The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
(The title is Potential, Expectancy and Anticipation!)
Games often fall into two categorys. 'Fulfilled' their potential, or er, 'did not fulfill their potential'. Yes. However, this does not mean that a game that fulfilled its potential is neccessarily a good one. It may if either fulfilled its limited potential, to become a game of hardly any quality, or it may have fulfilled a potential of becoming rubbish. On the other hand they may become amazing, or even though they failed in maximising the potential, still are better than most other games.
Thats enough 'fulfilling' for one day. Games are either good or bad, and their potential before hand is what gets us excited. The potential of a game is what interests us, what gets you saying 'Oh, you might be able to get Link in Soul Calibur 2'. This kind of rumour fuels the anticipation at what level this game will be at. Of course, a game that is relatively new, obscure, and has a lot of potential is far more exciting than oh, 'another Turok' or such series. The higher series of games, such as FF, Mario, Zelda and MGS are exempt from this comparisn, but 'lower' games are often viewed with far less anticipation than a new game with a newer idea. The potential is seen as much more than another dino-hunting FPS.
This leads me onto expectancy. We expect a game with losts of good potential to be good, to fulfill that. A recent example of where that failed is the Aidyn Chronicles - High anticipation, but pretty rubbish on closer inspection. We expect Mario to be of the highest quality, but I feel the most joy comes from a game you took a chance on. I got Rush 2049 for £30 from G*** ;) took a chance on it, and absoloutely loved it. That engaged me more than Body Harvest, a well reccmomended game from N64/NGC mag. Rush is one of the games that I am talking about. The first two in the series were terrible, but Midway actualy fulfilled the potential of the series, and in some respects, exceeded it, with the extra modes in 2049. The anticipation was low, as was the expectancy, but it really did work.
We all anticipate a game to a certain extent, and we expect it to be either good or bad or middling. The key factor in the middle is the games 'good potential'. If it is fulfilled, it will be one of the most enjoyable games in its genre. If it fails, no matter what its expectancy and anticipation, it will flop.
Which is why I like waiting for little known and played games. And the ones you know are going to be good.
Cheers.
Games often fall into two categorys. 'Fulfilled' their potential, or er, 'did not fulfill their potential'. Yes. However, this does not mean that a game that fulfilled its potential is neccessarily a good one. It may if either fulfilled its limited potential, to become a game of hardly any quality, or it may have fulfilled a potential of becoming rubbish. On the other hand they may become amazing, or even though they failed in maximising the potential, still are better than most other games.
Thats enough 'fulfilling' for one day. Games are either good or bad, and their potential before hand is what gets us excited. The potential of a game is what interests us, what gets you saying 'Oh, you might be able to get Link in Soul Calibur 2'. This kind of rumour fuels the anticipation at what level this game will be at. Of course, a game that is relatively new, obscure, and has a lot of potential is far more exciting than oh, 'another Turok' or such series. The higher series of games, such as FF, Mario, Zelda and MGS are exempt from this comparisn, but 'lower' games are often viewed with far less anticipation than a new game with a newer idea. The potential is seen as much more than another dino-hunting FPS.
This leads me onto expectancy. We expect a game with losts of good potential to be good, to fulfill that. A recent example of where that failed is the Aidyn Chronicles - High anticipation, but pretty rubbish on closer inspection. We expect Mario to be of the highest quality, but I feel the most joy comes from a game you took a chance on. I got Rush 2049 for £30 from G*** ;) took a chance on it, and absoloutely loved it. That engaged me more than Body Harvest, a well reccmomended game from N64/NGC mag. Rush is one of the games that I am talking about. The first two in the series were terrible, but Midway actualy fulfilled the potential of the series, and in some respects, exceeded it, with the extra modes in 2049. The anticipation was low, as was the expectancy, but it really did work.
We all anticipate a game to a certain extent, and we expect it to be either good or bad or middling. The key factor in the middle is the games 'good potential'. If it is fulfilled, it will be one of the most enjoyable games in its genre. If it fails, no matter what its expectancy and anticipation, it will flop.
Which is why I like waiting for little known and played games. And the ones you know are going to be good.
Cheers.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
(The title is Potential, Expectancy and Anticipation!)
Games often fall into two categorys. 'Fulfilled' their potential, or er, 'did not fulfill their potential'. Yes. However, this does not mean that a game that fulfilled its potential is neccessarily a good one. It may if either fulfilled its limited potential, to become a game of hardly any quality, or it may have fulfilled a potential of becoming rubbish. On the other hand they may become amazing, or even though they failed in maximising the potential, still are better than most other games.
Thats enough 'fulfilling' for one day. Games are either good or bad, and their potential before hand is what gets us excited. The potential of a game is what interests us, what gets you saying 'Oh, you might be able to get Link in Soul Calibur 2'. This kind of rumour fuels the anticipation at what level this game will be at. Of course, a game that is relatively new, obscure, and has a lot of potential is far more exciting than oh, 'another Turok' or such series. The higher series of games, such as FF, Mario, Zelda and MGS are exempt from this comparisn, but 'lower' games are often viewed with far less anticipation than a new game with a newer idea. The potential is seen as much more than another dino-hunting FPS.
This leads me onto expectancy. We expect a game with losts of good potential to be good, to fulfill that. A recent example of where that failed is the Aidyn Chronicles - High anticipation, but pretty rubbish on closer inspection. We expect Mario to be of the highest quality, but I feel the most joy comes from a game you took a chance on. I got Rush 2049 for £30 from G*** ;) took a chance on it, and absoloutely loved it. That engaged me more than Body Harvest, a well reccmomended game from N64/NGC mag. Rush is one of the games that I am talking about. The first two in the series were terrible, but Midway actualy fulfilled the potential of the series, and in some respects, exceeded it, with the extra modes in 2049. The anticipation was low, as was the expectancy, but it really did work.
We all anticipate a game to a certain extent, and we expect it to be either good or bad or middling. The key factor in the middle is the games 'good potential'. If it is fulfilled, it will be one of the most enjoyable games in its genre. If it fails, no matter what its expectancy and anticipation, it will flop.
Which is why I like waiting for little known and played games. And the ones you know are going to be good.
Cheers.
Games often fall into two categorys. 'Fulfilled' their potential, or er, 'did not fulfill their potential'. Yes. However, this does not mean that a game that fulfilled its potential is neccessarily a good one. It may if either fulfilled its limited potential, to become a game of hardly any quality, or it may have fulfilled a potential of becoming rubbish. On the other hand they may become amazing, or even though they failed in maximising the potential, still are better than most other games.
Thats enough 'fulfilling' for one day. Games are either good or bad, and their potential before hand is what gets us excited. The potential of a game is what interests us, what gets you saying 'Oh, you might be able to get Link in Soul Calibur 2'. This kind of rumour fuels the anticipation at what level this game will be at. Of course, a game that is relatively new, obscure, and has a lot of potential is far more exciting than oh, 'another Turok' or such series. The higher series of games, such as FF, Mario, Zelda and MGS are exempt from this comparisn, but 'lower' games are often viewed with far less anticipation than a new game with a newer idea. The potential is seen as much more than another dino-hunting FPS.
This leads me onto expectancy. We expect a game with losts of good potential to be good, to fulfill that. A recent example of where that failed is the Aidyn Chronicles - High anticipation, but pretty rubbish on closer inspection. We expect Mario to be of the highest quality, but I feel the most joy comes from a game you took a chance on. I got Rush 2049 for £30 from G*** ;) took a chance on it, and absoloutely loved it. That engaged me more than Body Harvest, a well reccmomended game from N64/NGC mag. Rush is one of the games that I am talking about. The first two in the series were terrible, but Midway actualy fulfilled the potential of the series, and in some respects, exceeded it, with the extra modes in 2049. The anticipation was low, as was the expectancy, but it really did work.
We all anticipate a game to a certain extent, and we expect it to be either good or bad or middling. The key factor in the middle is the games 'good potential'. If it is fulfilled, it will be one of the most enjoyable games in its genre. If it fails, no matter what its expectancy and anticipation, it will flop.
Which is why I like waiting for little known and played games. And the ones you know are going to be good.
Cheers.