Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: zuhane on June 27, 2009, 12:14:47 PM
-
Hey peeps. I've always wondered, say I have an amazing and innovative idea for a
game, am I able to send it to a game company? Better yet, would I be able to actually
discuss my ideas with a game company representative if I think this idea is original
enough to make it?
Legally, where would I stand? If I mailed the idea to myself as copyright proof, would that
not be enough to copyright my idea? Would a large game company have the power to completely
abolish my little copyright?
Yeah, just wondered because I have some interesting ideas I'd like to send in which don't involve
getting a carbine, shooting zombies or being Oblivion.
-
Don't bother. They don't like originality.
-
It ain't easy, bro.
See, first off, game companies already have whole teams of people who are paid to make new ideas. Sure, they're usually sequels, but how many of us bought Beyond Good and Evil?
That said, if you REALLY want to look for how to submit a game idea, go check out 1Up.com; more than a few blogs there have detailed lists of what you have to do. That said, you REALLY need to plan it out. You need to make an overview of what the game is like, a few concept drawings for everything, and so forth...but, honestly, those things are just the tip of a huge, huge iceberg. Again, check 1Up.com's blogs, and be prepared...
-
No.
Most game companies (like Square Enix) request that you do NOT mail them game ideas. They don't want it.
You could try but who knows.
-
(like Square Enix)
Obviously.
-
I honestly don't think ANY company takes Emails for game ideas. It's like a slap to the face to the people already working on the storyboard
-
Well, you cant mail them to a game company, but you can still mail it to me. I would gladly steal your copyright shits.
-
Game companies tend to hate new ideas and are quite comfortable tweaking old ones. Of course they aren't quality but... eh...
-
I just can't help noticing the huge lack of originality in the game market these
days. Every game released seems to be exactly the same:
-A huge orcy/swordy RPG thing.
-A FPS where you just shoot stuff and don't use your brain whatsoever.
-A football game.
-A sequel which bares almost everything in common with its predecessor.
Grrrrrr!!! Why don't game companies listen? Why don't they make something
original? It seems that only the Team Fortress 2 team seem to listen to their customers.
Ah well, back to Plants vs Zombies for me. At least it's original for once.
-
Why don't game companies listen?
I'm sorry, I can't hear you all the way down there, peon.
-
Big game companies HATE new ideas. They hate new ideas with a passion, they rather tweak old (FAIL) ideas.
Though there are some that listen and even have a forum FOR listening. I think Atlus has one.
-
If I mailed the idea to myself as copyright proof, would that
not be enough to copyright my idea?
Nope, despite what you may have heard, that doesn't count as a copyright...unless you live in Britain. Then it might help.
http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp (http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp)
-
-A huge orgy
Sold.
-
Big game companies HATE new ideas. They hate new ideas with a passion, they rather tweak old (FAIL) ideas.
Like Mario.
-
Except for the fail part.
-
I just can't help noticing the huge lack of originality in the game market these
days. Every game released seems to be exactly the same:
-A huge orcy/swordy RPG thing.
-A FPS where you just shoot stuff and don't use your brain whatsoever.
-A football game.
-A sequel which bares almost everything in common with its predecessor.
Grrrrrr!!! Why don't game companies listen? Why don't they make something
original? It seems that only the Team Fortress 2 team seem to listen to their customers.
Ah well, back to Plants vs Zombies for me. At least it's original for once.
People have been saying that since the first Street Fighter came out.
Originality isn't doing something we've never seen before; it's doing something we've seen before in a different way. Final Fantasy VII was a technological step backwards for Final Fantasy (the materia system was a mess compared to the Magicite system of FFVI), but the story was original for being decidedly dark and tragic in a time where most JRPGs were pretty light-hearted.
The last 'new' story ever made was Moby Dick, you know. Just so long as a game is fun, I don't care if it's Shin Megami Tensei: The Devil Is In My Bible for the PS OVER 9000 or Final Fantasy CIX. Just make it fun.
-
Drace, quit it about Mario, at least the games are fun, unlike most other games, like Halo.
-
most other games, like Halo.
Halo 1 was actually pretty fun
2 & 3...not so much
Still fun, but just not as
Plus 1 is very amusing in co-op, to this day.
-
Halo 2 and 3 were great for multiplayer (more than great, even. Halo 3 is one of the best online games I've ever played, excluding the fact that the general audience was made up of immature, swearing, often prepubescent players. Playing with the other 10% made it worth digging through the shitheads, though), but the charm was dead when it came to single player.
-
I have no friends, so single player is generally what I look for.
-
You poor fruck.
-
I <3 multiplayer halo3
Playing it right now. :3
-
You poor fruck.
I know :(
-
The game industry rather have 1,000,000 shooters about aliens in space or WWII than use any new ideas. But, hey, no one minds. Every shooter is awesome because they're the same (bullet time and everything)
-
You can not argue or tell me that Gears of war is like Halo3.
Don't bother trying.
-
Well, Gears uses a different engine all together. But, I wasn't saying that ALL are alike. Just MOST of them. Too many use bullet-time, too many abuse the alien war story to holy hell and if it's not that it's he same science experiment stuff, too many of them are mindless and I can say with no hesitation that they are the easiest genre of games I have ever played in this era. While Gears is different because of it's duck and cover thing, it's bound to be copied to death.
-
It's true. With the exception of a chosen few, most shooters are alike. Too many WWII shooters too. They need to cut that crap out.
-
still. Halo3 is win, and fun to play.
Different form CoD and GoW
-
Well, Halo 3 is fun as far as i've played it. I played co-op with my best friend over his house. Never got to play online much since he owns the game and I don't.
-
Oh, so playing golf with Mario is a win? Sorry, but the Halo trilogy is quite entertaining. Mario used to be fun up until the N64, when it started going downhill. They already destroyed the Mario gameplay because it should never surpassed past 2D, just like Sonic. You can live in your fantasy world, but honestly, Mario Tennis and Golf and all that other bullcrap killed the franchise. And this is coming from a Mario fan. I was a fan of Mario up until the **** up games.
Enjoy your Mario Cooking Class, I'll be playing real games over here.
EDIT: Besides, there are plenty of original games, if you bloody look around.
Example: Shadow of the Colossus (PS2)
Example: Haunting Ground (PS2)
Example: Project Zero (PS2)
Example: The Warriors (PS2)
Example: Ghost Master (Xbox)
Example: Assassin's Creed (360)
Example: Clive Barker's Jericho (360), though not the best of games, it does bring a lot of awesome shooter features that I don't see a lot
Example: Dead Rising (360)
Example: Lost Planet (360)
Example: Mirror's Edge (360)
Example: Prey (360), not entirely original, but play the game and you'll get what I mean.
I could go on, but I think I made my point. I know some games are released on multiple systems but I only mentioned the system I got it on.
-
Are you kidding me.
I loved super mario 64, and sun-shine. Those are epic games. hands down.
But galaxies was a fail ,and any other sports franchise.
-
Huh. I never thought the Mario sports games really counted here. As for SOnic, I thought Adventure 1&2 were good. The new one was okay, it had great music but the glitches were really pulling the game off. I haven't played Sonic Unleashed or the Black Knight.
But, anyhow. As far as the actually true Mario games go, I'd disagree with you, Drace. You seem to have some weird problem with the non-main games. Those, to me, are just games just to be out there. If you want to talk about good Mario non-main games. What about SuperStar Saga, Partners in Time, Mario RPG 3 and others I can bring up? Looking at that, I don't think I'd pay attention to Mario Tennis.
As for 3D Mario games, I've enjoyed them quite a bit. I liked 64, Super Sunshine and Galaxy. I've actually played 64 for 4 years. Many people consider it a classic and one of the best Mario Games to date
-
Super star saga, combat just like oaoer mario. but without Square helping them make Super mario RPG.
Nintendp would've probably never made the paper mario or M&L Superstar saga
-
Oh, so playing golf with Mario is a win?
But then it's not a copy-paste, it's just a familiar face in a new game.
And yes, it is win. DIAF.
-
Of course those sport and other games count. They got the official Mario name stamp. You can't just ignore them. Besides, the 3D was "fun" at most but hardly the best.
-
That's like saying FF Chocobo Racing games count. It's just simple filler, really. Just to entertain people as they wait for the main games. As for Mario 64, that's your opinion, really. I consider Super Mario World to be the best Mario game. But, 64 was loved by many and it brought alot new to the table. I had alot of fun with it and it's one of my favorite 64 games.
-
Chocabo dungeons win
-
That's like saying FF Chocobo Racing games count. It's just simple filler, really. Just to entertain people as they wait for the main games. As for Mario 64, that's your opinion, really. I consider Super Mario World to be the best Mario game. But, 64 was loved by many and it brought alot new to the table. I had alot of fun with it and it's one of my favorite 64 games.
But they do count. The main difference is, is that the fillers with Mario overwhelm the actual good games. Nowadays it's mainly used because they know it will make the cash.
I also share your opinion about that, Super Mario World is the best. Also, please take note that I don't hate Super Mario 64. It's not the best, sure, but I still enjoyed it. Just less than the 2D ones. I just don't think those new Mario games are really that original. You guys complain about original but protect Mario like it's a god, that's hypocrisy.
My opinion is that everyone who complains about unoriginal games should take a look away from the main stream and search those games that are original, cause they're out there. Just search them, buy them and give them high reviews so that those companies will make more original games. Team Ico is a great example.
-
Well, I personally think you're putting way too much detail with the sports games. But, as for other games. I play a bunch of non-mainstream. I loved Ico. I play Shin Megami Tensei, I loved Glover, Ristar, SF3 (which I consider underrated), Arcana Heart and a bunch of others. So, I don't just play the mainstream, I look for hidden gems all the time.
The only reason I'm defending Mario is, I don't think it's exactly fair to bundle the sports games with it. And besides, those usually rank as "ok".
-
I'm an underground gamer, I play games that are not mainstream. Only the few that are any account.
I'm also a retro gamer, I love the classics, not because they classic, but because they are addictive and fun still. SMB had it's BEST days in the realm of 2D. Wouldn't hurt to make a retro SMB game. After all, Capcom did a retro Megaman game. Strangely people eat this stuff up. Nintendo has nothing to lose from doing a more oldschool SMB game. I'd buy it. XD
-
Oooooooor, they could just re-release any of the Mother games in the U.S.; Earthbound Zero, Earthbound, Mother 3, heck, any one of those is orgasm-inducing.
Of course, I'd prefer a sequel to Comix Zone or Ristar. Man, Sega had so many awesome games...
-
I am with Djanki here.
-
About the part on Mother, or the part on Sega's forgotten classics?
-
Both.
-
Big game companies HATE new ideas. They hate new ideas with a passion, they rather tweak old (FAIL) ideas.
Though there are some that listen and even have a forum FOR listening. I think Atlus has one.
Atlus is also a publisher, and they do hold a forum that all of the companies they publish for as well. Atlus does things right as far as listening to their fans goes, because most of the time they do implement the ideas, Eterain Odyssey for instance.
-
I want super mario RPG's sequel.
-
Great! There's Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, Super Mario Bros. Superstar Saga, Super Mario Bros. Superstar Saga: Travelers in Time....take your pick!
-
-__-''
This one had squares help. It was an actual squeal, and held the same concepts systems.
Unless it has Geno in it, then do not want.
-
You know they can't do that--they're too busy on the ninety Final Fantasy XIV games they need to make: the Deus Ex Divinalia collection!
-
They already have a sequel ._.
It was just japan only
-
Great! There's Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, Super Mario Bros. Superstar Saga, Super Mario Bros. Superstar Saga: Travelers in Time....take your pick!
And the new one they are making. Mario and Luigi: Bower's Inside Story.
Bowser unwillingly eats them, and they have to fight their way out, or something.
-
Halo 2 and 3 were great for multiplayer (more than great, even. Halo 3 is one of the best online games I've ever played, excluding the fact that the general audience was made up of immature, swearing, often prepubescent players. Playing with the other 10% made it worth digging through the shitheads, though), but the charm was dead when it came to single player.
I agree, great multiplayer, but Halo 1 was the only one that had a decent single player story.
Oh, so playing golf with Mario is a win? Sorry, but the Halo trilogy is quite entertaining. Mario used to be fun up until the N64, when it started going downhill. They already destroyed the Mario gameplay because it should never surpassed past 2D, just like Sonic. You can live in your fantasy world, but honestly, Mario Tennis and Golf and all that other bullcrap killed the franchise. And this is coming from a Mario fan. I was a fan of Mario up until the **** up games.
Enjoy your Mario Cooking Class, I'll be playing real games over here.
I agree that the sport games are bad, but if you're counting those... then you're just being an ***. I'm talking the main mario games, like SMW, M64, etc. The sport games are Nintendo using THE MOST FAMOUS CHARACTER in the world, to play sport games, because most people buy Tennis Blitz or w/e. If you don't like sport games, DON'T BUY THEM. The core Mario series is better now than it ever was. More gameplay, more fun, no straight running right. Mario couldn't even turn around before. But Mario is just a re-used story... but it's fun. Unlike dredging through an empty land killing beasts for 10 hours where nothing happens, and the ending tells you nothing.
As for those other games you posted, most of them are ripoffs of old games. NO GAME IS ORIGINAL, because originality is impossible.
-
I agree that the sport games are bad, but if you're counting those... then you're just being an ***. I'm talking the main mario games, like SMW, M64, etc. The sport games are Nintendo using THE MOST FAMOUS CHARACTER in the world, to play sport games, because most people buy Tennis Blitz or w/e. If you don't like sport games, DON'T BUY THEM. The core Mario series is better now than it ever was. More gameplay, more fun, no straight running right. Mario couldn't even turn around before. But Mario is just a re-used story... but it's fun. Unlike dredging through an empty land killing beasts for 10 hours where nothing happens, and the ending tells you nothing.
As for those other games you posted, most of them are ripoffs of old games. NO GAME IS ORIGINAL, because originality is impossible.
It's fun, but like you said, a re-used story. It is done to death. It isn't in it's prime now, that was back on the SNES. 3D Mario isn't great, it ruined the franchise. But hell, who am I talking to? Mario couldn't turn around the part 1, sure. But from Super Mario Bros. 2 and onwards, turnable.
On the original part, bullfuck. You go live in your boring live pointing everything to everything based on one or two elements. I'll be here enjoying my games because they bring new ideas into the franchise.
-
I want Capcom and Bethesda to team up and make a cross between Monster Hunter and Fallout 3 or something. I would never stop playing.
-
I'm waiting for Capcom to make a new fighter in 2D. SFIV was very disappointing to me, with SFIII being such a challenge and techniqual.
-
Ristar.
Yes!
-
It's fun, but like you said, a re-used story. It is done to death.
Wait, are you talking about Mario? Because if you're playing for story, then you've completely missed the point. hell, up until Super Mario Sunshine, I wasn't even aware that there was a story!
It's about jumping on/over shit, usually in under 300 seconds.
-
Wait, are you talking about Mario? Because if you're playing for story, then you've completely missed the point. hell, up until Super Mario Sunshine, I wasn't even aware that there was a story!
It's about jumping on/over shit, usually in under 300 seconds.
And it was all the better that way I say. XD
-
What today's games lack is fun.
Truest honest.
Everything is the same. Only random encounter rpgs have that replay value these days.
Pretty much every game these days are the same over and over:
Step through the door. A sniper appears on the North-eastern building roof next to a sign.
3 Soldiers with AK 45 breaks through the roof.
2 more soldiers appear on the right and left.
5 soldiers spawn in the South eastern building and will try to ambush you.
There's a med pack in the middle of the room.
The couch is blocking the sniper of you duck behind it.
The 2nd soldier from the roof will throw a flash grenade at you.
You die first time:
You place a mine at the South eastern building.
You arm yourself with grenades and walks through the door.
Everything starts happening like last time.
You throw one grenade to the right into the hallway where one of the soldiers runs. And then one on the left.
You duck and wait for the flash to wear out.
You grab your rifle and shoot the sniper because you know exactly where he is.
The 5 soldiers that spawn die from the mine.
You shoot the remaining 3 soldiers and walks to the next room.
You'll know exactly what's going to happen. And it ruins the excitement of the game same thing over and over.
I'd like some random changes here and there. Like in clocktower. The house wasn't planned the same way every playthrough. It would look different the second time if you were unlucky.
-
Random Encounter FPS's would be interesting.
-
Random Encounter FPS's would be interesting.
It would at least make them challenging.
The only challenge they bring you these days are rocket launchers and laser.
-
ANother thing. This realism bull is killing games. Why the hell would you want to make games more realistic? It's a game. I want to do in a game what I can't do in real life, if they REALLY want to be realistic they would have a game about you trying to get a job in this economy. Job loss, failing schools, homelessness... that's real enough for me.
-
ANother thing. This realism bull is killing games. Why the hell would you want to make games more realistic? It's a game. I want to do in a game what I can't do in real life, if they REALLY want to be realistic they would have a game about you trying to get a job in this economy. Job loss, failing schools, homelessness... that's real enough for me.
Or going to the store to buy some soda, but your favorite kind is out so you have to go back home without, then go back and it is STILL out. And then you get mildly annoyed and have to take an alternative, that isn't half bad, but it's not the same.
-
Everything is the same. Only random encounter rpgs have that replay value these days.
Grinding really does reduce a games replay value, though; it's why, while I love Phantasy Star II, I can't see myself playing it again until I graduate. Just too much grinding to get the Megid spell...
-
ANother thing. This realism bull is killing games. Why the hell would you want to make games more realistic? It's a game. I want to do in a game what I can't do in real life, if they REALLY want to be realistic they would have a game about you trying to get a job in this economy. Job loss, failing schools, homelessness... that's real enough for me.
See, as a tactical FPS fan, I can tell you that shooters aren't getting more realistic. If you think Call of Duty is even slightly realistic (not counting setting or weapons), then you don't know what you're talking about. Every shooter these days has aliens, zombies, and/or regenerating health. None of these are realistic. The games are only getting real-world settings, really. They're every bit as fast-paced run-and-gun realism-defying fun that they were in the past. Realism in games only applies to that niche market of realism tactical shooter fans like myself.
Long story short, no. You're pretty much wrong. I'm being blunt right here at the end, but I'm more in-the-know, so to speak.
Oh, and to Prpl, many FPSes aren't as cut-and-dry as you make them sound. The only people that memorize enemy locations are the obsessive players who spend months straight playing the game, or the speed-runnners. Also, many modern shooters have troop placement and varieties randomization (to a point) and enough non-linearity to make one play-through not enough to experience everything. That doesn't even go into the multiple approaches that the modern, sophisticated AIs will use to out-gun you. The random-encounter RPGs are by far less replayable due to the fact that every single element is exactly the same every time through, barring the chance that you'll end up with one of five possible enemy groups showing up while you grind up to level 25 for that boss fight. Then there's the recent shooter/RPG genre-hybrid that's surfaced recently. These have so many different approaches to combat, story, and missions that they don't fall prey to any of those pitfalls.
This post should make it fairly obvious that I play a lot of FPSes, so I know a LOT about how they work. That last paragraph can be thrown out if you're talking about a ten-year old shooter or one of the copy/paste mediocre shooters that nobody remembers, though. Those are pretty much what you're describing right there.
-
The thing is, Archem, there is a massive surge of 'gritty' FPSs with dark, grey-colored worlds (See: Gears of War, Halo) with very little in actual originality in terms of the creation of their worlds.
Now, Gears DOES look unique with its uber-macho and buff character design (reminds me a little of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, sans the loveable FAAAAAAAAAAAABULOUSness that the characters have), but as far as creativity goes...well, it fails a little. It's a dystopic world overrun by aliens...in a market full of dystopic worlds overrun by aliens, mutants, and terrorists.
Imagine a FPS made by someone like American McGee or Tim Schafer; a crazy, topsy-turvey world with its tongue glued inside of its cheek. That'd be fun just to see.
-
See, as a tactical FPS fan, I can tell you that shooters aren't getting more realistic. If you think Call of Duty is even slightly realistic (not counting setting or weapons), then you don't know what you're talking about. Every shooter these days has aliens, zombies, and/or regenerating health. None of these are realistic. The games are only getting real-world settings, really. They're every bit as fast-paced run-and-gun realism-defying fun that they were in the past. Realism in games only applies to that niche market of realism tactical shooter fans like myself.
Long story short, no. You're pretty much wrong. I'm being blunt right here at the end, but I'm more in-the-know, so to speak.
Well, I see what you mean, but I wasn't entirely speaking of shooters, really. What I mean is, all they talk about is realism. Realistic racers, realistic this, realistic that. And I see where you're coming from. I should have been more descriptive, but allow me too. You see, my gripe is, the industry keeps on talk about it. It's okay for there to be realism in a game. But, what I'm saying is, why do they focus so much on that? I am well aware that the plots to these games are unrealistic, but that's what the industry seems to be talking about all the time with these games. Or it could just be the people. I hear it so much, I don't even know I'm sure anymore. And I don't mean just physics or settings. Graphics in general are doing this as well. Not to say that I don't like to see a very well looking CG person. But I like to see wild, creative enviroments and crazy abstract looking characters and creatures. Not even the aliens are really all that original.
But, this brings me to Originality. This is my ultimate problem with games, which I should have said other than realism. They're lacking it. I think they do a good job on making these post-apocolypic and scifi enviroments. But, the thing is, I've seen too many of them that are all to similar. Most of them are gritty enviroments. That's nice and all, but I don't like just looking at grey with the occasianal glowing light.
My problem with shooters is, although they may not be entirely cut and dry. There's too many of them. It's like no one wants to try doing something different nowadays. It REALLY bored me. I barely play them anymore because of it. While they have some differences (Gears being the most different one I've played in a while, thouh I never played Fallout), let's be honest. They narrow down to going to point A to point B shooting the hell out of everything (I'm not counting games with different paths here, really). That's nice and all, but there needs to be a bit more variety. I can say that for the most part, they are the easiest genre of video games I've played.
-
Ok, that post was much more thought-out. I agree with most points you presented this time. But the wild, crazy, over-the-top elements of games are, for the time being, gone. They were prominent in the 90s, but they were overused to the point that they were mediocre. Look back at the early days of 3D home gaming, and you'll see what I mean. It's the same story again, but instead of wacky and fast-paced, it's gritty and brooding. Give the industry a few more years, and it'll be something else (I'm smelling cartoony and zombie-infested).
Originality is dying a slow, painful death with the recent boom of the casual mainstream market. Nobody wants original, deep, involving gameplay; they want pick-up-and-play, short and manageable, and simple enough for anyone to understand. Originality means learning something new and taking the time to master it. This is risky for the major publishing studios, since there's a high chance that the project won't make the same kind of cash that something filled with explosions and tits would. If there's not as much potential income, why spend the money just to lose out? It makes sense from a business standpoint. There are still original titles, but you have to do some research and be willing to try out something that you might not normally be into, since the innovative titles are few and far between, and those few developers that make these risky new ideas aren't going to make a game custom-tailored to your tastes.
-
When Archem starts to post walls of text, you know something is not right.
-
Everything is the same. Only random encounter rpgs have that replay value these days.
Only random encounter rpgs have that replay value these days.
these days.
Give me one example of a decent random encounter rpg that has come out "these days".
Anyway, the gaming industry needs more of this-
(http://misc.insomnia.ac/upload/deus_ex_front.JPG)
This has been the best game ever since 2000, and I have yet to see another game come even close to it's quality since.
-
Gotta love those sentry bots. They were freaking cool looking.
-
Random encounter FPS = Left 4 Dead.
-
True, and that game is fun as hell.
-
The best mix of RPG and FPS was Fallout, which really has no Playpack value, but it's one of those games that can be so time consuming you don't WANT to play it back.
-
The best mix of RPG and FPS was Fallout
It was meh. Deus Ex or STALKER are much finer examples.
-
What F'n System is it for.
-
Give me one example of a decent random encounter rpg that has come out "these days".
Decent.
Hmm
Enchanted Arms
Infinite Undiscovery? (don't remember if its random encounter or not but it was fun after the boring part was over)
The Last Remnant *didn't play not sure*
-
Last remmenant aws not random encounter, it was like Star ocean, where you can see the enemy on the map itself, which I really like
-
But wasn't Star Ocean random encounter? As I recall, you'd be running around and BOOM, enemies. Though it's been a while since I played it.
-
But wasn't Star Ocean random encounter? As I recall, you'd be running around and BOOM, enemies. Though it's been a while since I played it.
Star Ocean 2 was (don't remember 1) not 3.
I didn't play remnant so was not sure.
Positive Enchanted Arms was.
Infinite Undiscovery wasn't random.
-
But wasn't Star Ocean random encounter? As I recall, you'd be running around and BOOM, enemies. Though it's been a while since I played it.
Not 1, Star Ocean 1 (I found an english transaltion Rom :3) and 3 were Epic. I hated Second story.
And I'm in the process of playing The last hope.
-
The SNES one had a random encounter system as I recall. I'd walk along and BOOM, battle without seeing the enemy.
Edit: Yeah, just checked, there are Random Battles in SO1.
-
Hmmm.
Still Star ocean 3 wins X3
-
Hmmm.
Still Star ocean 3 wins X3
This.
Also, what was wrong with Star Ocean 2?
I never got a chance to do all of the bonus stuff in Star Ocean 4 (because I don't own a 360, had to borrow one for Star Ocean.); but just from the story to the first part of the bonus stuff, the battle system and the invention system, I found 3 superior in every way. SO3 was overkill good for me.
-
I have a gripe with SO3 though... Bitter Dance. It is played at the most inappropriate times. Fayt's father dies and not long after this... DANCE WHILE I PUT YA IN A TRAAAANCE!
Riveting! XD
-
Yeah, Bitter Dance... that's a travesty of a song being played at the wrong times all the time
-
Nah, I <3'd that song. Let's no forget jazz music plays at the final boss
-
Okage was a weird random encounter game, and if I remember right it was fun as hell, even if the combat could become a little...weird...
EDIT: It was weird in the fact that the monsters were randomly generated touch encounter type deals. A ghost would pop up and if you hit it, you'd go into combat.
-
Star Ocean 2 was great.
But it was the type of game were you really have to be in a certain mood to play it otherwise you will never ever play it.
-
The best mix of RPG and FPS was Fallout, which really has no Playpack value, but it's one of those games that can be so time consuming you don't WANT to play it back.
I disagree. I'm considering a second playthrough with a different karma path, the evil path this time. So it has replay value.
-
Random encounter FPS = Left 4 Dead.
But that's multiplayer. We exclude multiplayer because all games play out differently, even when the goals are predetermined. Good example, but the multiplayer element disqualifies it.
It was meh. Deus Ex or STALKER are much finer examples.
"Meh" is a bit of an understatement, and we're all relatively aware that you have a degree of malice towards Fallout 3 (as most owners of the first two do), but I agree that the other two games are better (seriously, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is one of the best games I've ever played).
-
I disagree. I'm considering a second playthrough with a different karma path, the evil path this time. So it has replay value.
damn...you win this round drace
-
I disagree. I'm considering a second playthrough with a different karma path, the evil path this time. So it has replay value.
Games like this, you typically play through twice, one for good, one for evil. This is not really a lot of replay value.
-
More than usual!
Ok, this is a fail defense.
-
But that's multiplayer. We exclude multiplayer because all games play out differently, even when the goals are predetermined. Good example, but the multiplayer element disqualifies it.
You can also play it alone, with three A.I. helping you out. That's like any other shooter nowadays only with random placed enemies. Which is the same as random encounters.
Games like this, you typically play through twice, one for good, one for evil. This is not really a lot of replay value.
Replay value means that you want to play it again for whatever reason. You are starting a new game to replay the entire story. It IS replay value, it is A LOT of replay value. Because it's the entire game over again.
EDIT: And if the game wasn't good, I wouldn't want to give it a second playthrough. So it's not typical, because I want to replay it for:
1) It's a good game
2) Try something different
-
Actually, no, Drace; giving a game a 'Good' end and a 'Bad' end is an artificial way of giving a game 'replay value'. You're making a person play something all over again with minute differences. Replay value would be something like Bioshock, where you truly can change your approach every time you play. An even better example would be that old Shadowrun game for the Sega Genesis; you really had massive control over how your character developed. Did you use magic or firearms? What kind of firearms? What about grenades? Who was in your party? What was your approach for intruding on a building, spying your way in with fake IDs and charisma, or rushing in with your guns blazing? Maybe a mix of both? OR, maybe you just hacked the computers to remove any chance of being caught by a camera?
Another thing about these 'good and bad' endings is that they're so polarizing; as Yahtzee put it, either you're Mother Teresa or Hitler. Rarely in real life is 'good' or 'evil' so cut-and-dried. Why can't we just act however the hell we want? Deus Ex did that well.
-
Star Ocean 2 was great.
But it was the type of game were you really have to be in a certain mood to play it otherwise you will never ever play it.
Star Ocean 2 was great for alternate routes and different characters; my only gripes is how impossible it is to get characters like Earnest without knowing specifically how. Also, Tri-Ace knows how to do bonus stuff, bosses like Indalceo Unlimited and Freya make these games a blast.
-
Yea, Alternative outfits were awesome in Star ocean 3.
I loved fighting as a black cliff
-
You can also play it alone, with three A.I. helping you out. That's like any other shooter nowadays only with random placed enemies. Which is the same as random encounters.
Eww. No. Nobody should have to play with the shitty AI. Seriously. Half the time, if I play online, one AI member can spell doom for the whole party.
Because they think charging a Tank is a good idea, and healing you while you're fighting off a horde is acceptable.
They are very, very wrong.
This times three equals a game I wouldn't have payed $60 for.
-
Actually, no, Drace; giving a game a 'Good' end and a 'Bad' end is an artificial way of giving a game 'replay value'. You're making a person play something all over again with minute differences. Replay value would be something like Bioshock, where you truly can change your approach every time you play. An even better example would be that old Shadowrun game for the Sega Genesis; you really had massive control over how your character developed. Did you use magic or firearms? What kind of firearms? What about grenades? Who was in your party? What was your approach for intruding on a building, spying your way in with fake IDs and charisma, or rushing in with your guns blazing? Maybe a mix of both? OR, maybe you just hacked the computers to remove any chance of being caught by a camera?
Replay value. Replay. Re: To repeat. Play: To play with something. Replay: To repeat playing with something.
Now that we got that, let's head up a step.
Steps of replaying a game:
1) Buy video game. (alternate: download, borrow, steal, rent, dream)
2) Start new game.
3) Finish game.
4) Start new game. <--- this step starts the cycle in which replay is being used.
Now, the choice to replay a video game after you finished the story mode is an individual one. Thus, everyone decides if he wants to replay a video game or if they decide not to.
So now we know the definition of replay, how to replay a video game and who decides to replay a video game.
Value: relative worth, merit, or importance.
So replay value is the worth of replaying.
Now we covered the simple basic things. On to more advanced.
Fallout 3 has seven attributes, along with fourteen skills. This is accompanied with multiple perks and multiple different endings. This is again accompanied with three different Karma types which, throughout the game, can be switched.
Now if we take the worth value extreme literally, it would mean that the more you have of it, the more it's worth.
Replay + value means the worth of replaying a game. Thus, the replay value rises the more you can actually replay the game. The possibilities of someone replaying a video game are linked to both the entertainment value and the different possibilities to play the video game.
Thus, Fallout 3 has a high replay value because of the many possibilities in which you can play this video game from start to finish.
Do I need to be more detailed or do you finally understand it?
EDIT: As a bonus, here is the entire list of possible endings to Fallout 3. Clearly, more than two. CLICK ME (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_endings)
-
Yup. 28>2.
-
Fallout 3 does have high replay value. I'd certainly play through it more than once (still haven't beaten my first run, though. So much to do! Expansions only make it worse [well, better, but you get what I mean]). Phoenix Wright games, by comparison, lack replay value. I mean, nothing changes once you know what to do, and it takes away all the fun of figuring things out. Once you beat one of those games, you prob'ly won't pick it up again (or, at least, not for a few years). Does that make a high replay value game better than a low replay value game? Not at all, it just makes playing the game more than once desirable.
-
I wish I could play Fallout 3. But I dont think my computer can run it :/
-
What are your system specs? I hear the Xbox 360 can play the game, and has DLC if you get that addicted.
-
Low. :P
I can run it on the other comp, though... But not in the one I usually use. :/
How hard is it to find this thing online? Like, if you are not willing to pay for it :P
And how fun is it?
-
I'm pretty sure that a game as popular as this is easy to find, and the fact that you only need a CD key if you want access to the LIVE features makes it easy as hell to pirate.
Of course, I'm sure that's not what you plan to do.
It's quite a fun game. Deep, involving, extremely open. There are some things that aren't so great (bugs), and many fans of the original games have a beef with this entry for a few (mostly pointless) reasons, but if you know nothing of the others, you won't care in the slightest about those things. Highly recommended title.
-
Star Ocean 2 was great for alternate routes and different characters; my only gripes is how impossible it is to get characters like Earnest without knowing specifically how. Also, Tri-Ace knows how to do bonus stuff, bosses like Indalceo Unlimited and Freya make these games a blast.
I agree Ernest was hard to get the hardest most of the other character are easy pick and choose though.
Star Ocean 2 to me was like the best game easily surpassing Final Fantasy in game play.
The worst thing about FF was the boss and last boss was always so easy in Star Ocean the last Boss doens't play he can wipe out your whole team within seconds before your characters can even run to him even if your level 99 with the best equipment.
Seeing as his moves take away half of your health if your not maxxed out there is no error for mistake you can't let him cast twice if you want to live if you do you are completely and utterly dead in under a minute in that fight.
As long as you keep him from casting hes easy but wooh what a Boss Fight : )
My only problem really with it was You have so many characters that are completely and utterly useless. Well not useless but to sucky compared to other to care about using.
Celine, Claude, Ashton, *or Opera if choose not to get Ashton* Celine and Leon are the only useful ones on Claude's Path. Celine even becomes useless after a while.
I also love how you can choose two diffrent characters to play at the beginning with multiple endings.
Ah that commercial of some guy throwing 20 diffrent shirts in his hamper saying there were 86 endings made me buy it.
Though Star Ocean 2 too me is a play through twice maybe three times game only.
86 endings is just too much.
-
I wish I could play Fallout 3. But I dont think my computer can run it :/
You could always get the first and second ones, they are easy to aqquire and will run on any old junk heap.
-
That's true. Good one, Razor.
SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE SO ACTIVE IT BURNS?
-
I'm not sure if you were joking... But that's not Razor. That's Hobomaster.
-
The avatar confused him.
-
It confused me at first too. But there is a difference between Despicable Ron and Srs Ron.
-
Remember, if something sounds fishy, he meant it.
He meant it
...
Meant it!
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it.
-
But that's when the second line of the comment kicks in. Are we piecing things together yet?
-
O u...u r so sutl
-
When in doubt, just use duct tape.
-
Great! There's Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, Super Mario Bros. Superstar Saga, Super Mario Bros. Superstar Saga: Travelers in Time....take your pick!
I think Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door is the best Mario RPG out there and I've played the lot. People
diss the Gamecube but there's some sparkling diamond games on it.
-
I think Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door is the best Mario RPG out there and I've played the lot. People
diss the Gamecube but there's some sparkling diamond games on it.
Yeah, like Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, Tales of Symphonia (it came out on the Gamecube first), and Skies of Arcadia Legends.
-
I'm pretty sure that a game as popular as this is easy to find, and the fact that you only need a CD key if you want access to the LIVE features makes it easy as hell to pirate.
Of course, I'm sure that's not what you plan to do.
It's quite a fun game. Deep, involving, extremely open. There are some things that aren't so great (bugs), and many fans of the original games have a beef with this entry for a few (mostly pointless) reasons, but if you know nothing of the others, you won't care in the slightest about those things. Highly recommended title.
Sweet, I ll look for it.
-
Yeah, like Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, Tales of Symphonia (it came out on the Gamecube first), and Skies of Arcadia Legends.
Yeah exactly. The Cube has some amazing titles on it. Thousand Year Door is one of the best
games I've ever played. I miss all of the locations on it. Boggly Woods was amazing. What was the
name of that stadium with that chicken man who said "rawwwwk" all the time?
-
I never completed a paper mario game.
But I still loved Super Mario Sunshine.
I'd say the gameplay and everything was amazing.
-
It's like a slap to the face to the people already working on the storyboard
Honestly I'd slap them anyways.
-
I never completed a paper mario game.
But I still loved Super Mario Sunshine.
I'd say the gameplay and everything was amazing.
Yeah, Sunshine was a very underrated game. I loved those infuriatingly difficult
levels where you weren't allowed to use FLUDD.
-
Infuriatingly difficult? I found them to be a fun challenge, and they were on;y "infuriating" if I was dead-set on doing something a certain way (like always getting all those 1-Ups and taking shortcuts like I was in a time trial). I'm waiting for the day that Nintendo just says "**** it, let's make a game with 200 levels of this and call it a game".
No, SMG was not this. I found SMG to be disappointing.
-
I found SMG to be pretty fun, actually.
Mainly because I love the planetoid levels in Ratchet and Clank, which is quite obviously where they got the idea from.
-
Actually, when asked about this, Miyamoto was confused. Apparently, he'd never even heard of Ratchet and Clank. Go figure. Also, I'm not saying that it wasn't a good game, but it was such a let down to me. Nowhere near as fun as the last two 3D offerings.
-
Ratchet and Clank was as mindless as Jack and Daxter 2, Jax and Daxter 3 however was amazing
-
Oh nononononononono. Ratchet and Clank was sheer genius!
Well 2 and 3 were anyway. Wasn't as keen on the other ones.
-
We'll.
I only played one, sure It was genius, When I say somethings mindless, It doesn't mean it's not fun as hell.
I mean it gets repediavite and I slowly feel braincells dropping by the pounds.
-
The Ratchet and Clank games are some of my favorites, number three especially.
Which one did you play?
If it was Deadlocked, I'm sorry, because that one is easily the weakest one.
-
The only one that I have extensively played was the third one, and it was a lot of fun. However, Size Matters, was one of those rare instances where the graphics bothered me enough for me not to play the game. I can understand when a game looks crappy; but when it's a direct port that makes no effort whatsoever to appropriate the graphics even the slightest, that's when I'm bothered.
-
The guns made by Insomniac are just sheer genius. Half the guns on R&C could
just not be thought up by the average person.
If anyone's ever played Resistance 2, they'll know how original some of the guns
are. Who doesn't want a revolver with bullets which can be detonated?
-
Ehehe. the guns were fun. and I don't remember what one I pkayed
-
I about to finish downloading fallout. If I disappear, its because I like it. :P
EDIT: After 3 days of downloading, this stupid thing says my graphic card aint good enough. Bastard! D:
-
Lol.
-
I about to finish downloading fallout. If I disappear, its because I like it. :P
EDIT: After 3 days of downloading, this stupid thing says my graphic card aint good enough. Bastard! D:
Guahahahahahaha! XD
-
That's why you use this (http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest) first.
-
So true, so true.
-
Or you, y'know, get to actually know your computer before you get into PC games made past 1999.
-
That's why you use this (http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest) first.
I checked what fallout needed to be run. The computer matched all that minimum requirements ****. Well, other than the graphic card. I had no idea what kind of graphic card I had x)
-
I checked what fallout needed to be run. The computer matched all that minimum requirements ****. Well, other than the graphic card. I had no idea what kind of graphic card I had x)
Well, other than the graphic card.
Well, that was rather silly of you now wasn't it?
-
Isn't there like... ways of checking that? Well, I have a pretty globally compatible graphics card with all these newer games.
-
I just got a fairly new (whiny-***) Vista. So far, the only recent game that doesn't work on it is GTA IV, but I couldn't care any less.
-
I checked what fallout needed to be run. The computer matched all that minimum requirements ****. Well, other than the graphic card.
*headdesk*
-
But when I read it I was like "Hm so this is what it needs. I have no idea which one I have, so I ll download anyway and hope it works!"
It didnt =(
-
More than likely you have an intergrated card. Save up a couple hundred and you can get a pretty decent card to put in there.l
-
You can get a cheap one for under a hundred US is you know what you're looking for. It won't look beautiful, but it'll run.
Well, actually, I've seen the game run at lowest settings, and it looks about as good as the Xbox version, so I may be lying about the beautiful part. The game seems pretty well optimized.
-
I got this computer for only a little bit of cash. It's a Dell and runs pretty well. Will just have to clean it up a bit but it runs most games pretty smoothly, came with a slat screen, got a HD card with pixel shaders and vertex shaders required for many newer games. It's pretty good and it wasn't so expensive.
-
You guys forget that I am Brazilian. We dont have a couple bucks to save over here. (xD)
-
You guys forget that I am Brazilian. We dont have a couple bucks to save over here. (xD)
Well, stop being Brazilian then. :\
-
now that was something not even Gemini would've said
-
If you want a good card which will play Fallout 3, get an 8800GT. They're
probably the best known "cheap" graphics cards on the market. Run Dead Space,
Bioshock, CoD4 etc on max graphics 1680x1050 completely fine.
-
What's the cheapest you can get them?
-
Depends. Are they stolen?
-
Heheheheheheh. XD
-
Depends. Are they stolen?
You win one internet.
-
What's the cheapest you can get them?
I was gonna pay £100 back at christmas but thanks to a PC world sale, it was half price.
I'd say if you mess about on eBay you might get sub £50! WELL worth it. Runs most
PC games to date on max everything expect the obvious ones such as Crysis and Farcry 2.
Bioshock for example runs faster than it would on an actual game console with everything on max
including resoltion 1680x1050. Best money I ever spent... apart from the amazing game deal
that is Orange Box.