The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I get really fed up sometimes when you have a state of the art console and companies release games that are not up to scratch. I mean the latest of these has to be Gradius for the PS2. I mean it is a 2D rolling shoot’em up for heavens sake. We saw this type of game on Master System and even though they are brilliant, addictive games, there is no place for them on 128 bit machines. It is just a case of games companies trying to cash in on a cheaply produced game, and they think just by including two games they can put it on the PS2, shame on you Konami.
For example because the PS one if cheaper to produce games for than competition N64, it means that companies sometimes produce games that really don’t deserve to have an appearance. For example when Hugo came out it was just a poor excuse for a game, it is a disgrace to the system, it isn’t right that they are trying to make money off games that have no effort put in, and just using the name to sell.
I mean it ain’t fair when companies sell games such as the rugrats, that have no quality and are being sold to the parents that don’t know any better, and then games such as the quality Speed Freaks are ignored. I know that this is never going to change as there will always be demanding kids, but if only there was some kind of test that a game has to pass to get onto the system. I know this would reduce the amount of games, but there would be less companies ripping us consumers off, and there would be a higher standard of games, and surely that has to be better.
For example because the PS one if cheaper to produce games for than competition N64, it means that companies sometimes produce games that really don’t deserve to have an appearance. For example when Hugo came out it was just a poor excuse for a game, it is a disgrace to the system, it isn’t right that they are trying to make money off games that have no effort put in, and just using the name to sell.
I mean it ain’t fair when companies sell games such as the rugrats, that have no quality and are being sold to the parents that don’t know any better, and then games such as the quality Speed Freaks are ignored. I know that this is never going to change as there will always be demanding kids, but if only there was some kind of test that a game has to pass to get onto the system. I know this would reduce the amount of games, but there would be less companies ripping us consumers off, and there would be a higher standard of games, and surely that has to be better.
And everyone that works on development should also undergo routine testing....
...Unfortunately we cannot release DAIKATANA as all of the development team have failed their random drugs test. In fact, their blood contains less blood than alcohol....
...Unfortunately we cannot release DAIKATANA as all of the development team have failed their random drugs test. In fact, their blood contains less blood than alcohol....
craigie-sum wrote:
I didn't say anything was
> wrong, but do you think it is that sensible to spend £300 on a
> console if you are going to waste your money on something that looks
> just as good on the original. You buy the PS2 for the great title to
> come such as ZOE and MGS2. You've got to face the fact that they are
> just trying to cash in on a cheaply produced games.
cheaply produced games?! Your talking crap boy.
How dare you label off the past of gaming with such a phrase as "cheaply produced"
I didn't say anything was
> wrong, but do you think it is that sensible to spend £300 on a
> console if you are going to waste your money on something that looks
> just as good on the original. You buy the PS2 for the great title to
> come such as ZOE and MGS2. You've got to face the fact that they are
> just trying to cash in on a cheaply produced games.
cheaply produced games?! Your talking crap boy.
How dare you label off the past of gaming with such a phrase as "cheaply produced"
ortega wrote:
> who would carry out these tests? wouldt it cost too much money?
> how can they judge how succesful a game is going to be?
These are all good point but the games are in fact all tested before they hit the streets. It would be just a case of giving over oppions. I know it is probably not likely but it would just be a chance to stop titles that achieve marks such as 10, 20 even 30%
> who would carry out these tests? wouldt it cost too much money?
> how can they judge how succesful a game is going to be?
These are all good point but the games are in fact all tested before they hit the streets. It would be just a case of giving over oppions. I know it is probably not likely but it would just be a chance to stop titles that achieve marks such as 10, 20 even 30%
azzido wrote:
> Whats wrong with 2d scrollers?
So what they're a bit outdated on
> the PS2 but some of the gamers are actually going to want retro
> games. The producers are just satisfying the demands. Personally I
> would be over the moon if somone re-made Mario World. It wouldn't
> need any flashy graphics just nice fun gameplay.
I didn't say anything was wrong, but do you think it is that sensible to spend £300 on a console if you are going to waste your money on something that looks just as good on the original. You buy the PS2 for the great title to come such as ZOE and MGS2. You've got to face the fact that they are just trying to cash in on a cheaply produced games.
> Whats wrong with 2d scrollers?
So what they're a bit outdated on
> the PS2 but some of the gamers are actually going to want retro
> games. The producers are just satisfying the demands. Personally I
> would be over the moon if somone re-made Mario World. It wouldn't
> need any flashy graphics just nice fun gameplay.
I didn't say anything was wrong, but do you think it is that sensible to spend £300 on a console if you are going to waste your money on something that looks just as good on the original. You buy the PS2 for the great title to come such as ZOE and MGS2. You've got to face the fact that they are just trying to cash in on a cheaply produced games.
who would carry out these tests? wouldt it cost too much money? how can they judge how succesful a game is going to be?
Whats wrong with 2d scrollers?
So what they're a bit outdated on the PS2 but some of the gamers are actually going to want retro games. The producers are just satisfying the demands. Personally I would be over the moon if somone re-made Mario World. It wouldn't need any flashy graphics just nice fun gameplay.
azz
So what they're a bit outdated on the PS2 but some of the gamers are actually going to want retro games. The producers are just satisfying the demands. Personally I would be over the moon if somone re-made Mario World. It wouldn't need any flashy graphics just nice fun gameplay.
azz
I get really fed up sometimes when you have a state of the art console and companies release games that are not up to scratch. I mean the latest of these has to be Gradius for the PS2. I mean it is a 2D rolling shoot’em up for heavens sake. We saw this type of game on Master System and even though they are brilliant, addictive games, there is no place for them on 128 bit machines. It is just a case of games companies trying to cash in on a cheaply produced game, and they think just by including two games they can put it on the PS2, shame on you Konami.
For example because the PS one if cheaper to produce games for than competition N64, it means that companies sometimes produce games that really don’t deserve to have an appearance. For example when Hugo came out it was just a poor excuse for a game, it is a disgrace to the system, it isn’t right that they are trying to make money off games that have no effort put in, and just using the name to sell.
I mean it ain’t fair when companies sell games such as the rugrats, that have no quality and are being sold to the parents that don’t know any better, and then games such as the quality Speed Freaks are ignored. I know that this is never going to change as there will always be demanding kids, but if only there was some kind of test that a game has to pass to get onto the system. I know this would reduce the amount of games, but there would be less companies ripping us consumers off, and there would be a higher standard of games, and surely that has to be better.
For example because the PS one if cheaper to produce games for than competition N64, it means that companies sometimes produce games that really don’t deserve to have an appearance. For example when Hugo came out it was just a poor excuse for a game, it is a disgrace to the system, it isn’t right that they are trying to make money off games that have no effort put in, and just using the name to sell.
I mean it ain’t fair when companies sell games such as the rugrats, that have no quality and are being sold to the parents that don’t know any better, and then games such as the quality Speed Freaks are ignored. I know that this is never going to change as there will always be demanding kids, but if only there was some kind of test that a game has to pass to get onto the system. I know this would reduce the amount of games, but there would be less companies ripping us consumers off, and there would be a higher standard of games, and surely that has to be better.