Video Games videogames for fun or for cash?

who is sick of buying a (very expensive) game and get disapointed with it??
i try to look deep into a game before i buy it and some times still get disapointed. i have a large imagination and i like some games because of their fantasys and being that so i was suposed to like many games on the marked, thing i don't.... some of them are just an imitation of another already made with the diference of the name. there are some good games but maybe the gaming should turn to other subjects that were never seen before in it also. any ideias??? i'm a "lazy" person and even wanting to make a game, i just can't bare to learn all the stuff about programing but i have ideas of games that i would like to see realeased... do you???? maybe we could discuss it!!

 

Some games are overhyped, and when it's overhyped, people usually have a high standard or demand when it comes to playing it.

Take Halo for an example. It was crowned best game ever realised to the Xbox, getting 9's and 10's on several magazines and internet sites. I managed to get a copy of it when it came to the PC, and well, can't really say that I was impressed by it. The truth is, the reason why we are disappointed is basically, us gamers, have a too high demand. I know that I have.

Well, there's a game based on the JFK murder...that's just plain sick.

Anyhow, back to the topic. People have their own ideas when it comes to gaming, but it's alot of work behind it, and programming is one of them

- Teddz

 

maybe they could focuse in contracting good argumentists insted of designers, i think the graphics are as good as they should be for the moment.

sorry for the errors again

 

Hey no need for apologies on your english, it's good enough. I'm glad you are around because you make some interesting topics.

I think it just depends on who finds what 'fun'. Like Teddz has already mentioned Halo was god-like on the X-box so much that it caught my attention and eventually purchased it. And after playing it for a while I immediately casted it as 'average'. It is for a clear fact that shooters on consoles cannot compete with a PC, keyboard and mouse, in my opinion Console FPS will never live up to PC standards.

Anyway, games which tend to be disappointing are ones which were made due to a movie or anime. A clear money-making technique which will obviously drag people towards it, especially if it was a good movie/anime. Sequel games unlike sequel movies however tend to live up to expectations.

Games don't need to be all about graphics as most of us know. Take Championship Manager (excel format soccer mangaerment) as an example. The most ungraphical game you could possibly find in modern day but hugely popular, hugely addictive and hugely successful. The makers of that basically make more and more money by just tweaking the player transfer details and introducing one or two new yet simple features in each of their newer version of the game which is released once per year, still it draws many into buying it. They are cunning them lot.

- Shen

 

Hehe Championship Manager. Shen and I, we have probably been playing this game for years. And yet, I have uninstalled the likes of Pro Evolution Soccer 4 and FIFA 2005, knowing that Championship Manager is, probably, the only football game that satisfy me.

Anyhow, it's true, games that convert from movies suck, but not all games that convert from movies suck, look at the swedish published Chronicals of Riddick. It was named one of the best games in the year of 2004, among the ranks of Half-Life 2 and Halo 2.

FPS can live up to PC standards, as long as you have an über upgraded computer

 

The trick is to try it out first in some way shape or form.

 

Yeah, I'm sick of those games that had little to no effort put into them. Simply slapped with a popular title and released. *Cough*Final Fantasy 8, 10, 10-2*cough*

That's why I play games made by less well-known companies, in earlier years. Sure, nobody knows anything about Warsong 2, but it is an awesome game. I think, what it is, is that the big companies, like Square, have gotten overconfident, and don't bother trying anymore, because people will buy anyway. Why come up with something new if the fish still bite for the old?

Smaller companies tend to put more effort into their games, because they don't have a huge fan following. They do their best to make quality games so they can attract a following, even against competition from lackluster series like Final Fantasy. People buy that because they know the name, and it's really popular. Games like, say... Phantasy Star, in the old days, (before Playstation) have innovative new ideas, and more interesting stories because the companies have to try harder to get people buying their games.

 

exactly my point!!!! this new games (of some editors) are bought by their name and not by their "colors" if you get what i mean....
also, games tend to get worse at their 2nd series, but i'm not talking about every game, off course.

by the way shen, i still have the old (but still in my domain) game, CM....
it's a hell of an addicting game.
but i've recently bought FM (football manager). to those who don't know, FM is from the responsability of sport interactive that (when separated from eidos interactive) created this game with the same database and graphic source of CM, (eidos only manage to keep the name of the game i think...).

to be short, the games are not what they used to be, gladly, there are still some games that are good enough to pass some time playing it!