The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I had posted this (albeit in a slightly different guise) over at the GameCube board, but alas, it seems to have gone unnoticed. Boring topic maybe?
What is with the fixation of other platform's franchises?
Wouldn't you rather see fresh content on your console of choice, rather than a franchise (see Final Fantasy and Resident Evil) that's well past it's sell-by date IMO?
What's really changed in those franchises? Yes, they're good games in there own right. But, they're all based on the same ethos and they're hardly exploring new ideas and new territory.
I'm not dismissing them as bad games, because they're not. My question is; Wouldn't you rather sample first-hand, new experiences rather than rehashes of an ageing franchise?
Grand Theft Auto 3. Yes, a game part of a franchise. But compare the second one to the third in the series. There is a notable difference. A different approach to the game. An approach that housed fresh ideas and went on to become the PS2's popular title.
Eternal Darkness is another good example. A new game that utilises some good ideas and IMO is a fresh approach to it's respective genre. The story. The atmosphere. The suspense. More games like this are needed.
What is with the fixation of other platform's franchises?
Wouldn't you rather see fresh content on your console of choice, rather than a franchise (see Final Fantasy and Resident Evil) that's well past it's sell-by date IMO?
What's really changed in those franchises? Yes, they're good games in there own right. But, they're all based on the same ethos and they're hardly exploring new ideas and new territory.
I'm not dismissing them as bad games, because they're not. My question is; Wouldn't you rather sample first-hand, new experiences rather than rehashes of an ageing franchise?
Grand Theft Auto 3. Yes, a game part of a franchise. But compare the second one to the third in the series. There is a notable difference. A different approach to the game. An approach that housed fresh ideas and went on to become the PS2's popular title.
Eternal Darkness is another good example. A new game that utilises some good ideas and IMO is a fresh approach to it's respective genre. The story. The atmosphere. The suspense. More games like this are needed.
Bleeders wrote:
> Eternal Darkness is another good example. A new game that utilises
> some good ideas and IMO is a fresh approach to it's respective genre.
> The story. The atmosphere. The suspense. More games like this are
> needed.
*
Surely every self-respecting gamer would think this.
"Originality first - everything else second" - let this be our motto.
Oh, and no more bloody FIFA games! How do I know that'll fall on deaf ears....
> Eternal Darkness is another good example. A new game that utilises
> some good ideas and IMO is a fresh approach to it's respective genre.
> The story. The atmosphere. The suspense. More games like this are
> needed.
*
Surely every self-respecting gamer would think this.
"Originality first - everything else second" - let this be our motto.
Oh, and no more bloody FIFA games! How do I know that'll fall on deaf ears....
I had posted this (albeit in a slightly different guise) over at the GameCube board, but alas, it seems to have gone unnoticed. Boring topic maybe?
What is with the fixation of other platform's franchises?
Wouldn't you rather see fresh content on your console of choice, rather than a franchise (see Final Fantasy and Resident Evil) that's well past it's sell-by date IMO?
What's really changed in those franchises? Yes, they're good games in there own right. But, they're all based on the same ethos and they're hardly exploring new ideas and new territory.
I'm not dismissing them as bad games, because they're not. My question is; Wouldn't you rather sample first-hand, new experiences rather than rehashes of an ageing franchise?
Grand Theft Auto 3. Yes, a game part of a franchise. But compare the second one to the third in the series. There is a notable difference. A different approach to the game. An approach that housed fresh ideas and went on to become the PS2's popular title.
Eternal Darkness is another good example. A new game that utilises some good ideas and IMO is a fresh approach to it's respective genre. The story. The atmosphere. The suspense. More games like this are needed.
What is with the fixation of other platform's franchises?
Wouldn't you rather see fresh content on your console of choice, rather than a franchise (see Final Fantasy and Resident Evil) that's well past it's sell-by date IMO?
What's really changed in those franchises? Yes, they're good games in there own right. But, they're all based on the same ethos and they're hardly exploring new ideas and new territory.
I'm not dismissing them as bad games, because they're not. My question is; Wouldn't you rather sample first-hand, new experiences rather than rehashes of an ageing franchise?
Grand Theft Auto 3. Yes, a game part of a franchise. But compare the second one to the third in the series. There is a notable difference. A different approach to the game. An approach that housed fresh ideas and went on to become the PS2's popular title.
Eternal Darkness is another good example. A new game that utilises some good ideas and IMO is a fresh approach to it's respective genre. The story. The atmosphere. The suspense. More games like this are needed.