The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Everyone knows about Metal Gear Solid 2, possibly the most anticipated game to grace any console in our lifetimes. But, this anticipation quickly turned into disappointment as people realised they had simply bought an interactive movie. As graphics in games advance, and programmers want to show off their skills, will all games follow the lead of this example?
Can games use the graphics of Metal Gear Solid 2, without simply becoming a movie? That’s why I think the narrow line between a movie and a game is decreasing. There are breaks in the trend, such as FFX and Halo, which can offer great graphics and gameplay to match. But as we move on, I can see rare titles like this beginning to disappear.
Addmittidly, at the moment, there aren’t many games other than MGS2 that have this problem. But mark my words; unless programmers start to concentrate more on the gameplay again, other than the graphics, the game making business will simply turn into movies. Back in the day, classics like Pong, Space Invaders, and Donkey Kong didn’t exactly have ground breaking graphics, but they were fun. That’s what matters.
I suggest something needs to be done about this quickly. A great game can quickly be put down if it doesn’t have the graphics to match. But not vice versa. A game with great graphics seems to get all the attention. It’s not until the game is actually reviewed by a neutral source that the truth comes out. By this time, the game is already over hyped, and there’s not much that can be done. Take The Bouncer, for example.
What do I suggest? Well, I know it will never happen, but I suggest that console manufacturers actually think about how much power is needed in their console in order to produce a fun experience. Yes, great graphics do add to the gameplay, but they shouldn’t replace it. Some companies seem to take all the available power from a console, and produce a stunning game in the hope the graphics alone will sell it, maybe it will, but this should be left to Hollywood. Special effects and action scenes will make a movie, but they won’t make a game. Army Men springs to mind.
I know I’ve been harsh on Metal Gear Solid 2 in this post, but it really was a movie trying to be a game. In all the E3 showings of this game, there didn’t seem to be a problem, as it *was* a movie at that time, not an interactive demo. So the game started to create some fuss, this game would be wonderful. But, at it’s release in old Blighty, instead of the great public reaction you would expect, people were left feeling deflated. Completing it in 1 night.
So where is this game now? How often do you find posts in the Sony forum discussing how great it is? Exactly. And I would hope Konami realised this, which is why they added a vast selection of VR missions for Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance. A movie doesn’t make a great game.
So what do you think? Are you quite happy to pay £40 for a movie, imitating a game? Or would you prefer for games to have less cut scenes, and take the time and effort from making this and direct it towards making the game more fun, with more levels to explore. I know what I want.
An Extra level or two would certainly please me. It must take a long time to make those cut scenes, so why not spend this time on the levels? This would have certainly helped Konami. Sure, people would not of hailed it as such a graphical revolution. But people would have hailed it for what it should have been, a great gaming experience.
If and when I want a movie, I will go to the cinema, and spend all my concentration following the plot. I don’t want to be interrupted from what was, honestly, a movie, with often interference from very linier gameplay.
What do you think? Is the line between Games and Movies becoming too thin? I know I’ve been harsh on what was a great game, but it was, you understand, an example.
Can games use the graphics of Metal Gear Solid 2, without simply becoming a movie? That’s why I think the narrow line between a movie and a game is decreasing. There are breaks in the trend, such as FFX and Halo, which can offer great graphics and gameplay to match. But as we move on, I can see rare titles like this beginning to disappear.
Addmittidly, at the moment, there aren’t many games other than MGS2 that have this problem. But mark my words; unless programmers start to concentrate more on the gameplay again, other than the graphics, the game making business will simply turn into movies. Back in the day, classics like Pong, Space Invaders, and Donkey Kong didn’t exactly have ground breaking graphics, but they were fun. That’s what matters.
I suggest something needs to be done about this quickly. A great game can quickly be put down if it doesn’t have the graphics to match. But not vice versa. A game with great graphics seems to get all the attention. It’s not until the game is actually reviewed by a neutral source that the truth comes out. By this time, the game is already over hyped, and there’s not much that can be done. Take The Bouncer, for example.
What do I suggest? Well, I know it will never happen, but I suggest that console manufacturers actually think about how much power is needed in their console in order to produce a fun experience. Yes, great graphics do add to the gameplay, but they shouldn’t replace it. Some companies seem to take all the available power from a console, and produce a stunning game in the hope the graphics alone will sell it, maybe it will, but this should be left to Hollywood. Special effects and action scenes will make a movie, but they won’t make a game. Army Men springs to mind.
I know I’ve been harsh on Metal Gear Solid 2 in this post, but it really was a movie trying to be a game. In all the E3 showings of this game, there didn’t seem to be a problem, as it *was* a movie at that time, not an interactive demo. So the game started to create some fuss, this game would be wonderful. But, at it’s release in old Blighty, instead of the great public reaction you would expect, people were left feeling deflated. Completing it in 1 night.
So where is this game now? How often do you find posts in the Sony forum discussing how great it is? Exactly. And I would hope Konami realised this, which is why they added a vast selection of VR missions for Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance. A movie doesn’t make a great game.
So what do you think? Are you quite happy to pay £40 for a movie, imitating a game? Or would you prefer for games to have less cut scenes, and take the time and effort from making this and direct it towards making the game more fun, with more levels to explore. I know what I want.
An Extra level or two would certainly please me. It must take a long time to make those cut scenes, so why not spend this time on the levels? This would have certainly helped Konami. Sure, people would not of hailed it as such a graphical revolution. But people would have hailed it for what it should have been, a great gaming experience.
If and when I want a movie, I will go to the cinema, and spend all my concentration following the plot. I don’t want to be interrupted from what was, honestly, a movie, with often interference from very linier gameplay.
What do you think? Is the line between Games and Movies becoming too thin? I know I’ve been harsh on what was a great game, but it was, you understand, an example.
Great post Tom. Just keep posting stuff like this and youll have you GAD in no time. I really think you should win soon because you dont even have a SR membership and are not posting for the prize.
You covered some good point and you are right about games becoming movies. MGS2 really is a movie in my eyes.
You covered some good point and you are right about games becoming movies. MGS2 really is a movie in my eyes.
The dump was so full it had to refuse refuse.
Everyone knows about Metal Gear Solid 2, possibly the most anticipated game to grace any console in our lifetimes. But, this anticipation quickly turned into disappointment as people realised they had simply bought an interactive movie. As graphics in games advance, and programmers want to show off their skills, will all games follow the lead of this example?
Can games use the graphics of Metal Gear Solid 2, without simply becoming a movie? That’s why I think the narrow line between a movie and a game is decreasing. There are breaks in the trend, such as FFX and Halo, which can offer great graphics and gameplay to match. But as we move on, I can see rare titles like this beginning to disappear.
Addmittidly, at the moment, there aren’t many games other than MGS2 that have this problem. But mark my words; unless programmers start to concentrate more on the gameplay again, other than the graphics, the game making business will simply turn into movies. Back in the day, classics like Pong, Space Invaders, and Donkey Kong didn’t exactly have ground breaking graphics, but they were fun. That’s what matters.
I suggest something needs to be done about this quickly. A great game can quickly be put down if it doesn’t have the graphics to match. But not vice versa. A game with great graphics seems to get all the attention. It’s not until the game is actually reviewed by a neutral source that the truth comes out. By this time, the game is already over hyped, and there’s not much that can be done. Take The Bouncer, for example.
What do I suggest? Well, I know it will never happen, but I suggest that console manufacturers actually think about how much power is needed in their console in order to produce a fun experience. Yes, great graphics do add to the gameplay, but they shouldn’t replace it. Some companies seem to take all the available power from a console, and produce a stunning game in the hope the graphics alone will sell it, maybe it will, but this should be left to Hollywood. Special effects and action scenes will make a movie, but they won’t make a game. Army Men springs to mind.
I know I’ve been harsh on Metal Gear Solid 2 in this post, but it really was a movie trying to be a game. In all the E3 showings of this game, there didn’t seem to be a problem, as it *was* a movie at that time, not an interactive demo. So the game started to create some fuss, this game would be wonderful. But, at it’s release in old Blighty, instead of the great public reaction you would expect, people were left feeling deflated. Completing it in 1 night.
So where is this game now? How often do you find posts in the Sony forum discussing how great it is? Exactly. And I would hope Konami realised this, which is why they added a vast selection of VR missions for Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance. A movie doesn’t make a great game.
So what do you think? Are you quite happy to pay £40 for a movie, imitating a game? Or would you prefer for games to have less cut scenes, and take the time and effort from making this and direct it towards making the game more fun, with more levels to explore. I know what I want.
An Extra level or two would certainly please me. It must take a long time to make those cut scenes, so why not spend this time on the levels? This would have certainly helped Konami. Sure, people would not of hailed it as such a graphical revolution. But people would have hailed it for what it should have been, a great gaming experience.
If and when I want a movie, I will go to the cinema, and spend all my concentration following the plot. I don’t want to be interrupted from what was, honestly, a movie, with often interference from very linier gameplay.
What do you think? Is the line between Games and Movies becoming too thin? I know I’ve been harsh on what was a great game, but it was, you understand, an example.
Can games use the graphics of Metal Gear Solid 2, without simply becoming a movie? That’s why I think the narrow line between a movie and a game is decreasing. There are breaks in the trend, such as FFX and Halo, which can offer great graphics and gameplay to match. But as we move on, I can see rare titles like this beginning to disappear.
Addmittidly, at the moment, there aren’t many games other than MGS2 that have this problem. But mark my words; unless programmers start to concentrate more on the gameplay again, other than the graphics, the game making business will simply turn into movies. Back in the day, classics like Pong, Space Invaders, and Donkey Kong didn’t exactly have ground breaking graphics, but they were fun. That’s what matters.
I suggest something needs to be done about this quickly. A great game can quickly be put down if it doesn’t have the graphics to match. But not vice versa. A game with great graphics seems to get all the attention. It’s not until the game is actually reviewed by a neutral source that the truth comes out. By this time, the game is already over hyped, and there’s not much that can be done. Take The Bouncer, for example.
What do I suggest? Well, I know it will never happen, but I suggest that console manufacturers actually think about how much power is needed in their console in order to produce a fun experience. Yes, great graphics do add to the gameplay, but they shouldn’t replace it. Some companies seem to take all the available power from a console, and produce a stunning game in the hope the graphics alone will sell it, maybe it will, but this should be left to Hollywood. Special effects and action scenes will make a movie, but they won’t make a game. Army Men springs to mind.
I know I’ve been harsh on Metal Gear Solid 2 in this post, but it really was a movie trying to be a game. In all the E3 showings of this game, there didn’t seem to be a problem, as it *was* a movie at that time, not an interactive demo. So the game started to create some fuss, this game would be wonderful. But, at it’s release in old Blighty, instead of the great public reaction you would expect, people were left feeling deflated. Completing it in 1 night.
So where is this game now? How often do you find posts in the Sony forum discussing how great it is? Exactly. And I would hope Konami realised this, which is why they added a vast selection of VR missions for Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance. A movie doesn’t make a great game.
So what do you think? Are you quite happy to pay £40 for a movie, imitating a game? Or would you prefer for games to have less cut scenes, and take the time and effort from making this and direct it towards making the game more fun, with more levels to explore. I know what I want.
An Extra level or two would certainly please me. It must take a long time to make those cut scenes, so why not spend this time on the levels? This would have certainly helped Konami. Sure, people would not of hailed it as such a graphical revolution. But people would have hailed it for what it should have been, a great gaming experience.
If and when I want a movie, I will go to the cinema, and spend all my concentration following the plot. I don’t want to be interrupted from what was, honestly, a movie, with often interference from very linier gameplay.
What do you think? Is the line between Games and Movies becoming too thin? I know I’ve been harsh on what was a great game, but it was, you understand, an example.