The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 wrong with some gamers? They moan about certain consoles because they contain ports and sequels as if that's a bad thing! It's not like there aren't game ports and sequels on their machines. Infact there's bound to be atleast one port, sequel and in some cases a prequel on every major system to date! Just because they're conversion or new games based on old, it doesn't necessarily make them a bad play does it?
In some cases, sequels are bad. An example of a terrible sequel is Super Mario Bros 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System, a game based on a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. It was rubbish in comparison to the original Super Mario Bros, and why it was re-released on the Game Boy Advance is anyone's guess. But bad sequels are what brings on these stupid comments about all sequels being bad. It is definately not true, and in some cases, sequels are a major improvement!
Ports aren't necessarily a bad thing either, being releases of games that were on previous consoles or current ones that you may not necessarily own. They allow you to play the games you missed out on when you couldn't afford more than one console. Sometimes ports are added to, enhanced and even made as exclusive versions for that particular console like the Resident Evil series is on the GameCube. Again, some cases aren't so good, using Super Mario Bros 2 as an example again - was re-released on the Game Boy Advance as Super Mario Advance. Obviously this was ported to the new version Game Boy just as an easy, simple to transfer and update game from one system to another as an excuse to launch the Game Boy with a Super Mario title.
It amazes me how one day people can be excited about getting ports and sequels of games series's from one system onto their own system, yet another they'll moan that another company is 'stealing' their console-game's ideas, which is obviously not true. For example, a few months ago, Nintendo fans were wetting themselves in fright after strong but false rumours appeared all over the internet about Rareware being bought by Activision and going multiformat. At that moment in time, Microsoft X-box and Sony Playstation 2 fans and owners were already preparing the celebrations of finally being able to play brilliant games made by rareware without having to buy a Nintendo console. Ofcourse they were happy - they knew that they'd have new games made by rareware of similar quality to titles such as Banjo Kazooie! When the rumours seemed to start to fade away into the nothingness from which they started from, many non-Nintendo gamers started making comments against Nintendo having exclusivity to the entire series of Resident Evil series due to the games being released on systems before - despite many of the GameCube exclusive versions being revamped completely. Why it's bad for Nintendo fans (who are above the BBFC-lower-age limit before anyone says anything) is anybody's guess. Most gamers will tell you it's a perfect opportunity for Nintendo to try and improve on their 'kiddy' image (that's another debate).
Sequels seem to go through the same rubbishy treatment from those who know very little about games. This is mainly because people in general mistake a sequel for something that's already been done. Sure, some of it may have been taken from the original, but the games are usually very different. Super Mario Sunshine is the sequel to Super Mario 64, and their plots and styles differ in many, many ways. How many other games do you see very popular games characters aiding themselves with water-filled backpacks? Sequels, as well as being played as seperate games, can increase the length of the adventures, sagas, storylines and anything else you'd like to call them, without seeming too similar. They make a standalone game into a series, such as Doom, Command & Conquer, Tomb Raider and even Super Mario Land!
At the end of the day, there are or will be over one-hundred games available per system, whether it be GameCube, PC, Playstation, Playstation 2 or X-box, and many of them are brand new standalone titles. If, for any stupid reason, you really detest sequels and ports, then you've still got plenty of other games to choose from - no one is forcing you at gunpoint to buy them are they? Why people have problems about sequels is pathetic - all in their heads. All in aid of console wars. The fact is, all consoles have sequels and prequels and that's because people buy them. If they didn't, do you think that they'd still be made? Sequels and ports are a good thing.
In some cases, sequels are bad. An example of a terrible sequel is Super Mario Bros 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System, a game based on a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. It was rubbish in comparison to the original Super Mario Bros, and why it was re-released on the Game Boy Advance is anyone's guess. But bad sequels are what brings on these stupid comments about all sequels being bad. It is definately not true, and in some cases, sequels are a major improvement!
Ports aren't necessarily a bad thing either, being releases of games that were on previous consoles or current ones that you may not necessarily own. They allow you to play the games you missed out on when you couldn't afford more than one console. Sometimes ports are added to, enhanced and even made as exclusive versions for that particular console like the Resident Evil series is on the GameCube. Again, some cases aren't so good, using Super Mario Bros 2 as an example again - was re-released on the Game Boy Advance as Super Mario Advance. Obviously this was ported to the new version Game Boy just as an easy, simple to transfer and update game from one system to another as an excuse to launch the Game Boy with a Super Mario title.
It amazes me how one day people can be excited about getting ports and sequels of games series's from one system onto their own system, yet another they'll moan that another company is 'stealing' their console-game's ideas, which is obviously not true. For example, a few months ago, Nintendo fans were wetting themselves in fright after strong but false rumours appeared all over the internet about Rareware being bought by Activision and going multiformat. At that moment in time, Microsoft X-box and Sony Playstation 2 fans and owners were already preparing the celebrations of finally being able to play brilliant games made by rareware without having to buy a Nintendo console. Ofcourse they were happy - they knew that they'd have new games made by rareware of similar quality to titles such as Banjo Kazooie! When the rumours seemed to start to fade away into the nothingness from which they started from, many non-Nintendo gamers started making comments against Nintendo having exclusivity to the entire series of Resident Evil series due to the games being released on systems before - despite many of the GameCube exclusive versions being revamped completely. Why it's bad for Nintendo fans (who are above the BBFC-lower-age limit before anyone says anything) is anybody's guess. Most gamers will tell you it's a perfect opportunity for Nintendo to try and improve on their 'kiddy' image (that's another debate).
Sequels seem to go through the same rubbishy treatment from those who know very little about games. This is mainly because people in general mistake a sequel for something that's already been done. Sure, some of it may have been taken from the original, but the games are usually very different. Super Mario Sunshine is the sequel to Super Mario 64, and their plots and styles differ in many, many ways. How many other games do you see very popular games characters aiding themselves with water-filled backpacks? Sequels, as well as being played as seperate games, can increase the length of the adventures, sagas, storylines and anything else you'd like to call them, without seeming too similar. They make a standalone game into a series, such as Doom, Command & Conquer, Tomb Raider and even Super Mario Land!
At the end of the day, there are or will be over one-hundred games available per system, whether it be GameCube, PC, Playstation, Playstation 2 or X-box, and many of them are brand new standalone titles. If, for any stupid reason, you really detest sequels and ports, then you've still got plenty of other games to choose from - no one is forcing you at gunpoint to buy them are they? Why people have problems about sequels is pathetic - all in their heads. All in aid of console wars. The fact is, all consoles have sequels and prequels and that's because people buy them. If they didn't, do you think that they'd still be made? Sequels and ports are a good thing.
What made me laugh was when Nintendo fans were, at one stage, really against the idea of SEGA's Sonic games appearing on the GameCube and Game Boy Advance. After all, SEGA and Nintendo were once major competitors in the market. Yet, if they stopped to think - they would have realised straight away that Sonic's games appearing on Nintendo consoles was a good thing, meaning two great competitors have now become cooperators instead of competitors and we'd be playing the games from another great platforming series.
As PB said, a similar thing has happened with the Final Fantasy series. First of all, Nintendo had the exclusivity with Final Fantasy - until the Nintendo 64 was developed when Squaresoft abandoned a UK-release of Super Mario RPG for the Super Nintendo and both the heads of Nintendo and Squaresoft had a major argument. This meant that Squaresoft were looking for a new console to develop for, and Sony seemed to be the perfect opportunity. Nintendo fans took it as a major blow, loosing the Final Fantasy series, and blamed it on Squaresofts 'stupid' attitude, when in fairness, it was stupid of Nintendo to continue using cartridges (despite them being my preffered game-format). Now that the GameCube is a disc-based system, Squaresoft are more than happy to develop for the GameCube and even again for the Game Boy! Yet some Nintendo fans are still bitter and twisted over the matter because of Squaresofts 'abandoning' of Nintendo. The majority of Nintendo fans are pleased, even those who have no interest in the series, as after all, everyone knows how popular the series is, and for Final Fantasy games to be released on the GameCube means that things can only get better with Squaresoft and Nintendo raking in the money. Some Sony fans are really tense about the matter though. They feel like Nintendo has stolen the series, and the fans feel they'll have to splash out on a console they don't want to play whatever Final Fantasy games get released that become exclusive versions. Nintendo haven't stolen anything, more like a seperate company set up by Squaresoft (Squaresoft themselves in reality) are developing more games. If Squaresoft thought they wouldn't benefit from it, would they continue?
It's just amazing how people can react to these situations.
As PB said, a similar thing has happened with the Final Fantasy series. First of all, Nintendo had the exclusivity with Final Fantasy - until the Nintendo 64 was developed when Squaresoft abandoned a UK-release of Super Mario RPG for the Super Nintendo and both the heads of Nintendo and Squaresoft had a major argument. This meant that Squaresoft were looking for a new console to develop for, and Sony seemed to be the perfect opportunity. Nintendo fans took it as a major blow, loosing the Final Fantasy series, and blamed it on Squaresofts 'stupid' attitude, when in fairness, it was stupid of Nintendo to continue using cartridges (despite them being my preffered game-format). Now that the GameCube is a disc-based system, Squaresoft are more than happy to develop for the GameCube and even again for the Game Boy! Yet some Nintendo fans are still bitter and twisted over the matter because of Squaresofts 'abandoning' of Nintendo. The majority of Nintendo fans are pleased, even those who have no interest in the series, as after all, everyone knows how popular the series is, and for Final Fantasy games to be released on the GameCube means that things can only get better with Squaresoft and Nintendo raking in the money. Some Sony fans are really tense about the matter though. They feel like Nintendo has stolen the series, and the fans feel they'll have to splash out on a console they don't want to play whatever Final Fantasy games get released that become exclusive versions. Nintendo haven't stolen anything, more like a seperate company set up by Squaresoft (Squaresoft themselves in reality) are developing more games. If Squaresoft thought they wouldn't benefit from it, would they continue?
It's just amazing how people can react to these situations.
Whoops, I misread pb's post. Sorry to repeat what's already been said. Nice post, btw.
Not ALL sequels improve on the first, but as long as they do they're acceptable (for want of a better word).
Cyclone wrote:
> Most sequals are made because people buy the series. Its their fault
> if a series continues, whether good or bad.
That doesn't make much sense. Saying that, if you didn't want any sequels, then you wouldn't buy any original games for fear they may have a sequel if they proved popular!
Anyway, some sequels are great and only improve on the original. The example of Mario 2 was not exactly a good one to start with, as Mario 3 was made and many more after that, all better than the last. Though Mario 2 was the poor relation to these, it still beat most other platform games at the time hands down.
As for the other area of this topic, getting multiformat games, some Sony fans were up-in-arms when the Final Fantasy series was announced to be returning to Nintendo after all these years, obviously even though it would still appear on Sony's machine. There are still enough in-house games to make a console exclusive though, otherwise you'd just choose the most powerful one. If all the games from the other formats came out on the Xbox, Microsoft would be laughing!
> Most sequals are made because people buy the series. Its their fault
> if a series continues, whether good or bad.
That doesn't make much sense. Saying that, if you didn't want any sequels, then you wouldn't buy any original games for fear they may have a sequel if they proved popular!
Anyway, some sequels are great and only improve on the original. The example of Mario 2 was not exactly a good one to start with, as Mario 3 was made and many more after that, all better than the last. Though Mario 2 was the poor relation to these, it still beat most other platform games at the time hands down.
As for the other area of this topic, getting multiformat games, some Sony fans were up-in-arms when the Final Fantasy series was announced to be returning to Nintendo after all these years, obviously even though it would still appear on Sony's machine. There are still enough in-house games to make a console exclusive though, otherwise you'd just choose the most powerful one. If all the games from the other formats came out on the Xbox, Microsoft would be laughing!
Most sequals are made because people buy the series. Its their fault if a series continues, whether good or bad.
What is wrong with some gamers? They moan about certain consoles because they contain ports and sequels as if that's a bad thing! It's not like there aren't game ports and sequels on their machines. Infact there's bound to be atleast one port, sequel and in some cases a prequel on every major system to date! Just because they're conversion or new games based on old, it doesn't necessarily make them a bad play does it?
In some cases, sequels are bad. An example of a terrible sequel is Super Mario Bros 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System, a game based on a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. It was rubbish in comparison to the original Super Mario Bros, and why it was re-released on the Game Boy Advance is anyone's guess. But bad sequels are what brings on these stupid comments about all sequels being bad. It is definately not true, and in some cases, sequels are a major improvement!
Ports aren't necessarily a bad thing either, being releases of games that were on previous consoles or current ones that you may not necessarily own. They allow you to play the games you missed out on when you couldn't afford more than one console. Sometimes ports are added to, enhanced and even made as exclusive versions for that particular console like the Resident Evil series is on the GameCube. Again, some cases aren't so good, using Super Mario Bros 2 as an example again - was re-released on the Game Boy Advance as Super Mario Advance. Obviously this was ported to the new version Game Boy just as an easy, simple to transfer and update game from one system to another as an excuse to launch the Game Boy with a Super Mario title.
It amazes me how one day people can be excited about getting ports and sequels of games series's from one system onto their own system, yet another they'll moan that another company is 'stealing' their console-game's ideas, which is obviously not true. For example, a few months ago, Nintendo fans were wetting themselves in fright after strong but false rumours appeared all over the internet about Rareware being bought by Activision and going multiformat. At that moment in time, Microsoft X-box and Sony Playstation 2 fans and owners were already preparing the celebrations of finally being able to play brilliant games made by rareware without having to buy a Nintendo console. Ofcourse they were happy - they knew that they'd have new games made by rareware of similar quality to titles such as Banjo Kazooie! When the rumours seemed to start to fade away into the nothingness from which they started from, many non-Nintendo gamers started making comments against Nintendo having exclusivity to the entire series of Resident Evil series due to the games being released on systems before - despite many of the GameCube exclusive versions being revamped completely. Why it's bad for Nintendo fans (who are above the BBFC-lower-age limit before anyone says anything) is anybody's guess. Most gamers will tell you it's a perfect opportunity for Nintendo to try and improve on their 'kiddy' image (that's another debate).
Sequels seem to go through the same rubbishy treatment from those who know very little about games. This is mainly because people in general mistake a sequel for something that's already been done. Sure, some of it may have been taken from the original, but the games are usually very different. Super Mario Sunshine is the sequel to Super Mario 64, and their plots and styles differ in many, many ways. How many other games do you see very popular games characters aiding themselves with water-filled backpacks? Sequels, as well as being played as seperate games, can increase the length of the adventures, sagas, storylines and anything else you'd like to call them, without seeming too similar. They make a standalone game into a series, such as Doom, Command & Conquer, Tomb Raider and even Super Mario Land!
At the end of the day, there are or will be over one-hundred games available per system, whether it be GameCube, PC, Playstation, Playstation 2 or X-box, and many of them are brand new standalone titles. If, for any stupid reason, you really detest sequels and ports, then you've still got plenty of other games to choose from - no one is forcing you at gunpoint to buy them are they? Why people have problems about sequels is pathetic - all in their heads. All in aid of console wars. The fact is, all consoles have sequels and prequels and that's because people buy them. If they didn't, do you think that they'd still be made? Sequels and ports are a good thing.
In some cases, sequels are bad. An example of a terrible sequel is Super Mario Bros 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System, a game based on a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. It was rubbish in comparison to the original Super Mario Bros, and why it was re-released on the Game Boy Advance is anyone's guess. But bad sequels are what brings on these stupid comments about all sequels being bad. It is definately not true, and in some cases, sequels are a major improvement!
Ports aren't necessarily a bad thing either, being releases of games that were on previous consoles or current ones that you may not necessarily own. They allow you to play the games you missed out on when you couldn't afford more than one console. Sometimes ports are added to, enhanced and even made as exclusive versions for that particular console like the Resident Evil series is on the GameCube. Again, some cases aren't so good, using Super Mario Bros 2 as an example again - was re-released on the Game Boy Advance as Super Mario Advance. Obviously this was ported to the new version Game Boy just as an easy, simple to transfer and update game from one system to another as an excuse to launch the Game Boy with a Super Mario title.
It amazes me how one day people can be excited about getting ports and sequels of games series's from one system onto their own system, yet another they'll moan that another company is 'stealing' their console-game's ideas, which is obviously not true. For example, a few months ago, Nintendo fans were wetting themselves in fright after strong but false rumours appeared all over the internet about Rareware being bought by Activision and going multiformat. At that moment in time, Microsoft X-box and Sony Playstation 2 fans and owners were already preparing the celebrations of finally being able to play brilliant games made by rareware without having to buy a Nintendo console. Ofcourse they were happy - they knew that they'd have new games made by rareware of similar quality to titles such as Banjo Kazooie! When the rumours seemed to start to fade away into the nothingness from which they started from, many non-Nintendo gamers started making comments against Nintendo having exclusivity to the entire series of Resident Evil series due to the games being released on systems before - despite many of the GameCube exclusive versions being revamped completely. Why it's bad for Nintendo fans (who are above the BBFC-lower-age limit before anyone says anything) is anybody's guess. Most gamers will tell you it's a perfect opportunity for Nintendo to try and improve on their 'kiddy' image (that's another debate).
Sequels seem to go through the same rubbishy treatment from those who know very little about games. This is mainly because people in general mistake a sequel for something that's already been done. Sure, some of it may have been taken from the original, but the games are usually very different. Super Mario Sunshine is the sequel to Super Mario 64, and their plots and styles differ in many, many ways. How many other games do you see very popular games characters aiding themselves with water-filled backpacks? Sequels, as well as being played as seperate games, can increase the length of the adventures, sagas, storylines and anything else you'd like to call them, without seeming too similar. They make a standalone game into a series, such as Doom, Command & Conquer, Tomb Raider and even Super Mario Land!
At the end of the day, there are or will be over one-hundred games available per system, whether it be GameCube, PC, Playstation, Playstation 2 or X-box, and many of them are brand new standalone titles. If, for any stupid reason, you really detest sequels and ports, then you've still got plenty of other games to choose from - no one is forcing you at gunpoint to buy them are they? Why people have problems about sequels is pathetic - all in their heads. All in aid of console wars. The fact is, all consoles have sequels and prequels and that's because people buy them. If they didn't, do you think that they'd still be made? Sequels and ports are a good thing.