The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What is it you look for when buying a game?
Price?
Gameplay?
Graphics?
Maybe Sound?
Any of the options, including others, can only be pushed as a selling point so far. I'm taking about the future here and how aspects of a game form boundaries and how these boundaries effect whether we buy the game or not.
Let's go right back to 80's when the computer industry was just a young, naive toddler, when games were for spotty geeks and the FIFA series was a set of Spanish golfclubs. Let's look at a particular game from this era...
The Oliver Twins' Dizzy on the Spectrum had far to go before it reached perfection. In terms of graphics, gameplay (even though it was fine then) and sound - it was poor at best. Of course this is only in comparison to todays standards of gaming. But what are todays standards? Personally, I like a game that can mix gameplay with graphics and offers more then 10 minutes play. Obviously there are sub-standards like price and sound the latter of which we wouldn't care about too much if it was brilliant but we'd dispise it if it was bad, and fair enough. These add together, for me, to make a worthwhile game.
There is however, only so many times that I can buy the same game under a different title. Thats right, I'm talking about the ever conspicuous crime of cloning a game. The art of a developer taking an idea and copying it, changing the story/graphics a little and releasing it back to us, as if we didn't already play it. The cheek. Soldier of Fortune, although a half-decent game in itself, is the 'special forces' version of Half-Life. We've seen the graphics and gameplay before and quite frankly, it's boring. This example IS excusable for now though since the FPS is a fairly new genre and is yet to peak, in my opinion.
Anyway, I diagress from todays point which is boys and girls - how much more can the games industry develop? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's going to fall flat on it's bit-mapped face any time soon, I'm just saying, from a linear point of view, how far we've got to go before there can be no advancement in terms of these 'boundaries'.
If your confused then let me explain - The aforementioned Dizzy had so much going for it. If we'd have brought it up to todays standards, all the previously mentioned aspects would have been improved like graphics and sound etc. Now fair enough, but 10 years from now and you make the same update, I don't think that the change would be as suggnificant. I'm trying to say that there are now few boundries left to push in gaming. Graphics for example has improved so much from 'Back 2 Skool' on the ZX. Games being released now are in a fully rendered 3D (of course exeptions are made depeding on what game it is), sound can now be played through a TV in glorias 5.1 Dolby surround sound as opposed to beeps and ringing that were shoved against your ear drum by a 'built-in sound generator and loudspeaker' as seen in a spectrum. And Gameplay has also been improved, purely on the basis of the other aspects being bettered.
So were to now? We've got glorious graphics that seem only a foot-step away from looking like real life (Halo), Gameplay that can suck you in and blow you out the other side (System Shock, Dues Ex), sound (although hardly worth a mention in terms of improving) as reached its peak and as for the other aspects, AI could very well be improved but wouldn't make me buy a game and the price was never a big concern (although a drop wouldn't be bad).
I know gaming hasn't reached perfection but it does seem shockingly close. Genre is perhaps something to work on for developers but even this is isn't a strong contender to what can be expanded on. Of course we do see a few 'new idea' games seeping through like Animal Forest and Doshin The Giant but even these are similar in content as a 'live'em up' like the Sims. Even for Nintendo, graphics seem to have advanced so much so that they opt for a change, a step back in some peoples opinion, in the form of a cel-shaded Zelda and fair enough to them - they're trying something new, experimenting even (although we did see it in Jet Set Radio) and it should show the way forward for developers. It proves that we CAN reinvent the wheel, it just takes a little thought, time and effort. Such a 'nu-wave' will hopefully ignite a furnace of innovation in the games industry because as it is, we're running dry here folks.....
Price?
Gameplay?
Graphics?
Maybe Sound?
Any of the options, including others, can only be pushed as a selling point so far. I'm taking about the future here and how aspects of a game form boundaries and how these boundaries effect whether we buy the game or not.
Let's go right back to 80's when the computer industry was just a young, naive toddler, when games were for spotty geeks and the FIFA series was a set of Spanish golfclubs. Let's look at a particular game from this era...
The Oliver Twins' Dizzy on the Spectrum had far to go before it reached perfection. In terms of graphics, gameplay (even though it was fine then) and sound - it was poor at best. Of course this is only in comparison to todays standards of gaming. But what are todays standards? Personally, I like a game that can mix gameplay with graphics and offers more then 10 minutes play. Obviously there are sub-standards like price and sound the latter of which we wouldn't care about too much if it was brilliant but we'd dispise it if it was bad, and fair enough. These add together, for me, to make a worthwhile game.
There is however, only so many times that I can buy the same game under a different title. Thats right, I'm talking about the ever conspicuous crime of cloning a game. The art of a developer taking an idea and copying it, changing the story/graphics a little and releasing it back to us, as if we didn't already play it. The cheek. Soldier of Fortune, although a half-decent game in itself, is the 'special forces' version of Half-Life. We've seen the graphics and gameplay before and quite frankly, it's boring. This example IS excusable for now though since the FPS is a fairly new genre and is yet to peak, in my opinion.
Anyway, I diagress from todays point which is boys and girls - how much more can the games industry develop? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's going to fall flat on it's bit-mapped face any time soon, I'm just saying, from a linear point of view, how far we've got to go before there can be no advancement in terms of these 'boundaries'.
If your confused then let me explain - The aforementioned Dizzy had so much going for it. If we'd have brought it up to todays standards, all the previously mentioned aspects would have been improved like graphics and sound etc. Now fair enough, but 10 years from now and you make the same update, I don't think that the change would be as suggnificant. I'm trying to say that there are now few boundries left to push in gaming. Graphics for example has improved so much from 'Back 2 Skool' on the ZX. Games being released now are in a fully rendered 3D (of course exeptions are made depeding on what game it is), sound can now be played through a TV in glorias 5.1 Dolby surround sound as opposed to beeps and ringing that were shoved against your ear drum by a 'built-in sound generator and loudspeaker' as seen in a spectrum. And Gameplay has also been improved, purely on the basis of the other aspects being bettered.
So were to now? We've got glorious graphics that seem only a foot-step away from looking like real life (Halo), Gameplay that can suck you in and blow you out the other side (System Shock, Dues Ex), sound (although hardly worth a mention in terms of improving) as reached its peak and as for the other aspects, AI could very well be improved but wouldn't make me buy a game and the price was never a big concern (although a drop wouldn't be bad).
I know gaming hasn't reached perfection but it does seem shockingly close. Genre is perhaps something to work on for developers but even this is isn't a strong contender to what can be expanded on. Of course we do see a few 'new idea' games seeping through like Animal Forest and Doshin The Giant but even these are similar in content as a 'live'em up' like the Sims. Even for Nintendo, graphics seem to have advanced so much so that they opt for a change, a step back in some peoples opinion, in the form of a cel-shaded Zelda and fair enough to them - they're trying something new, experimenting even (although we did see it in Jet Set Radio) and it should show the way forward for developers. It proves that we CAN reinvent the wheel, it just takes a little thought, time and effort. Such a 'nu-wave' will hopefully ignite a furnace of innovation in the games industry because as it is, we're running dry here folks.....
Which is why Nintendo will always win.
Oh, and this isn't a narrowminded post about the games industry floping all of a sudden, I'm just saying that corporate giants like Sega, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft must have promising ideas for the future to keep the game industry fresh and inspiring...
What is it you look for when buying a game?
Price?
Gameplay?
Graphics?
Maybe Sound?
Any of the options, including others, can only be pushed as a selling point so far. I'm taking about the future here and how aspects of a game form boundaries and how these boundaries effect whether we buy the game or not.
Let's go right back to 80's when the computer industry was just a young, naive toddler, when games were for spotty geeks and the FIFA series was a set of Spanish golfclubs. Let's look at a particular game from this era...
The Oliver Twins' Dizzy on the Spectrum had far to go before it reached perfection. In terms of graphics, gameplay (even though it was fine then) and sound - it was poor at best. Of course this is only in comparison to todays standards of gaming. But what are todays standards? Personally, I like a game that can mix gameplay with graphics and offers more then 10 minutes play. Obviously there are sub-standards like price and sound the latter of which we wouldn't care about too much if it was brilliant but we'd dispise it if it was bad, and fair enough. These add together, for me, to make a worthwhile game.
There is however, only so many times that I can buy the same game under a different title. Thats right, I'm talking about the ever conspicuous crime of cloning a game. The art of a developer taking an idea and copying it, changing the story/graphics a little and releasing it back to us, as if we didn't already play it. The cheek. Soldier of Fortune, although a half-decent game in itself, is the 'special forces' version of Half-Life. We've seen the graphics and gameplay before and quite frankly, it's boring. This example IS excusable for now though since the FPS is a fairly new genre and is yet to peak, in my opinion.
Anyway, I diagress from todays point which is boys and girls - how much more can the games industry develop? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's going to fall flat on it's bit-mapped face any time soon, I'm just saying, from a linear point of view, how far we've got to go before there can be no advancement in terms of these 'boundaries'.
If your confused then let me explain - The aforementioned Dizzy had so much going for it. If we'd have brought it up to todays standards, all the previously mentioned aspects would have been improved like graphics and sound etc. Now fair enough, but 10 years from now and you make the same update, I don't think that the change would be as suggnificant. I'm trying to say that there are now few boundries left to push in gaming. Graphics for example has improved so much from 'Back 2 Skool' on the ZX. Games being released now are in a fully rendered 3D (of course exeptions are made depeding on what game it is), sound can now be played through a TV in glorias 5.1 Dolby surround sound as opposed to beeps and ringing that were shoved against your ear drum by a 'built-in sound generator and loudspeaker' as seen in a spectrum. And Gameplay has also been improved, purely on the basis of the other aspects being bettered.
So were to now? We've got glorious graphics that seem only a foot-step away from looking like real life (Halo), Gameplay that can suck you in and blow you out the other side (System Shock, Dues Ex), sound (although hardly worth a mention in terms of improving) as reached its peak and as for the other aspects, AI could very well be improved but wouldn't make me buy a game and the price was never a big concern (although a drop wouldn't be bad).
I know gaming hasn't reached perfection but it does seem shockingly close. Genre is perhaps something to work on for developers but even this is isn't a strong contender to what can be expanded on. Of course we do see a few 'new idea' games seeping through like Animal Forest and Doshin The Giant but even these are similar in content as a 'live'em up' like the Sims. Even for Nintendo, graphics seem to have advanced so much so that they opt for a change, a step back in some peoples opinion, in the form of a cel-shaded Zelda and fair enough to them - they're trying something new, experimenting even (although we did see it in Jet Set Radio) and it should show the way forward for developers. It proves that we CAN reinvent the wheel, it just takes a little thought, time and effort. Such a 'nu-wave' will hopefully ignite a furnace of innovation in the games industry because as it is, we're running dry here folks.....
Price?
Gameplay?
Graphics?
Maybe Sound?
Any of the options, including others, can only be pushed as a selling point so far. I'm taking about the future here and how aspects of a game form boundaries and how these boundaries effect whether we buy the game or not.
Let's go right back to 80's when the computer industry was just a young, naive toddler, when games were for spotty geeks and the FIFA series was a set of Spanish golfclubs. Let's look at a particular game from this era...
The Oliver Twins' Dizzy on the Spectrum had far to go before it reached perfection. In terms of graphics, gameplay (even though it was fine then) and sound - it was poor at best. Of course this is only in comparison to todays standards of gaming. But what are todays standards? Personally, I like a game that can mix gameplay with graphics and offers more then 10 minutes play. Obviously there are sub-standards like price and sound the latter of which we wouldn't care about too much if it was brilliant but we'd dispise it if it was bad, and fair enough. These add together, for me, to make a worthwhile game.
There is however, only so many times that I can buy the same game under a different title. Thats right, I'm talking about the ever conspicuous crime of cloning a game. The art of a developer taking an idea and copying it, changing the story/graphics a little and releasing it back to us, as if we didn't already play it. The cheek. Soldier of Fortune, although a half-decent game in itself, is the 'special forces' version of Half-Life. We've seen the graphics and gameplay before and quite frankly, it's boring. This example IS excusable for now though since the FPS is a fairly new genre and is yet to peak, in my opinion.
Anyway, I diagress from todays point which is boys and girls - how much more can the games industry develop? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's going to fall flat on it's bit-mapped face any time soon, I'm just saying, from a linear point of view, how far we've got to go before there can be no advancement in terms of these 'boundaries'.
If your confused then let me explain - The aforementioned Dizzy had so much going for it. If we'd have brought it up to todays standards, all the previously mentioned aspects would have been improved like graphics and sound etc. Now fair enough, but 10 years from now and you make the same update, I don't think that the change would be as suggnificant. I'm trying to say that there are now few boundries left to push in gaming. Graphics for example has improved so much from 'Back 2 Skool' on the ZX. Games being released now are in a fully rendered 3D (of course exeptions are made depeding on what game it is), sound can now be played through a TV in glorias 5.1 Dolby surround sound as opposed to beeps and ringing that were shoved against your ear drum by a 'built-in sound generator and loudspeaker' as seen in a spectrum. And Gameplay has also been improved, purely on the basis of the other aspects being bettered.
So were to now? We've got glorious graphics that seem only a foot-step away from looking like real life (Halo), Gameplay that can suck you in and blow you out the other side (System Shock, Dues Ex), sound (although hardly worth a mention in terms of improving) as reached its peak and as for the other aspects, AI could very well be improved but wouldn't make me buy a game and the price was never a big concern (although a drop wouldn't be bad).
I know gaming hasn't reached perfection but it does seem shockingly close. Genre is perhaps something to work on for developers but even this is isn't a strong contender to what can be expanded on. Of course we do see a few 'new idea' games seeping through like Animal Forest and Doshin The Giant but even these are similar in content as a 'live'em up' like the Sims. Even for Nintendo, graphics seem to have advanced so much so that they opt for a change, a step back in some peoples opinion, in the form of a cel-shaded Zelda and fair enough to them - they're trying something new, experimenting even (although we did see it in Jet Set Radio) and it should show the way forward for developers. It proves that we CAN reinvent the wheel, it just takes a little thought, time and effort. Such a 'nu-wave' will hopefully ignite a furnace of innovation in the games industry because as it is, we're running dry here folks.....