The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok I'm an old gamer, going back to the days of the Spectrum, and I'm tired of hearing all the twaddle about game consoles.
IT'S NOT THE CONSOLES YOU PLAY, BUT THE GAMES!!!
I have a PS2 after being dissapointed that Microsoft brought out a console that doesn't play existing PC games, THAT would have been a winner.
But what I am really tired of is the the LACK of game play in many of todays games, ICO (completed in a week £39.00!!!) Medal of Honour (completed in a week £40.00!!)etc, I dont care how much power this console has, or how many polygons that console has,IT DOESN'T MATTER, we all seem to be suffering with the nice graphics shame about the game syndrome, if I shell out £40 notes for a game, I want it to last at least a month, and have something worth going back for a replay.
The PS2 has the largest selection of games, but not necessary the largest variety, not everyone is into Shoot-em-ups, Beat-em-ups, Sports or Driving games, the Game Cube does offer a wider variety which is good whereas the Xbox seems to be producing pretty much the same things as the PS2, or is it the other way around? Gamecube, other than a few exclusive titles seems to be folowing suit. What has happened to originality, or more important, value for money.
OK, so my Spectrum and Amiga didn't have 5.1 sound and the power of todays consoles, but, take a game like Populous, it, with Populous II had a few THOUSAND levels and was the predecessor of Godgames, the games were original, and like so many other games could be re-issued for todays power consoles.
It is fair to say all three consoles have merits, but it should be the games that are the talking point, and more important, value for money.
I dont give a dam about the graphics, yes it is fair to say that I enjoy good Graphics and sound, but they should not be the overiding factor for a game, and I think reviews should concentrate a little more about the games longevity rather than how it looks or sounds.
At the end of the day, buy the console that has the games you want to play and ignore the childish comments about why one console is better than another. As a now defunct game company called Ultimate always said "Play the Game"
IT'S NOT THE CONSOLES YOU PLAY, BUT THE GAMES!!!
I have a PS2 after being dissapointed that Microsoft brought out a console that doesn't play existing PC games, THAT would have been a winner.
But what I am really tired of is the the LACK of game play in many of todays games, ICO (completed in a week £39.00!!!) Medal of Honour (completed in a week £40.00!!)etc, I dont care how much power this console has, or how many polygons that console has,IT DOESN'T MATTER, we all seem to be suffering with the nice graphics shame about the game syndrome, if I shell out £40 notes for a game, I want it to last at least a month, and have something worth going back for a replay.
The PS2 has the largest selection of games, but not necessary the largest variety, not everyone is into Shoot-em-ups, Beat-em-ups, Sports or Driving games, the Game Cube does offer a wider variety which is good whereas the Xbox seems to be producing pretty much the same things as the PS2, or is it the other way around? Gamecube, other than a few exclusive titles seems to be folowing suit. What has happened to originality, or more important, value for money.
OK, so my Spectrum and Amiga didn't have 5.1 sound and the power of todays consoles, but, take a game like Populous, it, with Populous II had a few THOUSAND levels and was the predecessor of Godgames, the games were original, and like so many other games could be re-issued for todays power consoles.
It is fair to say all three consoles have merits, but it should be the games that are the talking point, and more important, value for money.
I dont give a dam about the graphics, yes it is fair to say that I enjoy good Graphics and sound, but they should not be the overiding factor for a game, and I think reviews should concentrate a little more about the games longevity rather than how it looks or sounds.
At the end of the day, buy the console that has the games you want to play and ignore the childish comments about why one console is better than another. As a now defunct game company called Ultimate always said "Play the Game"
Page:
~Resurection~ wrote:
>
> discuss
Why do you always say that?
>
> discuss
Why do you always say that?
ok i'll move on to more grown up topics than console wars.
my dad is better than your dad so there
discuss
my dad is better than your dad so there
discuss
I love the idea of getting medals on levels to unlock more stuff, but I like the game to be bigger too. I'm still playing Rogue Leader because I love the game, and I don't seem to get bored playing the same levels, I'm still not onto Ace Mode yet :S
If you like the game, I think Sonic Adventure 2 is one of the best examples of what lastability should be about. The game has a respectable amount of levels, which you get grades for and emblems for completeing. You can also get a second emblem for getting an A rank. Plus each level has 5 missions, making for about around 100 different 'levels' to play on, and get an A for. Then of course theres the Chaos, which add a huge amount of replayability, but again, only if you like taht sort of thing.
The only problem is there weren't enough rewards for it all..
If you like the game, I think Sonic Adventure 2 is one of the best examples of what lastability should be about. The game has a respectable amount of levels, which you get grades for and emblems for completeing. You can also get a second emblem for getting an A rank. Plus each level has 5 missions, making for about around 100 different 'levels' to play on, and get an A for. Then of course theres the Chaos, which add a huge amount of replayability, but again, only if you like taht sort of thing.
The only problem is there weren't enough rewards for it all..
And the Watcher never returned....
I think one of the best types of games you can get right now when it comes to longevity are the realistic racers such as Gran Turismo and Project Gothem. They have loads to do whereas platform games and the like are over in a week.
Games like Rogue Leader offer extra life through its medal system, but its not really the sort of longevity you want. Its just a case of trying to stop yourself from going mental as you do the same stuff only faster.
Basically its not very enjoyable. The game itself doesn't take long to complete, but the medals can make you scream in frustration.
Realistic driving games aren't exactly my favourite type of game though. I've found that Halo has kept me really busy - I even play it now months after getting it and beating it. Its not so much the harder difficulty settings that have had me coming back for more, its the excellent AI in the game. Because the troops on both sides are very intelligent, you play through the same levels, but your left in different situations.
If other games start showing a high level of AI like this then I'm sure it could benefit quite a few games in the term of longevity.
Games like Rogue Leader offer extra life through its medal system, but its not really the sort of longevity you want. Its just a case of trying to stop yourself from going mental as you do the same stuff only faster.
Basically its not very enjoyable. The game itself doesn't take long to complete, but the medals can make you scream in frustration.
Realistic driving games aren't exactly my favourite type of game though. I've found that Halo has kept me really busy - I even play it now months after getting it and beating it. Its not so much the harder difficulty settings that have had me coming back for more, its the excellent AI in the game. Because the troops on both sides are very intelligent, you play through the same levels, but your left in different situations.
If other games start showing a high level of AI like this then I'm sure it could benefit quite a few games in the term of longevity.
Longevity is a problem in a lot of current games, but there are games which do offer value for money.
For instance, it took me 70 hours to complete everything in Jet Set Radio Future; the multiplayer in Halo adds longevity; Morrowind is on it's way to XBOX promising 500 hours of gameplay time.
But having said that, I don't like to play games which are drawn-out in a contrived manner just to increase the playing time. I'd rather play a short & sweet game than something that just drags on and on.
Funnily enough, the games I get most replay value out of tend to be addictive high-score games like Crazy Taxi 1&2 - games which many people label as shallow and short-lived.
When I spend 40 quid, I look for and want games with original ideas. That's what I consider to be the MOST important thing.
I'd much rather play a 10 hour game full of original ideas than a 50 hour game which doesn't offer anything new in terms of gameplay.
For instance, it took me 70 hours to complete everything in Jet Set Radio Future; the multiplayer in Halo adds longevity; Morrowind is on it's way to XBOX promising 500 hours of gameplay time.
But having said that, I don't like to play games which are drawn-out in a contrived manner just to increase the playing time. I'd rather play a short & sweet game than something that just drags on and on.
Funnily enough, the games I get most replay value out of tend to be addictive high-score games like Crazy Taxi 1&2 - games which many people label as shallow and short-lived.
When I spend 40 quid, I look for and want games with original ideas. That's what I consider to be the MOST important thing.
I'd much rather play a 10 hour game full of original ideas than a 50 hour game which doesn't offer anything new in terms of gameplay.
Ok I'm an old gamer, going back to the days of the Spectrum, and I'm tired of hearing all the twaddle about game consoles.
IT'S NOT THE CONSOLES YOU PLAY, BUT THE GAMES!!!
I have a PS2 after being dissapointed that Microsoft brought out a console that doesn't play existing PC games, THAT would have been a winner.
But what I am really tired of is the the LACK of game play in many of todays games, ICO (completed in a week £39.00!!!) Medal of Honour (completed in a week £40.00!!)etc, I dont care how much power this console has, or how many polygons that console has,IT DOESN'T MATTER, we all seem to be suffering with the nice graphics shame about the game syndrome, if I shell out £40 notes for a game, I want it to last at least a month, and have something worth going back for a replay.
The PS2 has the largest selection of games, but not necessary the largest variety, not everyone is into Shoot-em-ups, Beat-em-ups, Sports or Driving games, the Game Cube does offer a wider variety which is good whereas the Xbox seems to be producing pretty much the same things as the PS2, or is it the other way around? Gamecube, other than a few exclusive titles seems to be folowing suit. What has happened to originality, or more important, value for money.
OK, so my Spectrum and Amiga didn't have 5.1 sound and the power of todays consoles, but, take a game like Populous, it, with Populous II had a few THOUSAND levels and was the predecessor of Godgames, the games were original, and like so many other games could be re-issued for todays power consoles.
It is fair to say all three consoles have merits, but it should be the games that are the talking point, and more important, value for money.
I dont give a dam about the graphics, yes it is fair to say that I enjoy good Graphics and sound, but they should not be the overiding factor for a game, and I think reviews should concentrate a little more about the games longevity rather than how it looks or sounds.
At the end of the day, buy the console that has the games you want to play and ignore the childish comments about why one console is better than another. As a now defunct game company called Ultimate always said "Play the Game"
IT'S NOT THE CONSOLES YOU PLAY, BUT THE GAMES!!!
I have a PS2 after being dissapointed that Microsoft brought out a console that doesn't play existing PC games, THAT would have been a winner.
But what I am really tired of is the the LACK of game play in many of todays games, ICO (completed in a week £39.00!!!) Medal of Honour (completed in a week £40.00!!)etc, I dont care how much power this console has, or how many polygons that console has,IT DOESN'T MATTER, we all seem to be suffering with the nice graphics shame about the game syndrome, if I shell out £40 notes for a game, I want it to last at least a month, and have something worth going back for a replay.
The PS2 has the largest selection of games, but not necessary the largest variety, not everyone is into Shoot-em-ups, Beat-em-ups, Sports or Driving games, the Game Cube does offer a wider variety which is good whereas the Xbox seems to be producing pretty much the same things as the PS2, or is it the other way around? Gamecube, other than a few exclusive titles seems to be folowing suit. What has happened to originality, or more important, value for money.
OK, so my Spectrum and Amiga didn't have 5.1 sound and the power of todays consoles, but, take a game like Populous, it, with Populous II had a few THOUSAND levels and was the predecessor of Godgames, the games were original, and like so many other games could be re-issued for todays power consoles.
It is fair to say all three consoles have merits, but it should be the games that are the talking point, and more important, value for money.
I dont give a dam about the graphics, yes it is fair to say that I enjoy good Graphics and sound, but they should not be the overiding factor for a game, and I think reviews should concentrate a little more about the games longevity rather than how it looks or sounds.
At the end of the day, buy the console that has the games you want to play and ignore the childish comments about why one console is better than another. As a now defunct game company called Ultimate always said "Play the Game"
Page: