The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yup, licenses, sequels and originality in games have caused nearly as many arguments...sorry 'discussions' as the accursed console wars topics.
Here are what I think most gamer's believe;
Licenses: Widely believed to be unoriginal, used by companies to sell masses of copies of games to gamer's and are about as original as a new series of Pop Idol
Sequels: Another way in which companies try to claw our cash from us.
Originality: The holy grail of gaming, everyone seems to look for it but finding it would today, some would have you believe, isn't really possible.
Well, most of the above is wrong if you ask me.
The new Tomb Raider looks graphically the best ever and from what we've been shown so far, more in the Metal Gear Solid 2 mould with the camera not always being behind the player like in the previous games.
Tony Hawk's - sure, #3 is a bit the same, but only if oyu've played the first 2 anyway ! A lot of people have only just had consoles so have never played any of the games before, and in the case of the Gamecube, it's the first time the license has been on a Nintendo machine which again means lots more potential buyers.
Sequels are, usually, a good idea as any decent developer knows they've got to correct their mistakes from the previous game. Look at Timesplitters 2 - this is a MASSIVE improvement with better 1 player storyline, better weapons, better controls, more vairety for multiplayer, a level creator. It's way better. The Rainbow Six games on PC, and soon console, - each has added more weapons, beter graphics, improved interfaces, easier controls, better AI, the new title Raven Shield will be the best on yet. Onimusha 2 solves the originals problems with higher difficulty, more boss integration, better backgrounds.
Gamer's cry out for original titles, then, when they arrive, go buy the newest version of their favourite license instead. Is this because we're an unimaginative lot who wouldn't recognise originality if it hit us in the face ? Nope. People play what they like, no matter what it is. If a game is really popular, it becomes a license, and has sequels.
Whether the first game was original or not doesn't matter because to be popular the game needs a certain something about it.(EA Sports are excluded from this theory, they clearly have made a pact with the dark powers to sell FIFA ever year...:) ) Following this logic, all big licenses were originally original games !
Look;
Grand Theft Auto
Tomb Raider
TOCA
Medal Of Honour
Sims
Sonic
All were first original games that have gone on to spawn multi format titles and plenty of sequels/add ons.
Devout Nintendo fanboys would have people believe Nintendo offers the only true original gaming experience. That isn't true. Nintendo have developed their own style of games for sure, but they're generally no more original then a lot of their previous titles when you look at them closely. The games are great, they play well e.t.c but they aren't staggeringly original.
So...if you're looking for original games then look no further than the big licenses because in most cases they're original and offer an experience you won't find elsewhere. Originality is everywhere if you can just see it under the marketing !
~~Belldandy~~
Here are what I think most gamer's believe;
Licenses: Widely believed to be unoriginal, used by companies to sell masses of copies of games to gamer's and are about as original as a new series of Pop Idol
Sequels: Another way in which companies try to claw our cash from us.
Originality: The holy grail of gaming, everyone seems to look for it but finding it would today, some would have you believe, isn't really possible.
Well, most of the above is wrong if you ask me.
The new Tomb Raider looks graphically the best ever and from what we've been shown so far, more in the Metal Gear Solid 2 mould with the camera not always being behind the player like in the previous games.
Tony Hawk's - sure, #3 is a bit the same, but only if oyu've played the first 2 anyway ! A lot of people have only just had consoles so have never played any of the games before, and in the case of the Gamecube, it's the first time the license has been on a Nintendo machine which again means lots more potential buyers.
Sequels are, usually, a good idea as any decent developer knows they've got to correct their mistakes from the previous game. Look at Timesplitters 2 - this is a MASSIVE improvement with better 1 player storyline, better weapons, better controls, more vairety for multiplayer, a level creator. It's way better. The Rainbow Six games on PC, and soon console, - each has added more weapons, beter graphics, improved interfaces, easier controls, better AI, the new title Raven Shield will be the best on yet. Onimusha 2 solves the originals problems with higher difficulty, more boss integration, better backgrounds.
Gamer's cry out for original titles, then, when they arrive, go buy the newest version of their favourite license instead. Is this because we're an unimaginative lot who wouldn't recognise originality if it hit us in the face ? Nope. People play what they like, no matter what it is. If a game is really popular, it becomes a license, and has sequels.
Whether the first game was original or not doesn't matter because to be popular the game needs a certain something about it.(EA Sports are excluded from this theory, they clearly have made a pact with the dark powers to sell FIFA ever year...:) ) Following this logic, all big licenses were originally original games !
Look;
Grand Theft Auto
Tomb Raider
TOCA
Medal Of Honour
Sims
Sonic
All were first original games that have gone on to spawn multi format titles and plenty of sequels/add ons.
Devout Nintendo fanboys would have people believe Nintendo offers the only true original gaming experience. That isn't true. Nintendo have developed their own style of games for sure, but they're generally no more original then a lot of their previous titles when you look at them closely. The games are great, they play well e.t.c but they aren't staggeringly original.
So...if you're looking for original games then look no further than the big licenses because in most cases they're original and offer an experience you won't find elsewhere. Originality is everywhere if you can just see it under the marketing !
~~Belldandy~~
I think you're over reacting a bit here.
Yes, people do complain about sequels a bit more than they should, but you've mis-understood the entire idea behind it.
The reason why people want originality?
Well why pay 40 odd quid for a game you've played before?
This anti-sequel cry was down to many sequels being direct clones of their predeccessors with slightly updated graphics and new levels.
Yes, many sequels do offer new ideas nowdays, but only the cream of the crop.
Yes, MGS2 has plenty of originality, but it's not the sort of sequel that most people complain about. Look at Fifa.
Fifa is everything that it wrong with sequels.
Regular cash-ins with few improvements.
You seem to think that we mean Sequels as a rule are bad.
No, it's just many sequels in general tend to be not worth another 40 pounds worth.
Besides, originality is what pushes the industry forward.
Every sequel is based on an original idea.
There is only so far one idea can be expanded.
That's why we like to encourage devellopers to think of them, rather than cheaply cash in on other peoples.
Yes, people do complain about sequels a bit more than they should, but you've mis-understood the entire idea behind it.
The reason why people want originality?
Well why pay 40 odd quid for a game you've played before?
This anti-sequel cry was down to many sequels being direct clones of their predeccessors with slightly updated graphics and new levels.
Yes, many sequels do offer new ideas nowdays, but only the cream of the crop.
Yes, MGS2 has plenty of originality, but it's not the sort of sequel that most people complain about. Look at Fifa.
Fifa is everything that it wrong with sequels.
Regular cash-ins with few improvements.
You seem to think that we mean Sequels as a rule are bad.
No, it's just many sequels in general tend to be not worth another 40 pounds worth.
Besides, originality is what pushes the industry forward.
Every sequel is based on an original idea.
There is only so far one idea can be expanded.
That's why we like to encourage devellopers to think of them, rather than cheaply cash in on other peoples.
Another positive aspect of sequels is that they can allow designers to be MORE original, and less constrained by economic reality. Take a game like Ico: probably my favourite game of the past six months or so, it's inventive, beautiful and original...and it sank without a trace. I think I'm right in saying that SR no longer stock it. Perhaps we might have said the same about Mario 64 had it not had that brand recognition that now seems inseparable from mainstream success.
There is also a case to be made that incremental improvements over many years are a better bet than the 'one giant leap' philosophy that we seem to demand. The Civilisation and Championship Manager series are great examples of this. Both games have devoted communities of players, and websites abound with 'wish-lists' for further improvements. For me, the true value of sequels is that they allow this kind of organic, very democratic, method of development.
Licenses, though, suck, plain and simple.
There is also a case to be made that incremental improvements over many years are a better bet than the 'one giant leap' philosophy that we seem to demand. The Civilisation and Championship Manager series are great examples of this. Both games have devoted communities of players, and websites abound with 'wish-lists' for further improvements. For me, the true value of sequels is that they allow this kind of organic, very democratic, method of development.
Licenses, though, suck, plain and simple.
Sorry, meant to say "Nintendo machine at launch".......hmm knew I should've posted this in FOG chat....
~~Belldandy~~
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Tony Hawk's - sure, #3 is a bit the same, but only if oyu've played
> the first 2 anyway ! A lot of people have only just had consoles so
> have never played any of the games before, and in the case of the
> Gamecube, it's the first time the license has been on a Nintendo
> machine which again means lots more potential buyers.
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 and 3 (GBA)
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 and 3 (GBC)
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (N64)
I think thats all of them but Im not sure, GBC and N64 may of had THPS 1
> Tony Hawk's - sure, #3 is a bit the same, but only if oyu've played
> the first 2 anyway ! A lot of people have only just had consoles so
> have never played any of the games before, and in the case of the
> Gamecube, it's the first time the license has been on a Nintendo
> machine which again means lots more potential buyers.
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 and 3 (GBA)
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 and 3 (GBC)
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (N64)
I think thats all of them but Im not sure, GBC and N64 may of had THPS 1
Yup, licenses, sequels and originality in games have caused nearly as many arguments...sorry 'discussions' as the accursed console wars topics.
Here are what I think most gamer's believe;
Licenses: Widely believed to be unoriginal, used by companies to sell masses of copies of games to gamer's and are about as original as a new series of Pop Idol
Sequels: Another way in which companies try to claw our cash from us.
Originality: The holy grail of gaming, everyone seems to look for it but finding it would today, some would have you believe, isn't really possible.
Well, most of the above is wrong if you ask me.
The new Tomb Raider looks graphically the best ever and from what we've been shown so far, more in the Metal Gear Solid 2 mould with the camera not always being behind the player like in the previous games.
Tony Hawk's - sure, #3 is a bit the same, but only if oyu've played the first 2 anyway ! A lot of people have only just had consoles so have never played any of the games before, and in the case of the Gamecube, it's the first time the license has been on a Nintendo machine which again means lots more potential buyers.
Sequels are, usually, a good idea as any decent developer knows they've got to correct their mistakes from the previous game. Look at Timesplitters 2 - this is a MASSIVE improvement with better 1 player storyline, better weapons, better controls, more vairety for multiplayer, a level creator. It's way better. The Rainbow Six games on PC, and soon console, - each has added more weapons, beter graphics, improved interfaces, easier controls, better AI, the new title Raven Shield will be the best on yet. Onimusha 2 solves the originals problems with higher difficulty, more boss integration, better backgrounds.
Gamer's cry out for original titles, then, when they arrive, go buy the newest version of their favourite license instead. Is this because we're an unimaginative lot who wouldn't recognise originality if it hit us in the face ? Nope. People play what they like, no matter what it is. If a game is really popular, it becomes a license, and has sequels.
Whether the first game was original or not doesn't matter because to be popular the game needs a certain something about it.(EA Sports are excluded from this theory, they clearly have made a pact with the dark powers to sell FIFA ever year...:) ) Following this logic, all big licenses were originally original games !
Look;
Grand Theft Auto
Tomb Raider
TOCA
Medal Of Honour
Sims
Sonic
All were first original games that have gone on to spawn multi format titles and plenty of sequels/add ons.
Devout Nintendo fanboys would have people believe Nintendo offers the only true original gaming experience. That isn't true. Nintendo have developed their own style of games for sure, but they're generally no more original then a lot of their previous titles when you look at them closely. The games are great, they play well e.t.c but they aren't staggeringly original.
So...if you're looking for original games then look no further than the big licenses because in most cases they're original and offer an experience you won't find elsewhere. Originality is everywhere if you can just see it under the marketing !
~~Belldandy~~
Here are what I think most gamer's believe;
Licenses: Widely believed to be unoriginal, used by companies to sell masses of copies of games to gamer's and are about as original as a new series of Pop Idol
Sequels: Another way in which companies try to claw our cash from us.
Originality: The holy grail of gaming, everyone seems to look for it but finding it would today, some would have you believe, isn't really possible.
Well, most of the above is wrong if you ask me.
The new Tomb Raider looks graphically the best ever and from what we've been shown so far, more in the Metal Gear Solid 2 mould with the camera not always being behind the player like in the previous games.
Tony Hawk's - sure, #3 is a bit the same, but only if oyu've played the first 2 anyway ! A lot of people have only just had consoles so have never played any of the games before, and in the case of the Gamecube, it's the first time the license has been on a Nintendo machine which again means lots more potential buyers.
Sequels are, usually, a good idea as any decent developer knows they've got to correct their mistakes from the previous game. Look at Timesplitters 2 - this is a MASSIVE improvement with better 1 player storyline, better weapons, better controls, more vairety for multiplayer, a level creator. It's way better. The Rainbow Six games on PC, and soon console, - each has added more weapons, beter graphics, improved interfaces, easier controls, better AI, the new title Raven Shield will be the best on yet. Onimusha 2 solves the originals problems with higher difficulty, more boss integration, better backgrounds.
Gamer's cry out for original titles, then, when they arrive, go buy the newest version of their favourite license instead. Is this because we're an unimaginative lot who wouldn't recognise originality if it hit us in the face ? Nope. People play what they like, no matter what it is. If a game is really popular, it becomes a license, and has sequels.
Whether the first game was original or not doesn't matter because to be popular the game needs a certain something about it.(EA Sports are excluded from this theory, they clearly have made a pact with the dark powers to sell FIFA ever year...:) ) Following this logic, all big licenses were originally original games !
Look;
Grand Theft Auto
Tomb Raider
TOCA
Medal Of Honour
Sims
Sonic
All were first original games that have gone on to spawn multi format titles and plenty of sequels/add ons.
Devout Nintendo fanboys would have people believe Nintendo offers the only true original gaming experience. That isn't true. Nintendo have developed their own style of games for sure, but they're generally no more original then a lot of their previous titles when you look at them closely. The games are great, they play well e.t.c but they aren't staggeringly original.
So...if you're looking for original games then look no further than the big licenses because in most cases they're original and offer an experience you won't find elsewhere. Originality is everywhere if you can just see it under the marketing !
~~Belldandy~~