In the video game world there is always one game that everyone wants to own. Every console has had a groundbreaking game somewhere in its past. The Atari had Pong, original Nintendo (NES) had Super Mario Brothers, Nintendo 64 had Goldeneye and the Zelda games, and the list continues all the way up to the next generation consoles. Until recently most would have agreed that no next-gen system had any game to hang its hat on. Then Halo 3 hit the market and everyone went crazy buying it up with proclamations of the greatest game ever made.
Halo 3 is not the game players need to look for to define the Xbox 360 in the history books; it is hardly different from any of the older versions and lacks the groundbreaking innovation that great games of the past displayed.
That is not to say Halo 3 is a bad game. It posses a finely tuned balance that Halo one and two lacked, but you cannot make a great game just by creating a better version of an old one The older version of a tuned game is clearly the innovative one. “Tomorrow Never Dies” for Nintendo 64 had far superior mechanics and graphics than “Goldeneye”, but everyone knows (well maybe not everyone…) “Goldeneye” was the better of the two.
Like so many areas of entertainment, video games are falling into a dangerous cycle of repetitive sequel production. Game developers fear branching out and trying new game production techniques for fear of creating an unmarketable product. Gamers are left with games that repeat themselves over and over. Seriously, Halo 3 uses some of the same maps that halo and two had (Blood Gulch or Lockout anyone??). Where is the innovation? Where is the originality that comes with game production? It is a sad day when the only thing to look forward to is ANOTHER sequel to an ancient game.
If Xbox live matches me three times in a row with slayer on Guardian again there might be trouble. I am ready for a new game that blows my mind without building on something I have seen or played before.
Another Sequel?
February 1, 2008In the video game world there is always one game that everyone wants to own. Every console has had a groundbreaking game somewhere in its past. The Atari had Pong, original Nintendo (NES) had Super Mario Brothers, Nintendo 64 had Goldeneye and the Zelda games, and the list continues all the way up to the next generation consoles. Until recently most would have agreed that no next-gen system had any game to hang its hat on. Then Halo 3 hit the market and everyone went crazy buying it up with proclamations of the greatest game ever made.
Halo 3 is not the game players need to look for to define the Xbox 360 in the history books; it is hardly different from any of the older versions and lacks the groundbreaking innovation that great games of the past displayed.
That is not to say Halo 3 is a bad game. It posses a finely tuned balance that Halo one and two lacked, but you cannot make a great game just by creating a better version of an old one The older version of a tuned game is clearly the innovative one. “Tomorrow Never Dies” for Nintendo 64 had far superior mechanics and graphics than “Goldeneye”, but everyone knows (well maybe not everyone…) “Goldeneye” was the better of the two.
Like so many areas of entertainment, video games are falling into a dangerous cycle of repetitive sequel production. Game developers fear branching out and trying new game production techniques for fear of creating an unmarketable product. Gamers are left with games that repeat themselves over and over. Seriously, Halo 3 uses some of the same maps that halo and two had (Blood Gulch or Lockout anyone??). Where is the innovation? Where is the originality that comes with game production? It is a sad day when the only thing to look forward to is ANOTHER sequel to an ancient game.
If Xbox live matches me three times in a row with slayer on Guardian again there might be trouble. I am ready for a new game that blows my mind without building on something I have seen or played before.
- Skyler Dowling
Posted in Gaming Commentary |