The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Tomb Raider 2/3, Final fantasy 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, Resident evil 0/2/3, Crash bandicoot 2/3, Mario party 2/3 and oh hell thats enougth.
I hate numbers why can't developers be more origonal. Surley it would be better to think up a name that sums up the game instead of using one that sums up one made 5 years ago.
They can also be misleading Resident Evil for example was called that as it was based in a mansion but the rest were based in the city and the police station.
The only reason I see for using numbers is so people know that it will continue a previous story or involve the same characters. But Nintendo call every Zelda game The Legend of Zelda so people know what it is and they haven't given it numbers (don't you dare throw the first couple in my face) because a new Zelda could be a completley differen't game to the last but with the same characters again misleading.
I don't mind the use of numbers if it is something that has been slightly upgraded like Megadrive 2 and Die hard Trilogy 2 (Playstation 2 in my mind is also a slight upgrade)
All companys have done it once in a while but now its time to be origonal. If majoras mask was called Zelda 64 2 would you think it involved a mask(that is if you haven't read any magazines)?
What do you think to numbers should they be used?
I hate numbers why can't developers be more origonal. Surley it would be better to think up a name that sums up the game instead of using one that sums up one made 5 years ago.
They can also be misleading Resident Evil for example was called that as it was based in a mansion but the rest were based in the city and the police station.
The only reason I see for using numbers is so people know that it will continue a previous story or involve the same characters. But Nintendo call every Zelda game The Legend of Zelda so people know what it is and they haven't given it numbers (don't you dare throw the first couple in my face) because a new Zelda could be a completley differen't game to the last but with the same characters again misleading.
I don't mind the use of numbers if it is something that has been slightly upgraded like Megadrive 2 and Die hard Trilogy 2 (Playstation 2 in my mind is also a slight upgrade)
All companys have done it once in a while but now its time to be origonal. If majoras mask was called Zelda 64 2 would you think it involved a mask(that is if you haven't read any magazines)?
What do you think to numbers should they be used?
Page:
Dringo wrote:
>Nintendo change the experience by radically changing their >system it can do so many new things Nintendo can play >with.
Bo**ocks. That's the only word for it. Radically change it?? What they do, like all companies, is upgrade it. They upgrade the N64, which was upgraded from the SNES or whatever it was before then, which was upgraded from the NES.
They don't radically change it, they put better technology in, and upgrade it, making into a newer, better console. They also change the looks of the console, but really all new consoles are just upgrades of the previous one??
>Nintendo change the experience by radically changing their >system it can do so many new things Nintendo can play >with.
Bo**ocks. That's the only word for it. Radically change it?? What they do, like all companies, is upgrade it. They upgrade the N64, which was upgraded from the SNES or whatever it was before then, which was upgraded from the NES.
They don't radically change it, they put better technology in, and upgrade it, making into a newer, better console. They also change the looks of the console, but really all new consoles are just upgrades of the previous one??
Mario 128?? Wave Race 2?? After Dark??
Surely these are sequels?? Then these games are also just the same games with upgraded specs.
You're contradicting yourself!!
Dringo wrote:
>Nintendo are the future
Yeah, they are. But so are Sony, Sega, Microsoft and Indrema. You can't just say, 'Nintendo are the future'.
PS- Not all games on PS2 are sequels. Games like Smugglers Run and Zone Of The Enders.
Surely these are sequels?? Then these games are also just the same games with upgraded specs.
You're contradicting yourself!!
Dringo wrote:
>Nintendo are the future
Yeah, they are. But so are Sony, Sega, Microsoft and Indrema. You can't just say, 'Nintendo are the future'.
PS- Not all games on PS2 are sequels. Games like Smugglers Run and Zone Of The Enders.
Ant wrote:
> The PS2-an upgrade?? I think not.
It's 4 times as powerful, and a
> completely new console apart from controllers really.
Surely then
> the GameCube is an upgrade of the N64??
Nope.
So Sony's new machine is 4 times the power of the PS well isn't it about time they used it. All i'm seeing is the same old games with upgraded specs.
Nintendo change the experience by radically changing their system it can do so many new things Nintendo can play with.
A controller is vital for gaming experience. Playing on a Playstation is a completley different experience than on a 64 but Nintendo always change that experience with a differnt controller the PS2 has the same one so the games feel the same and play the same.
I think a Dreamcast is more revolutionary than a PS2 if SR offered me a PS2 or a Dreamcast I would go with Sega's machine as it has a different experience to the old Playstation that I have stuffed away somewhere. I want new things but all i'm getting is the same old stuff.
Nintendo are the future
> The PS2-an upgrade?? I think not.
It's 4 times as powerful, and a
> completely new console apart from controllers really.
Surely then
> the GameCube is an upgrade of the N64??
Nope.
So Sony's new machine is 4 times the power of the PS well isn't it about time they used it. All i'm seeing is the same old games with upgraded specs.
Nintendo change the experience by radically changing their system it can do so many new things Nintendo can play with.
A controller is vital for gaming experience. Playing on a Playstation is a completley different experience than on a 64 but Nintendo always change that experience with a differnt controller the PS2 has the same one so the games feel the same and play the same.
I think a Dreamcast is more revolutionary than a PS2 if SR offered me a PS2 or a Dreamcast I would go with Sega's machine as it has a different experience to the old Playstation that I have stuffed away somewhere. I want new things but all i'm getting is the same old stuff.
Nintendo are the future
Prosibbly because of the volume of PC games...
Possibly because after all these years people wanted variety...
Probably because the marketing men told people it would sell well...
But why dont consoles follow the PC trend for renaming stuff?....
From 19995+ games were named after the years they were made... Final Fantasy99, Maio96...
Although since Wipeout00 kinda screws that system up... PC games have moved to V. ... Mario V6.0 .... Final Fantasy V20.0... (just make sure to make it a real number not an integer ;) )
Possibly because after all these years people wanted variety...
Probably because the marketing men told people it would sell well...
But why dont consoles follow the PC trend for renaming stuff?....
From 19995+ games were named after the years they were made... Final Fantasy99, Maio96...
Although since Wipeout00 kinda screws that system up... PC games have moved to V. ... Mario V6.0 .... Final Fantasy V20.0... (just make sure to make it a real number not an integer ;) )
As it's been said, numbers are wildly convenient for granting an easy basis for gamers to define the evolution of a series. In other words, was Final Fantasy III better than II or I? That sort of thing.
However, there is one case where I loathed the use of numerals and that was for Final Fantasy VII and VIII on PSOne. Excuse me, but they just plain ticked me off. They weren't Final Fantasy games. They were sci-fi games given the name Final Fantasy because it's immensely marketable. You may disagree with me on this, but I don't consider them valid parts of the Final Fantasy series.
I will admit that the title "After Dark" is rather catching though.
However, there is one case where I loathed the use of numerals and that was for Final Fantasy VII and VIII on PSOne. Excuse me, but they just plain ticked me off. They weren't Final Fantasy games. They were sci-fi games given the name Final Fantasy because it's immensely marketable. You may disagree with me on this, but I don't consider them valid parts of the Final Fantasy series.
I will admit that the title "After Dark" is rather catching though.
ortega wrote:
> okay could someone explain somthin to me? alot of the 64 games had
> the number 64 at the end of it i.e mario64. but what the hell was
> the deal with clayfighters 63 1/3?!
It was supposed to be a joke, however it backfired horrendously, when people begun to say that it was 63 1/3 because it was something less than of N64 quality.
> okay could someone explain somthin to me? alot of the 64 games had
> the number 64 at the end of it i.e mario64. but what the hell was
> the deal with clayfighters 63 1/3?!
It was supposed to be a joke, however it backfired horrendously, when people begun to say that it was 63 1/3 because it was something less than of N64 quality.
okay could someone explain somthin to me? alot of the 64 games had the number 64 at the end of it i.e mario64. but what the hell was the deal with clayfighters 63 1/3?!
There was a film out a few years ago called
'The Madness of Kig George'
It was based on a play entitles
'The madness of King George V'
But they were concerned that Americans wuldnt go to see the movie thinking they had missed the first 4 movies! :)
'The Madness of Kig George'
It was based on a play entitles
'The madness of King George V'
But they were concerned that Americans wuldnt go to see the movie thinking they had missed the first 4 movies! :)
final Fantasy is made by squaresoft, i may be sick of sequeks but the PS2 games are the worse thing that could happen if they kept being released what batch of games would be good and which would be bad?
If we carried on getting these sequels we will look forward to them but then to past the time bad games will be released gradually each time and that's really frustrating for everyone.
If we carried on getting these sequels we will look forward to them but then to past the time bad games will be released gradually each time and that's really frustrating for everyone.
Tom 1234 wrote:
The worst culprit is Sony. The Final Fantasy Series, all nine of them is it, ive lost count.
FFs 1-6 were not on the playstation, or with Sony.
FFs 7-9 were on PSone. Many games go to three versions without a problem, this is an example.
FFs 10-11 will be on the new PS2, so they aren`t sequels in the same way.
If they are considered sequels, then at least that`ll give all us PS2 owners a break, because all we ever get told is "PS2 is a sequels machine". This is mostly because the people who say this can`t be bothered to research what else is coming out, and now we see that the Gamecube's most awaited titles are virtually all sequels. The list was below somewhere, but isn`t worth mentioning.
As for the numbers part, numbers are probably the most useful things on the planet. They are shared amongst all languages, and without them, there would be no order to anything. In terms of labeling sequels, I think numbers are the best way to go. I heard somebody below saying that the use of numbers was due to lack of imagination - from a team of game developers? Yeah right!
Numbering sequels is important to users so that they know which game came first (no jokes here please), and what standard to expect as a result. Naming them all individually would get confusing.
Oh, one last thing. Mario 64, I was thinking that the number on this one may not be too far from the truth.
The worst culprit is Sony. The Final Fantasy Series, all nine of them is it, ive lost count.
FFs 1-6 were not on the playstation, or with Sony.
FFs 7-9 were on PSone. Many games go to three versions without a problem, this is an example.
FFs 10-11 will be on the new PS2, so they aren`t sequels in the same way.
If they are considered sequels, then at least that`ll give all us PS2 owners a break, because all we ever get told is "PS2 is a sequels machine". This is mostly because the people who say this can`t be bothered to research what else is coming out, and now we see that the Gamecube's most awaited titles are virtually all sequels. The list was below somewhere, but isn`t worth mentioning.
As for the numbers part, numbers are probably the most useful things on the planet. They are shared amongst all languages, and without them, there would be no order to anything. In terms of labeling sequels, I think numbers are the best way to go. I heard somebody below saying that the use of numbers was due to lack of imagination - from a team of game developers? Yeah right!
Numbering sequels is important to users so that they know which game came first (no jokes here please), and what standard to expect as a result. Naming them all individually would get confusing.
Oh, one last thing. Mario 64, I was thinking that the number on this one may not be too far from the truth.
Page: