The problem with todays computer games... [Archive]

Hyper Shadow

9th March 2002, 08:02 PM

are that they are far, far too short. The emphasis these days is upon how good the graphics are and how smooth it plays.

In any computer magazine, a game cannot be 'next-gen' unless it is a graphical marvel.

But what is the point of this post I hear you all cry. Well, I brought Shadowman 2econd Coming on Thursday and have just completed it. The game clock says that I completed it in just over 13 hours, however, if you went from start to finish without having to 'solve' the puzzles then that time can be cut down to about 10 hours. Metal Gear Solid 2 is only around 11 hours of gameplay (although the prequel was no epic in gamelength), Soul Reaver 2 was also only a small quest in comparison to its predecessor. I must admit though that I did thouroughly enjoy these games (apart form MGS2 cos I havn't played it yet) but I feel that the chalenge has gone from games nowadays and the way the game looks has become the most important thing.

I find it hard to believe that Shadowman 1 was on a cartridge (N64) aswell as other formats, and the sequel seems to have been shortened vastly. Aren't CD's meant to have a higher storage capacity???

I am aware that this is a lengthy rant but this is another game sequel that I have been waiting for that I have completed in a weekend when the first part took me months to complete.

Does anyone else agree with me is it only myself who has found this???

*Shadow steps of soapbox and goes and does something more productive with his life*

Dastardly

9th March 2002, 08:09 PM

Im guessing your probably one of us 'older' gamers (in your 20's).
Its just the fact that games were much harder on the old systems. Your right the emphasis is too much on the aesthetics and not the depth. For £40 a go, I want both!!

Hyper Shadow

9th March 2002, 09:19 PM

Erm...I'm only 19! Gosh, does my complaining make me sound old??

I remember games like Sonic and RPG's like Phantasy Star. These games looked good and they lasted a while too, the thing was, they actually looked like computer games so nothing was made of it, nowadays, it seems that a game has to be totally lifelike to warrant any merits.

Does anyone know of a game like Shadowman or Soul Reaver that actually lasts more then 10 hours???

Lance

9th March 2002, 11:57 PM

the manufacturers of the machines probably feel that the only way they can distinguish them from the old machines, and to make them seem worth the money, is to do things with them that the old machines couldnt do, namely high resolution graphics with multiple light sources. when you spend time and money doing that, you have less left over for actual game development. i think the dreamcast was about as far as we needed to go in machine power. at least nintendo had the sense to use a small disk that allows 'only' one and a half gigabytes of memory storage on the gamecube.

AmigoJack

10th March 2002, 11:21 AM

nowadays its even practised to develop 3D-engines and to sell them. a game is sometimes just for purposes to demonstrate this 3D-engine.

i dont know what happened too! if ill show a normal kiddy (12-16yrs) the first SONIC today he would probably laugh for the graphics and say "thats too childish for me - look like baby toys...".

i dont even understand why to buy bigger and better and fresher 3D-cards. for what? just for some data values that are higher than on other ones??? 2097 for saturn has graphics like the first wipEout, but it entertaines me on and on. and im also teased by re-playing all my SONIC games.

todays games must be amazing just by looking the graphics. and maybe there arent any "true" gamers anymore - and everybody just wants the quick kick rather than playing 2hrs just for completing any part of the game. has it really come that stupidous whithin so few years???

dont hope so

Hyper Shadow

10th March 2002, 01:34 PM

There is a point for making a game look good, for instance if it were a car, would you buy a Nissan Skyline GT-R or a Lada? The looks would definatly swing it.

But, if the Lada was easier to drive and had better fuel consumption compared to the Skyline, then you would feel rather cheated by the car and the glossy exterior would have just been a vain show to part with your money.

Computer games are like this nowadays. The games with the poorer grapics would probably been longer and tougher as the emphasis could have been placed on this.

Also, what has happened to plot? You surely want a reason to play the game? Especially if it is a long winded adventure style game. It just seems that games are either over-killing plot (MGS2) or uderusing it (Shadowman, Fusion for that matter).

Gee, I'll probably have to swallow my pride and go back to my Mega Drive. Perhaps I'm sugar coating the past and we never had it that good anyway.

Bob Todd

10th March 2002, 04:53 PM

Jak & Daxter and Zone Of The Enders were both excellent games and are among my favourites, but the former took me 3 days and the latter 7 hours!

Good thing Fusion has a long lifespan; I've been playing it a grand total of 48 hours and I'm still only halfway through!

Lance

10th March 2002, 07:13 PM

the games where you can always go back and try to improve your scores or your best times in a competition with yourself or someone else, those are the ones that last, that we play again and again.

Wamdue

10th March 2002, 10:13 PM

I think theres another point of view to this as well.. its about knowing that even the finest game, has to end at some point. Lets say we doubled the 7-8 hours it takes to complete z.o.e, would it be all that fun when youre at 14hours of gameplay and still not halfway thru all the fighting atleast i think so. I dont bother if a game is completed fast, if I want more of it, i complete it again. If the game is good, i wont feel cheated on some extra hours of gameplay.

FoxZero

11th March 2002, 05:53 AM

sonic 3 was really short compared to sonic 2, but what was great was when sonic & knuckles came out where you got to play sonic 3 all over with new things and different stages, it doubled the number of levels. thats the kind of thing i like to see. of course, the games with the longest campaigns have the multiplayer aspect, an ever-growing ceiling as rasied by the millions of other players skills. i also enjoy flexible game engines, where fewer restrictions are placed upon the user as to what can and cant be done. computer games have been supporting modifications and total conversions for a while, im glad to see halo has caught on with heavier game configuration options for the team play that are simple and easy to set up. i want more of this ;>

also i think the leaps in graphics occured mostly because the hardware for these types of operations became more available. graphics are now seperately processed from the rest of the game, and this is a good thing because it leaves MORE room, not less, for things like deeper character AI and such. most of the graphics innovations you see are not so much game programmers spending time inventing rendering techniques but rather hardware features that exist on devices that programmers will utilize because, hey, it makes the game look better! i suppose i only speak from a programmers perspective though, as im sure the modelers have much more work in these types of games, creating higher poly count creatures and worlds than ever before. but they get paid for it, so i guess theres no complaints ;>

_________________
definition http://foxzero.tripod.com

[ This Message was edited by: FoxZero on 2002-03-11 06:08 ]

AmigoJack

11th March 2002, 11:27 AM

originally SONIC 3 shouldnt be meant as single game - as you see, only SONIC 3 & KNUCKLES together do a full game (so you can play level parts in the first levels only with knuckles and level parts in the last levels only with miles "prower" tails). and imho the idea of the game catridge with a slot on top for another game catridge was SEGAs most innovating idea - never seen such a thing again...

BurnHead

11th March 2002, 12:55 PM

Hey Wamdue: have you already played MGS2?? :grin:

And I have to agree: many games are far too short these times. But it appears to me, that this is mainly on consoles. On the PC there's another thing that makes (many) games last longer: a multiplayer mode.

Hopefully the online kit of the PS2 will be available in Europe soon!

Hyper Shadow

11th March 2002, 03:28 PM

*ahem* AmigoJack, I do believe it was Miles "Tails" Prower.

Hmmmm. I'm in a fix, I want an X-box now that I've played JSR-Future, that was a game that lasted quite a while, in fact, most SEGA games lasted a while.

Which brings me onto a new theisis. Is it only because of the lack of competition to PS2 that games were short and of not very good value, because die-hard gamers and the casual gamer who was a PSone owner would buy them because they wanted new games and this was the only outlet. Will the 'console war' (term used lightly here) mean that new games will be a bit longer aswell as graphically superb in order to keep buisness up because if PS2 games continue being short with the Gamecube and X-box round the corner, I'll be ditching the PS2 (might get a PSone to continue playing WipEout) and get a better console instead.

Bob Todd

11th March 2002, 04:53 PM

I'm feeling the same way; I want an XBox and a GameCube (aren't I greedy?). However, I hope you're right about PS2 games only being short due to lack of competition. I'm hoping that once the other 2 uberconsoles launch here we'll see a big rise in the quality of PS2 software.

But why ditch the PS2 to get a better console? Why not get the better console and keep the PS2? There are too many good exclusives from my point of view to make me get rid of mine (Fusion, ZoE, Jak & Dax [excellent replay value; I play all the way through it about once every fortnight!], Fur Fighters, Tekken 4, etc)

Lance

11th March 2002, 05:06 PM

FoxZero: yep, the modelers are getting paid for it. but that's where so much of the money goes instead of into gameplay development.

it's nice when the hardware does much of the what the programmer used to have to do, but Sony apparently did a very poor job on SDKs for the PS2, so the programmers must have been working triple overtime. look how long it took for GT3 and MGS2 to ever actually arrive, even though they were supposed to be launch titles for the PS2 when it came out in october of 2000. they were many, many months late, and cost more to develop than they should have. that time and money couldn't go into other things. that tends to reduce the number and quality of titles we can get. and the ones we do get cost more. the cost of new games seems to have risen 5 to 10 US dollars in the past year and a half. that's way more than currency inflation would account for.

feel free to refute anything i've said. i can be mouthy. :wink:

oh, btw, the gamecube and x-box are already available here in the u.s. and the competition is really fierce. the number of adverts for all 3 ubermaschinen is very high. they are all spending money like crazy on promotion. i'm seeing more for the x-box than anything else, microsoft money. in terms of number of adverts, they rank in order or most to least: x-box, ps2, gamecube.

[ This Message was edited by: Lance on 2002-03-11 17:11 ]

Hyper Shadow

11th March 2002, 05:50 PM

The reasons why I might abandon PS2;

1)I was never a fan of Sony, I simply wanted a console with a good deluge of games and a console that would last longer than a year

2)The quality of the games is vastly inferior to any console I previously owned. I am still wanting new Dreamcast games even though I own around 30 already, with the PS2 I have around 10 games (4 of which are WipEout) and there are no more games which are catching my attention in the future or now (including old PSone games)

3)The joypad is crap (the analouge sticks are in the wrongplace for my large hands)

4)£30 for a memory card!? Naff off

5)It has no mascot in the sense of Sonic and Mario, hence the character is lost.

6)The DVD player is poor

7)The X-Box pad reminds me of the Dreamcast pad, andthat was a joy to beHOLD :wink:

8 )X-Box and Gamecube has Tony Hawks

9)Gamecube has Sonic and Rare (developers of the fab Goldeneye and Perfect Dark)

10)I can't afford to buy a second console

11)SEGA support on other consoles is better

Phew! Thats a lot of bad points for one console, it makes me wonder why I brought it in the first place.

Which leads me onto the next topic, what are the positive points for this PS2???? I can't see the wood for the trees at the moment.

_________________
View ALL of my best times at www.hyper-shadow.cjb.net

[ This Message was edited by: Hyper Shadow on 2002-03-11 17:51 ]

Bob Todd

11th March 2002, 05:54 PM

I does have a mascot; it's Toro the cat in Japan and The Wolfman everywhere else.

Hyper Shadow

11th March 2002, 05:55 PM

Who? What?

Can't say that I have heard of any of those peeps?

gary

11th March 2002, 06:23 PM

[quote]
On 2002-03-11 17:06, Lance wrote:
FoxZero: yep, the modelers are getting paid for it. but that's where so much of the money goes instead of into gameplay development.

it's nice when the hardware does much of the what the programmer used to have to do, but Sony apparently did a very poor job on SDKs for the PS2, so the programmers must have been working triple overtime. look how long it took for GT3 and MGS2 to ever actually arrive, even though they were supposed to be launch titles for the PS2 when it came out in october of 2000. they were many, many months late, and cost more to develop than they should have. that time and money couldn't go into other things. that tends to reduce the number and quality of titles we can get. and the ones we do get cost more. the cost of new games seems to have risen 5 to 10 US dollars in the past year and a half. that's way more than currency inflation would account for.

feel free to refute anything i've said. i can be mouthy. :wink:

oh, btw, the gamecube and x-box are already available here in the u.s. and the competition is really fierce. the number of adverts for all 3 ubermaschinen is very high. they are all spending money like crazy on promotion. i'm seeing more for the x-box than anything else, microsoft money. in terms of number of adverts, they rank in order or most to least: x-box, ps2, gamecube.

i suppose its the wrong colour as well?,masgots like sonic and mario were used to try and attract the younger gamers while the ps2 is aimed at the older!. and what about crash bandicot?...and i never saw a game like wipeout on any other console.

Dastardly

11th March 2002, 06:31 PM

On 2002-03-11 17:50, Hyper Shadow wrote:
The reasons why I might abandon PS2;

1)I was never a fan of Sony, I simply wanted a console with a good deluge of games and a console that would last longer than a year

2)The quality of the games is vastly inferior to any console I previously owned. I am still wanting new Dreamcast games even though I own around 30 already, with the PS2 I have around 10 games (4 of which are WipEout) and there are no more games which are catching my attention in the future or now (including old PSone games)

3)The joypad is crap (the analouge sticks are in the wrongplace for my large hands)

4)£30 for a memory card!? Naff off

5)It has no mascot in the sense of Sonic and Mario, hence the character is lost.

6)The DVD player is poor

7)The X-Box pad reminds me of the Dreamcast pad, andthat was a joy to beHOLD :wink:

8 )X-Box and Gamecube has Tony Hawks

9)Gamecube has Sonic and Rare (developers of the fab Goldeneye and Perfect Dark)

10)I can't afford to buy a second console

11)SEGA support on other consoles is better

Phew! Thats a lot of bad points for one console, it makes me wonder why I brought it in the first place.

Which leads me onto the next topic, what are the positive points for this PS2???? I can't see the wood for the trees at the moment.

Wow..regarding these 'bad' points...

1.Why would you be a fan of SONY anyway? Its a company.

2.Thats complete rubbish, Ive owned LOADS of consoles and computers and the quality is at least equal with ALL of them.

3.The joypad is THE best pad or stick Ive ever used and I too have large hands.

4.i agree totally with you on this point.

5.It has no mascot because its aimed at the mature gamer, which, you having large hands, I assumed you were.

6.The DVD is basic yes, but for £200 for a 128bit next gen console, its really more of a bonus than anything else. What the hell do you want for £200!!!!!?

7.The XBOX pad is similar to the DC pad in that its grotesque and has had little thought applied to the ergonomics.

8.PS2 has Tony Hawks.

9.The developers of GOLDENEYE are now working on the PS2, they made TIMESPLITTERS and are currently finishing off TIMESPLITTERS 2. In there words "TIMESPLITTERS 2 is better than GOLDENEYE was"

10.Your thinking of buying an XBOX?

11.SEGA games are usually shallow anyway and better played in arcades where they belong.

You should try to be a bit more positive instead of bashing a great system, after all, in 12 months its obvious which machine will be on top and have the best games.

gary

11th March 2002, 06:44 PM

On 2002-03-11 18:31, Dastardly wrote:

On 2002-03-11 17:50, Hyper Shadow wrote:
The reasons why I might abandon PS2;

1)I was never a fan of Sony, I simply wanted a console with a good deluge of games and a console that would last longer than a year

2)The quality of the games is vastly inferior to any console I previously owned. I am still wanting new Dreamcast games even though I own around 30 already, with the PS2 I have around 10 games (4 of which are WipEout) and there are no more games which are catching my attention in the future or now (including old PSone games)

3)The joypad is crap (the analouge sticks are in the wrongplace for my large hands)

4)£30 for a memory card!? Naff off

5)It has no mascot in the sense of Sonic and Mario, hence the character is lost.

6)The DVD player is poor

7)The X-Box pad reminds me of the Dreamcast pad, andthat was a joy to beHOLD :wink:

8 )X-Box and Gamecube has Tony Hawks

9)Gamecube has Sonic and Rare (developers of the fab Goldeneye and Perfect Dark)

10)I can't afford to buy a second console

11)SEGA support on other consoles is better

Phew! Thats a lot of bad points for one console, it makes me wonder why I brought it in the first place.

Which leads me onto the next topic, what are the positive points for this PS2???? I can't see the wood for the trees at the moment.

Wow..regarding these 'bad' points...

1.Why would you be a fan of SONY anyway? Its a company.

2.Thats complete rubbish, Ive owned LOADS of consoles and computers and the quality is at least equal with ALL of them.

3.The joypad is THE best pad or stick Ive ever used and I too have large hands.

4.i agree totally with you on this point.

5.It has no mascot because its aimed at the mature gamer, which, you having large hands, I assumed you were.

6.The DVD is basic yes, but for £200 for a 128bit next gen console, its really more of a bonus than anything else. What the hell do you want for £200!!!!!?

7.The XBOX pad is similar to the DC pad in that its grotesque and has had little thought applied to the ergonomics.

8.PS2 has Tony Hawks.

9.The developers of GOLDENEYE are now working on the PS2, they made TIMESPLITTERS and are currently finishing off TIMESPLITTERS 2. In there words "TIMESPLITTERS 2 is better than GOLDENEYE was"

10.Your thinking of buying an XBOX?

11.SEGA games are usually shallow anyway and better played in arcades where they belong.

You should try to be a bit more positive instead of bashing a great system, after all, in 12 months its obvious which machine will be on top and have the best games.

no one should be arguin over a company product after all there just out to make money.

FoxZero

11th March 2002, 10:33 PM

no one should be arguin over a company product after all there just out to make money

of course they need to make money, but we arent exactly going to buy anything they put out just so they can have money for a new car.

Sony apparently did a very poor job on SDKs for the PS2, so the programmers must have been working triple overtime. look how long it took for GT3 and MGS2 to ever actually arrive, even though they were supposed to be launch titles for the PS2 when it came out in october of 2000.

first of all, programmers almost always struggle to get games out by launch dates because they are usually impossible to meet with the amount of things going into the game. i mean, think about the games you mention, gt3, mgs2.. they are both very detailed games and required a lot of work to complete. these things dont exactly appear out of thin air. look at wipeout fusion, they couldnt even fit all the features into this game and the graphics arent even the best.

the argument that money is being spent needlessly for modelling of objects in these games is moot as the software to build these objects becomes simpler and faster as time progresses along with the hardware. if it was so hard to create a detailed polygon monster up to todays graphics standards do you think game developers would even try?

in fact, lets discard the entire notion of development timesharing altogether. i think the real problem is not with these task-related examples of one part of development eating up the other parts, but rather lies with companies who build games with sales in mind rather than quality. simply, the games that are made with pretty graphics and nothing underneath. this and games that are far too ambitious for the production teams talents. there are a lot of games with great ideas and poor implementation. this is simply incomplete game design. graphics workload has nothing to do with that. and as we all know the most amazing graphics in the world wont cover that one up.

_________________
definition http://foxzero.tripod.com

[ This Message was edited by: FoxZero on 2002-03-11 22:38 ]

Wiseman

12th March 2002, 06:41 AM

Yes, I agree with the last part of Fox Zero's post, Eidos Interactive would be a prime example of a company that does this.

They have tons upon tons of talent, but the bigshots only think "We must release this before Christmas, ship it, I don't care if it's not complete!", and thus we get half baked games like the TR sequels, Soul Reaver 2, and most recently, Eve of Extenction.

Moving on, MGS2 was never announced as a launch title, I don't know where you heard that from, it was originally supposed to be released in March of 2001, then moved to October 2001, then December 2001, and then it moved up to November.

Anyway, I personally know a lot of other "Nintendo/Microsoft" fanboys who are buying PS2's now, something I personally thought I'd never see. The X-Box and GameCube are going through "dry times" as of recent, and they've heard so much about all the great games PS2 got at the end of last year, that they've decided to take advantage of it while they wait for their respective consoles to "fill their lakes with water" again (keep in mind this is in America, don't know about Europe).

infoxicated

12th March 2002, 10:03 AM

I'd say I'm pretty happy with the PS2 in terms of games and the quality of them. I'm quite particular about the games I buy - I really do scour the net for reviews and footage of them before I even think about buying one. And even then I usually offset it with a trade in.

If I do buy a turkey I feel very cheated, but fortunately there are few games I've bought for the PS2 where I felt that. Midnight Club and WRC spring to mind - the former because it was crap and the latter because it was far too easy and a bit suspect in the time calculation department.

The biggest disappointment for me with the PS2 has been Gran Tourismo 3. Watching how beautiful it looked, it was hard to fathom how it made the shops without having any AI. (considering I've since been told that AI for racing games "is a piece of p*ss!")

It's easy to dwell on stuff that's been crap, though. In the last year I've whiled away many hours on GTA3, Rumble Racing, Madden 2001 & 2002, Tony Hawks, Wipeout Fusion, Smugglers Run (not bad at all for a launch title), SSX, Resident Evil, and at the moment my girlfriend and I are really enjoying the co-operative side of Baldur's Gate.

I'm sure there are plenty I've missed out of the list above - and even more that I haven't tried that are in the shops now. Add to this the fact I can still play my old PS1 games and watch DVD's and I think the PS2 is a lot of console for £200 (or even the £300 that I paid).

I don't know what folk were expecting from the PS2 - yeah, there was a load of bollocks on the net about photorealistic graphics before it launched. But that was complete hype and it's the same with the X-Box - yeah, the games do look good, but not photorealistic.

For my mind there's one company who is far more sinister and worthy of being suspicious of than any other. It's the company who spent three years in court against the US government and was then let off with a slap on the wrist. I mean, I know the US justice system is complete arse (http://www.guerrillanews.com/cocakarma/), but Bill Gates must laugh himself to sleep every night of the week.

[ This Message was edited by: infoxicated on 2002-03-12 10:03 ]

Hyper Shadow

12th March 2002, 12:07 PM

The point I brought up when I said that I couldn't afford a second console was that I was thinking of abandoning the PS2 (hence the title) and using it to pay for the X-box.

Which brings me to another point, a review of REZ said that although it was a great game, once you looked past the flashy graphics and gimmicks, what lay beneath was a very, very short game. Metal Gear 2 anybody???

The joypad I think is a matter of taste. I want something that I can hold in my hands, the Dreamcast pad was moulded perfectly but the PS pad is too small and fiddly, you need to break your fingers for some games. Like Quake 3, the fact that it has two sticks (one for moving, one for looking) may seem ingenious, but it means the other buttons (X, square etc) become irrelevant, and when those buttons are to change weapons, it makes you think. Also the loading times are horrendous on this game compared to the same game on other formats.

The Sony 'fan' thing, thats more of brand loyalty, If you are happy with one product then you will find yourself buying from the same company because you are expecting the same quality.I have found now that Playstion games are 90% rubbish and you have to really look to find anything descent on this system.

infoxicated

12th March 2002, 12:44 PM

Pretty much looks like you made up your mind, long before opening up this "discussion"!

And your figure of 90% is obviously viewing things from a fairly narrow perspective.

Even if that figure was 80%, which I highly doubt, that still leaves 40+ titles which are worth a look.

You pay your money, so you make the decision - but the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

Hard drive failure anyone?

Ruined DVD's anyone?

OS memory leaks... anyone?

Hardware that was obsolete a year ago in PC terms... anyone?

Enjoy! :smile:

gary

12th March 2002, 04:19 PM

On 2002-03-12 12:07, Hyper Shadow wrote:
The point I brought up when I said that I couldn't afford a second console was that I was thinking of abandoning the PS2 (hence the title) and using it to pay for the X-box.

Which brings me to another point, a review of REZ said that although it was a great game, once you looked past the flashy graphics and gimmicks, what lay beneath was a very, very short game. Metal Gear 2 anybody???

The joypad I think is a matter of taste. I want something that I can hold in my hands, the Dreamcast pad was moulded perfectly but the PS pad is too small and fiddly, you need to break your fingers for some games. Like Quake 3, the fact that it has two sticks (one for moving, one for looking) may seem ingenious, but it means the other buttons (X, square etc) become irrelevant, and when those buttons are to change weapons, it makes you think. Also the loading times are horrendous on this game compared to the same game on other formats.

The Sony 'fan' thing, thats more of brand loyalty, If you are happy with one product then you will find yourself buying from the same company because you are expecting the same quality.I have found now that Playstion games are 90% rubbish and you have to really look to find anything descent on this system.

arguing over consoles is so stupid can we not just appreciated the games and be glad that there is plenty of competition out there?

infoxicated

12th March 2002, 04:45 PM

Absolutely - in fact, it's pretty cool that the market has evolved to the extent where there is a choice between three independant gaming consoles offering quite a spread of games.

The only thing I'm taking issue with is that the PS2 isn't really as grim as it was painted earlier in this topic. With its current library of games it is the clear leader for those who want a choice of decent games to play.

If Shad' holds on until the autumn he can probably save himself a bit of money as the price wars arrive in time for xmas. There's no real need to ditch the PS2 at present, when the alternatives have a fraction of the games available.

It's his money, ain't it!? :smile:

(Also note, Gary, that there's a difference between a fight and a discussion - Hyper Shadow has been a member for a long, long time.)

Dastardly

12th March 2002, 04:58 PM

To Hyper Shadow:

Infoxicated is right, you have made up your mind than the PS2 is not for you.
Why then are you slagging it to people who obviously enjoy the games this machine has to offer?

Lance

12th March 2002, 07:45 PM

FoxZero said:
'' i think the real problem is not with these task-related examples of one part of development eating up the other parts, but rather lies with companies who build games with sales in mind rather than quality''

are there any companies for whom quality comes first?

[i'm tempted to nominate Namco for this, though i don't really know about their current production. but Soul Caliber and RidgeRacer 4 stand out to me as games where they really tried to do a complete develpment, to make the game right.] [and perhaps Polyphony as well. even if the AI is pants, they seem to try to do it well with the parameters of their design goal.]

FoxZero

13th March 2002, 04:49 AM

quality first? of course not! lets be realistic, company is synonymous with money. on the other hand, quality often helps income. this doesnt mean the best game will always win of course, but there will always be quality games as long as there is a substantial group of gamers with taste and money who will only sustain companies who provide quality games by buying only quality games. of course, there will also be a substantial group of gamers with absolutely no taste and money who will ensure the life of the next tomb raider sequel. :smile:

Wiseman

13th March 2002, 05:51 AM

on the other hand, quality often helps income.Yes, Nintendo understands this. Of course, they slipped slightly with Luigi's Mansion (and this Pokemon crap, but I'm sure some would probably disagree there), but no one's perfect.

I mean sure, you might not like some of the games Nintendo releases, but to look at a game like Zelda 64, Goldeneye, Mario 64, and the like, and say that they're "substandard" or low quality... Well, that would tell me how much you know about quality. :lol

Anyway, backtracking onto the percentage of bad games thing, I have this to say to that.

Quite personally, I could care less about percentages of bad games vs. good games for a system. No one has my hands tied behind my back and force feeds me bad games.

Let's say System A has 200 total games released for it. System B has 40 games released for it. System A has 40 good games and 160 bad ones. System B has 10 good games and 30 bad ones.

So just because only 25% of System A's games are good, vs. 33% for System B, means that System B is the better choice?

Well, not by my standards. All I see is that System A has 40 good games while System B only has 10.

Well, I want to play more games, so I'm going with System A.

And that's my 2 cents on that. :wink:

[ This Message was edited by: Wiseman on 2002-03-13 06:27 ]

vincoof

13th March 2002, 08:25 AM

Well, huh, how to say that...

How do you define "quality" in a game ?

Of course, for us *hardcore* gamers (I don't like the term, but I don't see a more explicit one) the quality relates to obvious cirterias such as good graphics + good handling + good difficulty + etc.

But for most of the buying population, they don't really care about it.
They just want to read famous movie titles on the game cover, or they want to buy games with flashy graphics etc.

And the game companies understood that : there's no need to make "quality" to sell games.

As we (hardcore gamers) represent a low percentage of the buying population, we'll for sure have rare "quality" games (if not none in the future).

Hyper Shadow

13th March 2002, 10:37 AM

My original gripe at this column was how dissapointed at the length of computer games.
I was never a fan of the PS2, but I am a fan of computer games and SEGA, so after the demise of the Dreamcast, I needed a new console, with people ranting about how great the PS2 is, and how long the PSone went on for, I thought that I should swallow my pride and just go with the flow.
I've never loved my PS2, I wanted some killer apps to change my mind, but they just havn't come at the moment.
Come to think of it, I think I'll buy SSX Tricky, that is a classic game, plus with Fusion and THPS3, it might be possible to hold out till Fusion 2, THPS4 or the next big thing (not MGS2)

infoxicated

13th March 2002, 11:03 AM

I'm wondering if the games on release at the moment are just not the games for you. The problem is, that the X-Box will probably have very similar titles to that of the PS2 - they are direct competitors.

In a years time the X-Box will probably have a decent catalogue of games, so it will be up to you to decide whether you want to pay for the privelage of enhanced graphics for the same games.

On the other hand the market could have swung by then and there will be a load of games on the market that do float your boat for both systems.

If you're a gamer and you prefer a specific genre, then I suppose you have to get the console that caters for your taste or you will always be disappointed.

I'm fortunate in that I'm equally happy playing Baldur's Gate as I am playing Wipeout Fusion or Madden. For my taste in games I think the PS2 releases suit me fine, and I believe there is a decent quality to them. I'm keeping in mind that the final two years of the PS1's era (as in, before the PS2) the games were great - we had stuff like Wipeout 3, Metal Gear, Driver, GT2, Tony Hawks and a whole load of others.

If the PS2 can emulate that trend then I see no reason to change. I just think that you'd be making the decision to ditch the console just as things are warming up - you've endured the hard part, the first year where games are dire, so why go through that all again with the X-Box?

zargz

13th March 2002, 11:18 AM

the psx / ps2 controller IS the best ( imo ). the sticks thou sux BIG time!!

Lance

13th March 2002, 04:00 PM

i agree, zargz; the sticks are too tall, so that you have to move your thumb too far. there isnt the right balance of fine control and quick response. and the tall sticks get in the way.

Hyper Shadow

13th March 2002, 05:30 PM

Hmmm. I suppose your right, everything deserves a 'grace' period where they have to find the consoles limitations.
Perhaps I should just find a friend and play multiplayer, that seems to help lengthen games, or maybe, *shock horror* I could get out more, get a new 'board now the weather is improving.

Also, I think that the analouge sticks on the PS2 joypad were a rushed thing to save money.
If we look back, when the N64 came out, that started the trend for analouge sticks. The SEGA Saturn later followed suit with a pad that looked like a prototype DreamCast pad, but as it was nearing its (short) life, it wasn't noticed. Sony followed trend and released its pad, with a rumble and two sticks (cos no-one had thought of that had they?) I think the Gamecube pad is the direction Sonys controller should have gone in cos it feels a lot better.