The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
since sony released its first playstation, all that has come of it are many many sequels and clones. I admit there have been the odd good game from the PS, i.e. final fantasy and metal gear solid. But even those are clones of other games (metal ger solid, from PC game Thief). The PS2 has a load of sequels and clones, except one. A FIREWORKS SIMULATION!!!!!! which looks a bit rubbish if you ask me.
Anyway, does anyone agree with my opinion. Reply if u do or don't
Anyway, does anyone agree with my opinion. Reply if u do or don't
Page:
since sony released its first playstation, all that has come of it are many many sequels and clones. I admit there have been the odd good game from the PS, i.e. final fantasy and metal gear solid. But even those are clones of other games (metal ger solid, from PC game Thief). The PS2 has a load of sequels and clones, except one. A FIREWORKS SIMULATION!!!!!! which looks a bit rubbish if you ask me.
Anyway, does anyone agree with my opinion. Reply if u do or don't
Anyway, does anyone agree with my opinion. Reply if u do or don't
Metal Gear Solid is a sequel to the NES games Metal Gear, and Metal Gear 2: Snakes Revenge. Sequels are not always a bad thing. You have the characters you know, that the developers know will help the game sell, such as Mario, and you have a story to build upon. The problem comes when the sequels are simply clones of the original, with better graphics.
I don't have a problem with sequels whatsoever, as long as they take the game on a significant step from the previous game. Look at the way that some of Nintendo's creations have evolved throughout it's consoles:
1) Mario. Started off jumping on bugs as they came out of pipes with his brother on the NES (I know he was in Donkey Kong before). He then went into the scrolling platformer arena, and was quite successful. Super Mario 2 was a completely different game from Super Mario, with a chice of 4 different characters, and different gameplay. Super Mario3 returned to the side scroller, but added so many new features that it was a significant improvement on any other scrolling platformer available at the time. Mario next leapt onto the SNES with SuperMarioWorld, which took the maps idea from 3 and improved it, with hidden levels, and different types of level. Next was the N64 version, and again this is a significant improvement.
2) Starfox. First seen on the SNES. A fantastic shooter. On the N64 it was much better.
3) Zelda. Look at the difference between the original game on the NES and Majora's Mask.
There's nothing wrong with sequels! I think that if the games that were successful on the Playstation can be improved upon (not just graphically) for the PS2 then thats fine.
And what's all this about Sony being evil? That's just pathetic. Nintendo and Sega don't produce games and consoles out of the kindness of their hearts you know, they're in it for the money too.
I don't have a problem with sequels whatsoever, as long as they take the game on a significant step from the previous game. Look at the way that some of Nintendo's creations have evolved throughout it's consoles:
1) Mario. Started off jumping on bugs as they came out of pipes with his brother on the NES (I know he was in Donkey Kong before). He then went into the scrolling platformer arena, and was quite successful. Super Mario 2 was a completely different game from Super Mario, with a chice of 4 different characters, and different gameplay. Super Mario3 returned to the side scroller, but added so many new features that it was a significant improvement on any other scrolling platformer available at the time. Mario next leapt onto the SNES with SuperMarioWorld, which took the maps idea from 3 and improved it, with hidden levels, and different types of level. Next was the N64 version, and again this is a significant improvement.
2) Starfox. First seen on the SNES. A fantastic shooter. On the N64 it was much better.
3) Zelda. Look at the difference between the original game on the NES and Majora's Mask.
There's nothing wrong with sequels! I think that if the games that were successful on the Playstation can be improved upon (not just graphically) for the PS2 then thats fine.
And what's all this about Sony being evil? That's just pathetic. Nintendo and Sega don't produce games and consoles out of the kindness of their hearts you know, they're in it for the money too.
I think people hate Sony because they are successful and because the press are suggesting their attitude is to be king of the consoles, by suggesting they are the best. The other two don't seem to do this as much and Sega have actually said that they don't see the PS2 as competition at all, it's a completely different machine.
It's not a bad thing really that Sony are doing, just good business sense, but they often seem to go a bit too far and seem to want to get rid of all competition. This would be a very bad thing for us as prices would probably rise and we wouldn't have any other format to choose from. It's unlikely to happen though.
It's not a bad thing really that Sony are doing, just good business sense, but they often seem to go a bit too far and seem to want to get rid of all competition. This would be a very bad thing for us as prices would probably rise and we wouldn't have any other format to choose from. It's unlikely to happen though.
I'm with PB and BJ too Kon Artis, if Sony hadn't come into the marketplace when they did, it might have stagnated with just Sega and Nintendo battling it out. And to come from nowhere and be so successful shows how much of a contribution they have given to the industry. Without Sony's intervention, Microsoft might never even have bothered to start with the X-Box as the market might not have been multi-billion $ by now, and therefore not worth them looking at.
Plus Sony have shown a newcomer can arrive and really make a name for itself. A lot of companies may have shyed away in the past because it was always Nintendo and Sega. Especially with each company having "fans" awhile back constantly arguing on whos the best.
So it was probably thought of as a bit of an expensive risk to take on these 2 companies, but Sony did and now its started to get other people thinking "hey, maybe we can do the same".
Microsoft are the next company to try and fight their way in - who knows from there ?
Maybe eventually companies will end up making systems that all take the same games. Kind of like different companies making video recorders now. Instead of looking at what games are on a console, you'll spend the time looking at a consoles button layout and buying the one you feel looks best in your room :-)
With add ons or upgrades coming out as games get more powerful.
If that same format thing happened, maybe games shops would end up like video shops are now, set in different genres ;-))
So it was probably thought of as a bit of an expensive risk to take on these 2 companies, but Sony did and now its started to get other people thinking "hey, maybe we can do the same".
Microsoft are the next company to try and fight their way in - who knows from there ?
Maybe eventually companies will end up making systems that all take the same games. Kind of like different companies making video recorders now. Instead of looking at what games are on a console, you'll spend the time looking at a consoles button layout and buying the one you feel looks best in your room :-)
With add ons or upgrades coming out as games get more powerful.
If that same format thing happened, maybe games shops would end up like video shops are now, set in different genres ;-))
bjlangley, I hope your not chosen as the gameaday winner for that message!
It's a good point but I won my second game saying that (but with a bit more detail)
But at least it's not copied exactly like some people on here do to others!
Sony are rip-offs! They have also brought out the new PSOne! Why? If they are gonna stop making PSX/PSOne compatable gmes to make room for the PS2 games then aren't these slightly smaller machines rip-offs?
I can think of a load more things to say but I've already said them before!
It's a good point but I won my second game saying that (but with a bit more detail)
But at least it's not copied exactly like some people on here do to others!
Sony are rip-offs! They have also brought out the new PSOne! Why? If they are gonna stop making PSX/PSOne compatable gmes to make room for the PS2 games then aren't these slightly smaller machines rip-offs?
I can think of a load more things to say but I've already said them before!
I've got nothing against the idea of a sequel to a game which deserves one (who has?). I think the general impression the Playstation gives is that if game has sold enough copies it should be tarted up a bit, new levels/tracks/whatever added and re-released calling it a sequel. There are countless examples of this happening but the general masses don't seem to care - so long as they get their yearly Tomb Raider in their Xmas stocking they're happy.
A game only deserves a sequel if that sequel can significantly improve on the experience of playing the original. Taking the same game and changing the levels doesn't amount to anything more than a 'missions pack' or 'expansion pack'. The Metal Gear Solid example is a good one, and shows a lesson worth learning. A quick, money-grabbing sequel (or two) for the PS1 could have been easily knocked out, but it wasn't (an expansion pack was though). A few new weapons and maybe a couple of new hand-to-hand attacks and voila - a brand new game! All you need change is the level design - not a hard task when all the rest is already in place. The gameplay won't need changing - enough people bought and enjoyed the first one to ensure healthy sales of it's sequel. Hopefully the PS2 version will do much more than just tart up the graphics a bit.
Unfortunately I'm one of the pessimistic types who think the PS2 is going to be plagued with ordinary sequels to PS1 games. Sony are even off to a bad start with the name of the 'new' console. A different name would indicate it was the successor to the PS. The name PS2 indicates than the console itself is just a sequel (and using the name PSOne illustrates this even more!).
A game only deserves a sequel if that sequel can significantly improve on the experience of playing the original. Taking the same game and changing the levels doesn't amount to anything more than a 'missions pack' or 'expansion pack'. The Metal Gear Solid example is a good one, and shows a lesson worth learning. A quick, money-grabbing sequel (or two) for the PS1 could have been easily knocked out, but it wasn't (an expansion pack was though). A few new weapons and maybe a couple of new hand-to-hand attacks and voila - a brand new game! All you need change is the level design - not a hard task when all the rest is already in place. The gameplay won't need changing - enough people bought and enjoyed the first one to ensure healthy sales of it's sequel. Hopefully the PS2 version will do much more than just tart up the graphics a bit.
Unfortunately I'm one of the pessimistic types who think the PS2 is going to be plagued with ordinary sequels to PS1 games. Sony are even off to a bad start with the name of the 'new' console. A different name would indicate it was the successor to the PS. The name PS2 indicates than the console itself is just a sequel (and using the name PSOne illustrates this even more!).
rarely do the sequels actually turn out to be an improvement on the PS (i.e. Fifa), and the ideas are already taken. Also, if PS didn't come into the world, then the PC would remain the most successful, as all the PS game ideas actually come from PC games. I admit i am biased to the cause of the PC, but it is a fact, and it remains so.
I think what your alltrying to say is that a sequel which has moved from another format is a great success, but if it is a sequel froma game which was made two years ago on the same formet then it's a flop, and the only reason it sells is because of the success of it's predesessor.
Page: