The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Whatever the game, whatever the sysytem it is on, however good or bad it is, whether it's the first game ever made, or the newest like Timesplitters 2, they're all about the same thing. Winning.
Play to win - the motto of games and gamers everywhere, though in the case of game's it metaphorically speaking, unless anyone has a talking one :)
Over the years I think games have become generally less challenging because of this. Gamers mostly want to beat a game, advance through the levels, and move on to the next game. Even such great titles as Super Marion Sunshine have become little more than a mad dash to get the most shines. Games like Conflict Desert Storm and Hitman 2 offer stealthy ways of completing the game, but I bet very few use it, because you can just blast your way through every level ! All to see the next level of course....
When a game comes along that challenges this idea, a 'hard' game dare I say it, then it's shunned by most people, left to gather dust on the shelves of retailers across the land. XG3 on PS2 gained this kind of reputation - PS2 owners bemoaned the easiness of Gran Turismo and World Rally, and then ignored the graphically amazing XG3 as review after review mentioned horrendous difficulty levels.
Any game involving shooting though is where we really see how much a desire for the player to win has changed gaming. Back in the days of Super Probotector, R Type e.t.c one shot took one life from the player. Go load up Medal Of Honour, Deus Ex, Timesplitters 2 - you an charge into the midst of the enemy, take tons of hits from them, kill them all, and grab a health pack to carry on. On the PC, Redstorm have experimented with equal damage in games - Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon e.t.c, and Codemasters with Operation Flashpoint - and it completely changes the nature of the games towards rapid action and stealth, it's more fun because you have to think how to play a level, not just mad sucide runs and health packs for tea.
Maybe that's the problem right there, hard games make people think more. Is that so wrong ? Or would thinking stop games being fun ? But what abuot if you find thinking fun ?
The desire of most gamers to win, no matter the cost in terms of gameplay and level design and a host of other things has changed how games are today. That's not necessarily a good thing, is it ?
Play to win - the motto of games and gamers everywhere, though in the case of game's it metaphorically speaking, unless anyone has a talking one :)
Over the years I think games have become generally less challenging because of this. Gamers mostly want to beat a game, advance through the levels, and move on to the next game. Even such great titles as Super Marion Sunshine have become little more than a mad dash to get the most shines. Games like Conflict Desert Storm and Hitman 2 offer stealthy ways of completing the game, but I bet very few use it, because you can just blast your way through every level ! All to see the next level of course....
When a game comes along that challenges this idea, a 'hard' game dare I say it, then it's shunned by most people, left to gather dust on the shelves of retailers across the land. XG3 on PS2 gained this kind of reputation - PS2 owners bemoaned the easiness of Gran Turismo and World Rally, and then ignored the graphically amazing XG3 as review after review mentioned horrendous difficulty levels.
Any game involving shooting though is where we really see how much a desire for the player to win has changed gaming. Back in the days of Super Probotector, R Type e.t.c one shot took one life from the player. Go load up Medal Of Honour, Deus Ex, Timesplitters 2 - you an charge into the midst of the enemy, take tons of hits from them, kill them all, and grab a health pack to carry on. On the PC, Redstorm have experimented with equal damage in games - Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon e.t.c, and Codemasters with Operation Flashpoint - and it completely changes the nature of the games towards rapid action and stealth, it's more fun because you have to think how to play a level, not just mad sucide runs and health packs for tea.
Maybe that's the problem right there, hard games make people think more. Is that so wrong ? Or would thinking stop games being fun ? But what abuot if you find thinking fun ?
The desire of most gamers to win, no matter the cost in terms of gameplay and level design and a host of other things has changed how games are today. That's not necessarily a good thing, is it ?
Page:
Shenmue is one game which isn't about winning. It's about wandering aimlessly around asking people thing about how your Dad died and then in the second one, finding a big sword which glows and then Sega go multiformat.
Belldandy your putting up sooooooooooo many saddening posts.I have nothing against that but give it a rest
Gaming is about having fun.
Multi-player is about winning.
Multi-player is about winning.
Whatever the game, whatever the sysytem it is on, however good or bad it is, whether it's the first game ever made, or the newest like Timesplitters 2, they're all about the same thing. Winning.
Play to win - the motto of games and gamers everywhere, though in the case of game's it metaphorically speaking, unless anyone has a talking one :)
Over the years I think games have become generally less challenging because of this. Gamers mostly want to beat a game, advance through the levels, and move on to the next game. Even such great titles as Super Marion Sunshine have become little more than a mad dash to get the most shines. Games like Conflict Desert Storm and Hitman 2 offer stealthy ways of completing the game, but I bet very few use it, because you can just blast your way through every level ! All to see the next level of course....
When a game comes along that challenges this idea, a 'hard' game dare I say it, then it's shunned by most people, left to gather dust on the shelves of retailers across the land. XG3 on PS2 gained this kind of reputation - PS2 owners bemoaned the easiness of Gran Turismo and World Rally, and then ignored the graphically amazing XG3 as review after review mentioned horrendous difficulty levels.
Any game involving shooting though is where we really see how much a desire for the player to win has changed gaming. Back in the days of Super Probotector, R Type e.t.c one shot took one life from the player. Go load up Medal Of Honour, Deus Ex, Timesplitters 2 - you an charge into the midst of the enemy, take tons of hits from them, kill them all, and grab a health pack to carry on. On the PC, Redstorm have experimented with equal damage in games - Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon e.t.c, and Codemasters with Operation Flashpoint - and it completely changes the nature of the games towards rapid action and stealth, it's more fun because you have to think how to play a level, not just mad sucide runs and health packs for tea.
Maybe that's the problem right there, hard games make people think more. Is that so wrong ? Or would thinking stop games being fun ? But what abuot if you find thinking fun ?
The desire of most gamers to win, no matter the cost in terms of gameplay and level design and a host of other things has changed how games are today. That's not necessarily a good thing, is it ?
Play to win - the motto of games and gamers everywhere, though in the case of game's it metaphorically speaking, unless anyone has a talking one :)
Over the years I think games have become generally less challenging because of this. Gamers mostly want to beat a game, advance through the levels, and move on to the next game. Even such great titles as Super Marion Sunshine have become little more than a mad dash to get the most shines. Games like Conflict Desert Storm and Hitman 2 offer stealthy ways of completing the game, but I bet very few use it, because you can just blast your way through every level ! All to see the next level of course....
When a game comes along that challenges this idea, a 'hard' game dare I say it, then it's shunned by most people, left to gather dust on the shelves of retailers across the land. XG3 on PS2 gained this kind of reputation - PS2 owners bemoaned the easiness of Gran Turismo and World Rally, and then ignored the graphically amazing XG3 as review after review mentioned horrendous difficulty levels.
Any game involving shooting though is where we really see how much a desire for the player to win has changed gaming. Back in the days of Super Probotector, R Type e.t.c one shot took one life from the player. Go load up Medal Of Honour, Deus Ex, Timesplitters 2 - you an charge into the midst of the enemy, take tons of hits from them, kill them all, and grab a health pack to carry on. On the PC, Redstorm have experimented with equal damage in games - Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon e.t.c, and Codemasters with Operation Flashpoint - and it completely changes the nature of the games towards rapid action and stealth, it's more fun because you have to think how to play a level, not just mad sucide runs and health packs for tea.
Maybe that's the problem right there, hard games make people think more. Is that so wrong ? Or would thinking stop games being fun ? But what abuot if you find thinking fun ?
The desire of most gamers to win, no matter the cost in terms of gameplay and level design and a host of other things has changed how games are today. That's not necessarily a good thing, is it ?
Page: