| SaviorX said: I will say this: I was recently playing Tomb Raider: Underworld (which I got for free from a Gamestop deal) and I felt ripped-off. I remember the commercials for the title and reviews were at least decent. However, what I experienced when I played was terrible. I don't think I ever played a game that was so poorly produced in my entire life. Gaming is meant to be exciting and at least somewhat passive/entertaining. TR:U was possibly the worst thing I ever played in my life and I don't even exaggerate. I was literally stunned- it was one of several titles I have played this gen that have just flat out disappointed me (The Conduit included) Then I realized I had 5 Wii demos, one of which I did not play, and that was Beat Trip Beat. In one simple premise I actually found myself smiling and enjoying a game in its most basic nature. No hype, no PR bravado, but just simpler gaming. Before the new year began, I wanted to end 2009 with a great game being my last of the year.I had some heavy games in my possession (Smash Brawl, Gears 2, etc,.) but I plugged in my SNES and played Super Mario. Almost 20 years after release, I still find myself going back to such games to "deride" pleasure. Finally, I remembered one PS1 game I own that was scratched beyond all repair- Azure Dreams. I couldn't play it so I downloaded the ROM (I'm not encouraging piracy, but my game doesn't work any longer). The graphics were even poor when I first played it (released 98', played 2002) and it took 3 minutes to adjust to them now. Somehow in the last 2 days, I have spent 10 hours playing it, well into the night (3AM) and the addicting qualities I found in it when I was 10 suddenly returned, and I can barely put it down. In summary lol, I find myself returning to simpler gaming, and shying away from what the industry is forcing on us as the next big thing. Gaming is still alive behind the mega-millions and PR stunts.I just thank God I can find ways of still enjoying it. |
Well I agree but it's not just because they are simpler, but because they were good in their own right. They didn't rely on something that were just good during the time or a gimmick that was fun for a couple of playthroughs. They relied on a solid gaming experience that you could play then or 20 years from now and still find it fun. I mean shock value has its place and time, but it has to be incorporated for the sake of makign the game better, not for the sake of making it easier to sell to a group of people. If that's the case then it usually won't sell much past it's release timeframe.
Not every game needs to be made to be a timeless classic, but if you want a game to sell for a long time, it needs to have more time than 2 weeks haha.
