The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
More options, more characters, more arenas, more tracks, more cars, more teams, more puzzles. More fun?
You can't have too much of a good thing, right?
Or can you?
Just because a game has x dozen cars, tracks or characters, doesn't mean it's any more fun to play. Still, games companies seem to be doing it, so it must be good. Or else it's easy to implement and sounds good as a selling point....I wonder which?
Ask youself, would a film be any better if it featured twice as many characters, and lasted three times as long?
Not really.
With films it's the idea that sells - the story, the action. The same should be true of games. I don't need to choose from thirty characters when a have a game of tekken, and I don't need to know that I'm driving a Nissan Sentra XE, 1.8 litre, 4 cylinder which can run produce 126HP at 6000RPM.
"Ah, but it gives the game more lastability doesn't it?"
Well I'd say the added lastability of such features is rather questionable. If anyone reading this has played one of the more recent fifa games, how many of the x hundred available teams have you played as? Ten? Twenty? If you own TTT, how many of the characters do you play as? You don't bother to master them all, because you get bored before then.
We don't need all this. It would be much more preferble - in my opinion - if the money spent researching these accurate statistics, securing rights to use brand names, or designing addidional characters was instead spent on developing new features, ideas and things that really appeal to the public.
You can't have too much of a good thing, right?
Or can you?
Just because a game has x dozen cars, tracks or characters, doesn't mean it's any more fun to play. Still, games companies seem to be doing it, so it must be good. Or else it's easy to implement and sounds good as a selling point....I wonder which?
Ask youself, would a film be any better if it featured twice as many characters, and lasted three times as long?
Not really.
With films it's the idea that sells - the story, the action. The same should be true of games. I don't need to choose from thirty characters when a have a game of tekken, and I don't need to know that I'm driving a Nissan Sentra XE, 1.8 litre, 4 cylinder which can run produce 126HP at 6000RPM.
"Ah, but it gives the game more lastability doesn't it?"
Well I'd say the added lastability of such features is rather questionable. If anyone reading this has played one of the more recent fifa games, how many of the x hundred available teams have you played as? Ten? Twenty? If you own TTT, how many of the characters do you play as? You don't bother to master them all, because you get bored before then.
We don't need all this. It would be much more preferble - in my opinion - if the money spent researching these accurate statistics, securing rights to use brand names, or designing addidional characters was instead spent on developing new features, ideas and things that really appeal to the public.
I would say Better and better! I know is sounds stupid but think about it, there isn't a letter wrong about it! I think that if companies add features like On-Line manuals or even interactive credits, then the game is made better, I don't think it is down to the size of the game but just that it is down to the features, hey, I mean Creme Eggs are small but ...mmmmmmm they are sooooo nice! But with regards to games I see where you are coming from! I do think that Bigger is Better but only if the Bigger is better in itself! No-one wants to feel, 'ripped-off' by a game and even some of the 'bigger' games do this so, looking at it the other way if a game is smaller but none the less a VERY good game, like shenmue then quality overcomes the quantity, I haven't got a Dreamcast and I have NEVER played the game but from other peoples views the game is Ace, but too short! I don't think it is quantity OR quality, but rather, good game or bad game. But in answer to your question, yes I do think bigger is better, because nowadays bigger means more multi-player modes more charachters and more fun, back in the days, you may have had loads of levels like Lemmings but which didn't boast any super features. But as for now, like I said Bigger means Better! And I only hope this becomes more true with the release of the X-Box, Gameboy Advance and the GAMECUBE.
Thanks
The Game
Thanks
The Game
It's the FMV I tells ya... it's damn unneeded...
What would you think of Final Fantasy if there were no FMV? Just FMA?
What would you think of Final Fantasy if there were no FMV? Just FMA?
I think RPG's benefit from bigger medium, you couldn't fit a game like FF8 onto a cartridge, hence the 3 discs you get.
But then in that case the developers actually used the extra space for not just bigger worlds, but whole new innovative ideas, like a very detailed online manual, better graphics, hundreds of minigames and subquests, it was an RPGer's dream come true.
Gran Turismo used it to provide hundreds of cars and tracks, and although you only needed about 8 cars to complete the whole game, and it DID feel like hard work towards the end, I still feel that to cram it all onto one disc they did a great job, then they put the Arcade mode on the second disc and spoilt it, because that was definitely hard work.
So big is good as long as it's used well and provides lots of variety.
Like someone once said: It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts.
But then in that case the developers actually used the extra space for not just bigger worlds, but whole new innovative ideas, like a very detailed online manual, better graphics, hundreds of minigames and subquests, it was an RPGer's dream come true.
Gran Turismo used it to provide hundreds of cars and tracks, and although you only needed about 8 cars to complete the whole game, and it DID feel like hard work towards the end, I still feel that to cram it all onto one disc they did a great job, then they put the Arcade mode on the second disc and spoilt it, because that was definitely hard work.
So big is good as long as it's used well and provides lots of variety.
Like someone once said: It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts.
It's the curse of using larger storage medium for games.
They've got the space, so they may as well use it.
So what do they do with it? Do they make the game itself bigger by adding extra levels or tracks. Maybe a whole new area to explore.
Or do they allow you to change the colour of you characters shirt, and add a few extra characters?
Why do they always choose the later option?
I think that it's becuase they fear that if they made the games bigger, they will take longer to complete, so we won't need to buy so many games. This is bad for them.
Adding extra options is just a bit of icing on the existing cake, and we'll still need to buy another game just as quickly.
Also regarding FIFA and the likes. I tend to win the cups with one of the strongest teams, then do the same thing with one of the weakest teams, so I'd need use no more than four different teams if it wasn't for the 'random' option!
They've got the space, so they may as well use it.
So what do they do with it? Do they make the game itself bigger by adding extra levels or tracks. Maybe a whole new area to explore.
Or do they allow you to change the colour of you characters shirt, and add a few extra characters?
Why do they always choose the later option?
I think that it's becuase they fear that if they made the games bigger, they will take longer to complete, so we won't need to buy so many games. This is bad for them.
Adding extra options is just a bit of icing on the existing cake, and we'll still need to buy another game just as quickly.
Also regarding FIFA and the likes. I tend to win the cups with one of the strongest teams, then do the same thing with one of the weakest teams, so I'd need use no more than four different teams if it wasn't for the 'random' option!
More options, more characters, more arenas, more tracks, more cars, more teams, more puzzles. More fun?
You can't have too much of a good thing, right?
Or can you?
Just because a game has x dozen cars, tracks or characters, doesn't mean it's any more fun to play. Still, games companies seem to be doing it, so it must be good. Or else it's easy to implement and sounds good as a selling point....I wonder which?
Ask youself, would a film be any better if it featured twice as many characters, and lasted three times as long?
Not really.
With films it's the idea that sells - the story, the action. The same should be true of games. I don't need to choose from thirty characters when a have a game of tekken, and I don't need to know that I'm driving a Nissan Sentra XE, 1.8 litre, 4 cylinder which can run produce 126HP at 6000RPM.
"Ah, but it gives the game more lastability doesn't it?"
Well I'd say the added lastability of such features is rather questionable. If anyone reading this has played one of the more recent fifa games, how many of the x hundred available teams have you played as? Ten? Twenty? If you own TTT, how many of the characters do you play as? You don't bother to master them all, because you get bored before then.
We don't need all this. It would be much more preferble - in my opinion - if the money spent researching these accurate statistics, securing rights to use brand names, or designing addidional characters was instead spent on developing new features, ideas and things that really appeal to the public.
You can't have too much of a good thing, right?
Or can you?
Just because a game has x dozen cars, tracks or characters, doesn't mean it's any more fun to play. Still, games companies seem to be doing it, so it must be good. Or else it's easy to implement and sounds good as a selling point....I wonder which?
Ask youself, would a film be any better if it featured twice as many characters, and lasted three times as long?
Not really.
With films it's the idea that sells - the story, the action. The same should be true of games. I don't need to choose from thirty characters when a have a game of tekken, and I don't need to know that I'm driving a Nissan Sentra XE, 1.8 litre, 4 cylinder which can run produce 126HP at 6000RPM.
"Ah, but it gives the game more lastability doesn't it?"
Well I'd say the added lastability of such features is rather questionable. If anyone reading this has played one of the more recent fifa games, how many of the x hundred available teams have you played as? Ten? Twenty? If you own TTT, how many of the characters do you play as? You don't bother to master them all, because you get bored before then.
We don't need all this. It would be much more preferble - in my opinion - if the money spent researching these accurate statistics, securing rights to use brand names, or designing addidional characters was instead spent on developing new features, ideas and things that really appeal to the public.