The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why are some games popular? Why do some games appeal to everyone, all gamers? And why do some games fail to take off? Why are some games unpopular? Is it the graphics? Gameplay? Or what the first few people say, leaving an impression for the rest?
When a developer makes announcements to magazines and people at games shows like E3, they can promise whatever they want, as long as the game is still in development then no-one can play it and see if they are lying. This will usually result in a lot of hype before the games release. See "Perfect Dark" or "Metal Gear Solid 2" for more details about that. Those two games must have caused the most hype in gaming history, getting gamers all excited, knowing, or thinking that the finished product would be a work of art, a revolution in games, bringing a tear to the eye on release. But why are some games popular, and some aren't?
Usually, a game is eagerly awaited before release and once it's released it sell hundreds of thousands in a week. This is because people expect it to be great from the word "Go". Just because a game has been eagerly awaited for several years doesn't mean it's going to be good. And the same can go for consoles, but I'll stick with the games-side of things for now. What happens when the long-awaited release is crap? I could ask this about Pokémon. No offence meant to anyone, I'm just giving my opinion here, but how on Earth did Pokémon become so popular? And when something is popular, does there always have to be a sequel. Sequels are always "mess-ups" of the first game (I said "mess-ups" for lack of a better word that was allowed on these forums). I mean, giving my opinion again, it's okay if you disagree, FF10 is rubbish. Why carry on with a series of games when all they are doing is messing it all up? The designers run out of ideas, but want to make a game to get the revenue from the success of the first game(s). That's why, in my opinion, FF6 is good-ish and FF10 is rubbish. A good team of designers and developers are needed to make a sequel good. I've only seen a few good examples of a game that is a sequel to another, and turned out good. These include Perfect Dark, MGS2, GTA3 and MOHFL. They think that the success of the first game(s) means that the next one will also be popular. Generally, this is the case. People don't think logically. They think, because the first one was good, the second one will be too. But I generally find that this is hardly ever the case, except with the ones mentioned above.
Then there are the games that just don't take off. Why not? Why does everyone avoid them? How do they know that they are going to dislike a game? Just because a review and/or preview says it's cack doesn't mean that will be the case for yourself. Different people have different tastes and opinions. Does everyone rent it on the day it comes out, try it and think, "Nah, it's not a game for me" or do they just trust the magazines and websites? I don't usually trust magazines. A lot of the time, their opinions have been just like mine, with "God this games brill!" or "I can't stand this pile of . . . ", so sometimes I wonder why I don't trust them, but also, sometimes I strongly disagree, like with the great reviews and high ratings given to games like Zelda. If this is the case, where everyone trusts magazines and doesn't think about themselves, then what does that say about us and our parents, the way they always used to tell you, "Never trust strangers." I mean, you don't know who wrote the reviews, or what they're like, so how do define "trust"? And what is the difference between a good game and a popular game?
You decide!
Thanks for reading
Happy days!
Twain
When a developer makes announcements to magazines and people at games shows like E3, they can promise whatever they want, as long as the game is still in development then no-one can play it and see if they are lying. This will usually result in a lot of hype before the games release. See "Perfect Dark" or "Metal Gear Solid 2" for more details about that. Those two games must have caused the most hype in gaming history, getting gamers all excited, knowing, or thinking that the finished product would be a work of art, a revolution in games, bringing a tear to the eye on release. But why are some games popular, and some aren't?
Usually, a game is eagerly awaited before release and once it's released it sell hundreds of thousands in a week. This is because people expect it to be great from the word "Go". Just because a game has been eagerly awaited for several years doesn't mean it's going to be good. And the same can go for consoles, but I'll stick with the games-side of things for now. What happens when the long-awaited release is crap? I could ask this about Pokémon. No offence meant to anyone, I'm just giving my opinion here, but how on Earth did Pokémon become so popular? And when something is popular, does there always have to be a sequel. Sequels are always "mess-ups" of the first game (I said "mess-ups" for lack of a better word that was allowed on these forums). I mean, giving my opinion again, it's okay if you disagree, FF10 is rubbish. Why carry on with a series of games when all they are doing is messing it all up? The designers run out of ideas, but want to make a game to get the revenue from the success of the first game(s). That's why, in my opinion, FF6 is good-ish and FF10 is rubbish. A good team of designers and developers are needed to make a sequel good. I've only seen a few good examples of a game that is a sequel to another, and turned out good. These include Perfect Dark, MGS2, GTA3 and MOHFL. They think that the success of the first game(s) means that the next one will also be popular. Generally, this is the case. People don't think logically. They think, because the first one was good, the second one will be too. But I generally find that this is hardly ever the case, except with the ones mentioned above.
Then there are the games that just don't take off. Why not? Why does everyone avoid them? How do they know that they are going to dislike a game? Just because a review and/or preview says it's cack doesn't mean that will be the case for yourself. Different people have different tastes and opinions. Does everyone rent it on the day it comes out, try it and think, "Nah, it's not a game for me" or do they just trust the magazines and websites? I don't usually trust magazines. A lot of the time, their opinions have been just like mine, with "God this games brill!" or "I can't stand this pile of . . . ", so sometimes I wonder why I don't trust them, but also, sometimes I strongly disagree, like with the great reviews and high ratings given to games like Zelda. If this is the case, where everyone trusts magazines and doesn't think about themselves, then what does that say about us and our parents, the way they always used to tell you, "Never trust strangers." I mean, you don't know who wrote the reviews, or what they're like, so how do define "trust"? And what is the difference between a good game and a popular game?
You decide!
Thanks for reading
Happy days!
Twain
the backing to that game is what makes it popular
SHEEPY wrote:
> Advertising and word of mouth
>
> Like on these forums
That may be so, but why does that make a game popular, eh?
Firstly, in adverts on the telly and stuff, they will only ever show the best bits of the game on the screen. They only advertise the best parts of the game, making it look good, but then you find the rest of the game is absolutely rubbish.
> Advertising and word of mouth
>
> Like on these forums
That may be so, but why does that make a game popular, eh?
Firstly, in adverts on the telly and stuff, they will only ever show the best bits of the game on the screen. They only advertise the best parts of the game, making it look good, but then you find the rest of the game is absolutely rubbish.
Time_Warp wrote:
> Well first off, the Final Fantasy series is not dropping standards at
> all, unless you despise the characters or whatever and I think that
> Square are cutting it off at 12 because they know the standard may
> drop after that.
>
I never said FF was dropping standards, did I? All I said was that they are likely to run out of ideas to keep up the good qualities of some of the previous games, and to inplement new ones.
> Back to the topic.
>
> I think the main thing that makes a game popular is the graphics. What
> do companies do when developing? They send out screenshots for the
> public to decide whether it will be a hit or not. If the game boasts
> stunning visuals, then the hype will build up and more and more people
> will become intersted and the game will already expectations. Once
> playing the game I think freshness is very important. Everyone likes
> to see something new in a game, whether it be riding a vehicle/animal
> or storing guards in lockers. These things make the games above
> average because at the end of the day it adds fun to the game and that
> is the point of games? yes?.
>
Yes, I have to agree with you there about the graphics being the main "pulling-power" that drags gamers into buying a game. But sometimes I wonder why. I mean, just because a game has good graphics doesn't mean it's good, does it? Anyway, that's just my oponion.
Freshness is very important too. I don't mind if a game doesn't have anything new, as long it isn't too similar to a game that I already have. Obviously, there are exceptions, though. But pretty soon, if that is the main reason why gamers go for certain games (I know you didn't say that), then pretty soon, maybe in just a few years, gamers who buy under that principle won't be buying games anymore because developers are going to run out of ideas and all originality would already been done and dusted.
> Well first off, the Final Fantasy series is not dropping standards at
> all, unless you despise the characters or whatever and I think that
> Square are cutting it off at 12 because they know the standard may
> drop after that.
>
I never said FF was dropping standards, did I? All I said was that they are likely to run out of ideas to keep up the good qualities of some of the previous games, and to inplement new ones.
> Back to the topic.
>
> I think the main thing that makes a game popular is the graphics. What
> do companies do when developing? They send out screenshots for the
> public to decide whether it will be a hit or not. If the game boasts
> stunning visuals, then the hype will build up and more and more people
> will become intersted and the game will already expectations. Once
> playing the game I think freshness is very important. Everyone likes
> to see something new in a game, whether it be riding a vehicle/animal
> or storing guards in lockers. These things make the games above
> average because at the end of the day it adds fun to the game and that
> is the point of games? yes?.
>
Yes, I have to agree with you there about the graphics being the main "pulling-power" that drags gamers into buying a game. But sometimes I wonder why. I mean, just because a game has good graphics doesn't mean it's good, does it? Anyway, that's just my oponion.
Freshness is very important too. I don't mind if a game doesn't have anything new, as long it isn't too similar to a game that I already have. Obviously, there are exceptions, though. But pretty soon, if that is the main reason why gamers go for certain games (I know you didn't say that), then pretty soon, maybe in just a few years, gamers who buy under that principle won't be buying games anymore because developers are going to run out of ideas and all originality would already been done and dusted.
Advertising and word of mouth
Like on these forums
Like on these forums
Well first off, the Final Fantasy series is not dropping standards at all, unless you despise the characters or whatever and I think that Square are cutting it off at 12 because they know the standard may drop after that.
Back to the topic.
I think the main thing that makes a game popular is the graphics. What do companies do when developing? They send out screenshots for the public to decide whether it will be a hit or not. If the game boasts stunning visuals, then the hype will build up and more and more people will become intersted and the game will already expectations. Once playing the game I think freshness is very important. Everyone likes to see something new in a game, whether it be riding a vehicle/animal or storing guards in lockers. These things make the games above average because at the end of the day it adds fun to the game and that is the point of games? yes?.
Deciding on whether to buy the games may be a tough decision, but most of the times the games are reviewed not only by one member of the team, but the whole team with ideas play and give their input to the final score, making it easier for you to decide if the game is any good.
Well good post by the way, I am too tired to write any more.
Cheers
Time_Warp (:)
Back to the topic.
I think the main thing that makes a game popular is the graphics. What do companies do when developing? They send out screenshots for the public to decide whether it will be a hit or not. If the game boasts stunning visuals, then the hype will build up and more and more people will become intersted and the game will already expectations. Once playing the game I think freshness is very important. Everyone likes to see something new in a game, whether it be riding a vehicle/animal or storing guards in lockers. These things make the games above average because at the end of the day it adds fun to the game and that is the point of games? yes?.
Deciding on whether to buy the games may be a tough decision, but most of the times the games are reviewed not only by one member of the team, but the whole team with ideas play and give their input to the final score, making it easier for you to decide if the game is any good.
Well good post by the way, I am too tired to write any more.
Cheers
Time_Warp (:)
Why are some games popular? Why do some games appeal to everyone, all gamers? And why do some games fail to take off? Why are some games unpopular? Is it the graphics? Gameplay? Or what the first few people say, leaving an impression for the rest?
When a developer makes announcements to magazines and people at games shows like E3, they can promise whatever they want, as long as the game is still in development then no-one can play it and see if they are lying. This will usually result in a lot of hype before the games release. See "Perfect Dark" or "Metal Gear Solid 2" for more details about that. Those two games must have caused the most hype in gaming history, getting gamers all excited, knowing, or thinking that the finished product would be a work of art, a revolution in games, bringing a tear to the eye on release. But why are some games popular, and some aren't?
Usually, a game is eagerly awaited before release and once it's released it sell hundreds of thousands in a week. This is because people expect it to be great from the word "Go". Just because a game has been eagerly awaited for several years doesn't mean it's going to be good. And the same can go for consoles, but I'll stick with the games-side of things for now. What happens when the long-awaited release is crap? I could ask this about Pokémon. No offence meant to anyone, I'm just giving my opinion here, but how on Earth did Pokémon become so popular? And when something is popular, does there always have to be a sequel. Sequels are always "mess-ups" of the first game (I said "mess-ups" for lack of a better word that was allowed on these forums). I mean, giving my opinion again, it's okay if you disagree, FF10 is rubbish. Why carry on with a series of games when all they are doing is messing it all up? The designers run out of ideas, but want to make a game to get the revenue from the success of the first game(s). That's why, in my opinion, FF6 is good-ish and FF10 is rubbish. A good team of designers and developers are needed to make a sequel good. I've only seen a few good examples of a game that is a sequel to another, and turned out good. These include Perfect Dark, MGS2, GTA3 and MOHFL. They think that the success of the first game(s) means that the next one will also be popular. Generally, this is the case. People don't think logically. They think, because the first one was good, the second one will be too. But I generally find that this is hardly ever the case, except with the ones mentioned above.
Then there are the games that just don't take off. Why not? Why does everyone avoid them? How do they know that they are going to dislike a game? Just because a review and/or preview says it's cack doesn't mean that will be the case for yourself. Different people have different tastes and opinions. Does everyone rent it on the day it comes out, try it and think, "Nah, it's not a game for me" or do they just trust the magazines and websites? I don't usually trust magazines. A lot of the time, their opinions have been just like mine, with "God this games brill!" or "I can't stand this pile of . . . ", so sometimes I wonder why I don't trust them, but also, sometimes I strongly disagree, like with the great reviews and high ratings given to games like Zelda. If this is the case, where everyone trusts magazines and doesn't think about themselves, then what does that say about us and our parents, the way they always used to tell you, "Never trust strangers." I mean, you don't know who wrote the reviews, or what they're like, so how do define "trust"? And what is the difference between a good game and a popular game?
You decide!
Thanks for reading
Happy days!
Twain
When a developer makes announcements to magazines and people at games shows like E3, they can promise whatever they want, as long as the game is still in development then no-one can play it and see if they are lying. This will usually result in a lot of hype before the games release. See "Perfect Dark" or "Metal Gear Solid 2" for more details about that. Those two games must have caused the most hype in gaming history, getting gamers all excited, knowing, or thinking that the finished product would be a work of art, a revolution in games, bringing a tear to the eye on release. But why are some games popular, and some aren't?
Usually, a game is eagerly awaited before release and once it's released it sell hundreds of thousands in a week. This is because people expect it to be great from the word "Go". Just because a game has been eagerly awaited for several years doesn't mean it's going to be good. And the same can go for consoles, but I'll stick with the games-side of things for now. What happens when the long-awaited release is crap? I could ask this about Pokémon. No offence meant to anyone, I'm just giving my opinion here, but how on Earth did Pokémon become so popular? And when something is popular, does there always have to be a sequel. Sequels are always "mess-ups" of the first game (I said "mess-ups" for lack of a better word that was allowed on these forums). I mean, giving my opinion again, it's okay if you disagree, FF10 is rubbish. Why carry on with a series of games when all they are doing is messing it all up? The designers run out of ideas, but want to make a game to get the revenue from the success of the first game(s). That's why, in my opinion, FF6 is good-ish and FF10 is rubbish. A good team of designers and developers are needed to make a sequel good. I've only seen a few good examples of a game that is a sequel to another, and turned out good. These include Perfect Dark, MGS2, GTA3 and MOHFL. They think that the success of the first game(s) means that the next one will also be popular. Generally, this is the case. People don't think logically. They think, because the first one was good, the second one will be too. But I generally find that this is hardly ever the case, except with the ones mentioned above.
Then there are the games that just don't take off. Why not? Why does everyone avoid them? How do they know that they are going to dislike a game? Just because a review and/or preview says it's cack doesn't mean that will be the case for yourself. Different people have different tastes and opinions. Does everyone rent it on the day it comes out, try it and think, "Nah, it's not a game for me" or do they just trust the magazines and websites? I don't usually trust magazines. A lot of the time, their opinions have been just like mine, with "God this games brill!" or "I can't stand this pile of . . . ", so sometimes I wonder why I don't trust them, but also, sometimes I strongly disagree, like with the great reviews and high ratings given to games like Zelda. If this is the case, where everyone trusts magazines and doesn't think about themselves, then what does that say about us and our parents, the way they always used to tell you, "Never trust strangers." I mean, you don't know who wrote the reviews, or what they're like, so how do define "trust"? And what is the difference between a good game and a popular game?
You decide!
Thanks for reading
Happy days!
Twain