Pro Evo was perfect but apperently Winning
> Eleven 6, it's sequel, is much improved in the gameplay department.
>
Hence, i didn't complain about it :-D
> MGS2 suffered from the gameplay coming second syndrome,
Yes, and back in the days this was un-heard of. people HAD to create excellent gameplay otherwise it wouldn't stand out from the crowd.
>
> The Pro Evo series is a great example. Not only have we seen great
> improvements in graphics since ISS Pro but also the gameplay has
> vastly improved. We thought Pro Evo was perfect but apperently Winning
> Eleven 6, it's sequel, is much improved in the gameplay department.
>
Hence, i didn't complain about it :-D
I think basically concepts are the same but with much more than fancy thingy's. Like MGS2. Yes you say it suffered from the gameplay coming second syndrome, which i disagree because i dont think it did, but due to new technology not only was better graphics an option that made it a joy to play but such advancements in Ai meant Gameplay was vastly improved.
The Pro Evo series is a great example. Not only have we seen great improvements in graphics since ISS Pro but also the gameplay has vastly improved. We thought Pro Evo was perfect but apperently Winning Eleven 6, it's sequel, is much improved in the gameplay department.
So basically, yes I do think we are playing the same concepts, but also i think that these concepts do offer us much more, the more advance they become. And the more advance they become, the more different and greater they become meaning I dont think we really do play the same things over and over.
The Pro Evo series is a great example. Not only have we seen great improvements in graphics since ISS Pro but also the gameplay has vastly improved. We thought Pro Evo was perfect but apperently Winning Eleven 6, it's sequel, is much improved in the gameplay department.
So basically, yes I do think we are playing the same concepts, but also i think that these concepts do offer us much more, the more advance they become. And the more advance they become, the more different and greater they become meaning I dont think we really do play the same things over and over.
1988: Arcades bustling with many gaming fans. Such titles as Double Dragon, Pole Position and Jet Set Willy all being crowded round.
The gamers here are having the time of their lives. they get to play a small amount to have a go on games which offer exciting new concepts and are great fun to play. The games look very simple and lack any real detail, but at this stage in the world's life gameplay is king.
But, has anything new gaming wise croped up sice then, or are we essentially playing the same games in fancier packaging?
Double Dragon is an arcade legend, and many unofficial gaming mags refer to it a lot. DD was a scrolling beat em-up - you walk along a path and dispose of whatever gets in your way by attacking them in various ways. It is considered better than the ageing Fighting Force, Tekken 3's force mode, and more importantly, better than flashy PS2 game The Bouncer. The Bouncer is a simplistic scrolling beat em-up - you just walk around and punch in combinations of buttons - no interactivity, and the main selling point was the fabulous graphics. And I'll be honest - the graphics are excellent. But in the old-skool Double Dragon you could pick up weapons and use them, and break bits of the scenery, you could even use bits of the scenenry as the weapons. Was this too much to ask for in the Bouncer?
Metal Gear Solid 2 was, in my opinion, massively over-hyped. Magazines & people thought it would be the best thing ever. When they realised that it wasn't, they decided to ignore it and just say it ruled to make themselves happy. Not many people know about the 1987 NES version of Metal Gear. It looked rubbish, but the gameplay was so much better. Okay, so the guards weren't as fun to play with, but it didn't rely on special-effects and attention to detail to promote itself. It was a great game, great fun, the codec messages were short and snappy rather than long... and... irritating. Wouldn't it have been wiser with MGS2 to stick to the 'gameplay rules' formula of the original?
Although a lot of people seem to like Gran Turismo (why?), my favourite racing games have to be the Tocas. They are fast fun, and you don't have to worry about any pointless driving tests. Back in days gone by, the only racing game around was Namco's Pole Position. It was fairly simplistic - get from A to B quicker than the oposition. No rivalries, no car damage, no realistic reflections on the cars - in fact, the biggest detail in Pole Position was on the cars, which consisted of 3 colours. But, scratch away the fancy stuff on Toca and what you have is a game that requires you to get from A to B faster than the opponents. Hmm, sounds familiar...
Forget Tekken. Older gamers had to make do with Ultimate Karate Champ. It was a game which placed to men in dressing gowns against each other as they hit each other. As each hit was made, a small segment from a bar at the top of the screen was removed, and first one to knock off all the segments of the enemies bar won. Every fighting game, sans the wrestling ones, uses this forumla, and it works well. UKC allowed you to be placed in an arena, and move around it as you pleased, trying to get into a good position to hit 'em where it hurts. We are yet to see a PS2 fighting game which places you in a full 3D environment. If they could pull it off on a dusty old machine, why is it so hard to do on a 'next-gen' console?
Final Fantasy is one of the few cases in which the games have actually developed gameplay-wise over time. Back in 1987, when the first instalment came out, it was fairly linear, and extremely repetitive. The story rocked, and featured the same-old 'Kill evil man who wants to destroy earth' plot. But now the FFs have greater depth. Loads of elemental fights; ATB; Overdrives; Overkill; Combining; Customising weapons; excellent mini-games; nearly every gameplay aspect has been tweaked. Squaresoft can eveolve their franchises - we're just waiting for every one else to follow suit.
Even the more 'original' titles are not quite as original as they seem. Take Red Card Soccer, for example. It was supposed to be refreshingly original. But in truth, the title owes more to ageing coin-op Soccer Brawl, and too a lesser extent, the Speedball games. In fact, the only real originality I've seen of late has been in Rez and Frequency - is finding new concepts that hard?
So you've read through this, and seen that not very much has changed since the 80s other than graphics. So, ask yourself. Are we really playing next-gen games, or are we all being ripped off by old games in fancy packaging?
The gamers here are having the time of their lives. they get to play a small amount to have a go on games which offer exciting new concepts and are great fun to play. The games look very simple and lack any real detail, but at this stage in the world's life gameplay is king.
But, has anything new gaming wise croped up sice then, or are we essentially playing the same games in fancier packaging?
Double Dragon is an arcade legend, and many unofficial gaming mags refer to it a lot. DD was a scrolling beat em-up - you walk along a path and dispose of whatever gets in your way by attacking them in various ways. It is considered better than the ageing Fighting Force, Tekken 3's force mode, and more importantly, better than flashy PS2 game The Bouncer. The Bouncer is a simplistic scrolling beat em-up - you just walk around and punch in combinations of buttons - no interactivity, and the main selling point was the fabulous graphics. And I'll be honest - the graphics are excellent. But in the old-skool Double Dragon you could pick up weapons and use them, and break bits of the scenery, you could even use bits of the scenenry as the weapons. Was this too much to ask for in the Bouncer?
Metal Gear Solid 2 was, in my opinion, massively over-hyped. Magazines & people thought it would be the best thing ever. When they realised that it wasn't, they decided to ignore it and just say it ruled to make themselves happy. Not many people know about the 1987 NES version of Metal Gear. It looked rubbish, but the gameplay was so much better. Okay, so the guards weren't as fun to play with, but it didn't rely on special-effects and attention to detail to promote itself. It was a great game, great fun, the codec messages were short and snappy rather than long... and... irritating. Wouldn't it have been wiser with MGS2 to stick to the 'gameplay rules' formula of the original?
Although a lot of people seem to like Gran Turismo (why?), my favourite racing games have to be the Tocas. They are fast fun, and you don't have to worry about any pointless driving tests. Back in days gone by, the only racing game around was Namco's Pole Position. It was fairly simplistic - get from A to B quicker than the oposition. No rivalries, no car damage, no realistic reflections on the cars - in fact, the biggest detail in Pole Position was on the cars, which consisted of 3 colours. But, scratch away the fancy stuff on Toca and what you have is a game that requires you to get from A to B faster than the opponents. Hmm, sounds familiar...
Forget Tekken. Older gamers had to make do with Ultimate Karate Champ. It was a game which placed to men in dressing gowns against each other as they hit each other. As each hit was made, a small segment from a bar at the top of the screen was removed, and first one to knock off all the segments of the enemies bar won. Every fighting game, sans the wrestling ones, uses this forumla, and it works well. UKC allowed you to be placed in an arena, and move around it as you pleased, trying to get into a good position to hit 'em where it hurts. We are yet to see a PS2 fighting game which places you in a full 3D environment. If they could pull it off on a dusty old machine, why is it so hard to do on a 'next-gen' console?
Final Fantasy is one of the few cases in which the games have actually developed gameplay-wise over time. Back in 1987, when the first instalment came out, it was fairly linear, and extremely repetitive. The story rocked, and featured the same-old 'Kill evil man who wants to destroy earth' plot. But now the FFs have greater depth. Loads of elemental fights; ATB; Overdrives; Overkill; Combining; Customising weapons; excellent mini-games; nearly every gameplay aspect has been tweaked. Squaresoft can eveolve their franchises - we're just waiting for every one else to follow suit.
Even the more 'original' titles are not quite as original as they seem. Take Red Card Soccer, for example. It was supposed to be refreshingly original. But in truth, the title owes more to ageing coin-op Soccer Brawl, and too a lesser extent, the Speedball games. In fact, the only real originality I've seen of late has been in Rez and Frequency - is finding new concepts that hard?
So you've read through this, and seen that not very much has changed since the 80s other than graphics. So, ask yourself. Are we really playing next-gen games, or are we all being ripped off by old games in fancy packaging?