Slashdot Mirror

I think AitD was shaded polygons and pre-drawn 2D backgrounds. The ones that look textured are probably using some kind of random pattern rather than true texture mapping.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/alone-in-the-dar k/screenshots

lol, what about:
Wolfenstein 3-D (1992) - http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wolfenstein-3d
Doom (1993) - http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/doom

I guess those aren't true polygonal 3D games though (they used tricks to simulate it, as I recall, which limited the engines a bit). I can't think of an example of a texture-shaded polygonal 3D PC game from 1994 or earlier, but I'm sure some exist. Quake was around the same time, but I don't think it was earlier.

lol, what about:
Wolfenstein 3-D (1992) - http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wolfenstein-3d
Doom (1993) - http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/doom

I guess those aren't true polygonal 3D games though (they used tricks to simulate it, as I recall, which limited the engines a bit). I can't think of an example of a texture-shaded polygonal 3D PC game from 1994 or earlier, but I'm sure some exist. Quake was around the same time, but I don't think it was earlier.

Fifa Soccer 2004, released in the US on Nov 04, 2003. So if my math is right that's 8 years and almost 2 months.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/fifa-soccer-2004/rel ease-info

Making a game open source brings more fame to it as more people enjoy mods on your game and your good heart for allowing it to happen, which brings fame to your company.

Name at least one example of something like that ever happening...

NWN was supposed to have the same community support as a Blizzard game. It was supposed to live forever based on community support. Look at Starcraft, it was released in 1998 and Blizzard released the 1.13f patch on Jan 18, 2006 .

In some respects, they have succeeded. But I think pulling support now would be a slap in the face to the people who have built up the community for NWN. I don't think people would trust efforts like this from Bioware again.

Correct.

My first monitor was EGA. Now that was a 'color' monitor! oh the happy days...

They should have stuck with what they did well: make games.

Actually it isn't that hard.

If you were a gamer, you'd already have this "hefty hardware".

I guess six years in the video game industry doesn't count? (See my profile or my resume.) My current machine does support Vista but I'm in no rush to upgrade since I switched to a Mac. :P

If you were just a normal person rather than a troll, you'd have enough "normal hardware" to run Vista anyways.

Sure... if you like a slow computer system. I seen reports where machines with 256MB of memory will be Vista-ready even though you need 1GB or more.

Back to the topic, Xbox is dead. Yes, it's dead. It's done its time.

Maybe, maybe not. Sony kept the PS1 around longer than six months after the PS2 came out, and may do the same for the PS2 after the PS3 comes out. Follow the money... Microsoft needs upgraders more than the upgraders need them.

I recall them using the same voice in Mario Teaches Typing, which came out just prior to the N64.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/mario-teaches-typing

But yeah, the voice kind of bugs. :)

<]=)

If you want surprise advertising, examine the packaging for the game Darkened Skye. There is absolutely no mention, at least on the package I got, that the game has any spnsors in the way of candy conglomerates... Then you play the game and it turns out that Skittles(tm) are the source of all magic...

Did we expand the definition of developers to include "columnist and game design lecturer" and "director of business relations?"

It's fair to call Earnest Adams a developer. Sure, he did a good chunk of his career on Madden, but there is no shame in doing a stint on serialized sports games. Plus his writing is generally insightful and at times usable in a production environment, which is a good lot more than can be said for many design lecturers. He also co founded the Independent Game Developer's Association and the Game Developer's Conference.

Did I mention he's one of the few game design writers who isn't a complete idiot? Honestly, that's the most shocking achievement.

As for the biz dev guy from highmoon studios... in a company that small, their business people are probably with it. What he says is mostly insightful, so he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

As for Gamasutra's methodology: they sent out a shotgun of e-mails and got some back. Two happened to be from "important" people at one company. They are still separate people, though.

Are you too young to have played Wings of Glory? Released by Origin in 1994, this game was one of the best WW flight sims out there - it was so realistic you actually had to fight with the control let alone try and stay alive :) Oh it featured you, the player, as an American (or was it Canadian?) flying for the RAF! ;) The first American Ace of WWI! :P

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wings-of-glory

According to http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/deve loperId,6727/ Dan still works in the game industry.

What part of this or this do you dispute as BS?

Diane Duane wrote this game for the Mac back before they changed from MFS to HFS, which did a decent job of making it unplayable. I'd love to see it un-abandoned.

The sad fact is that God of War 2 could easily be made for the GC and the XBOX, and in all likelihood, it would look better because they don't suffer from the same silly bottlenecks as the PS2 hardware does.

Actually GoW2 is fairly tightly tuned to the PS2. It would be difficult to do the same game on the GameCube, because it doesn't have as much memory. Plus you'd need at least four discs for all the content. XBox is a possibility, but we'd have to tone down some of the particle and fullscreen effects, as it's a bit lacking the fill rate department. Pixel shaders would make some things a little easier though.

Phil

C'mon now, there's reasonable consensus about what innovation is and isn't.

Not really. You obviously have what you feel is a good definition of innovation, but there are a lot of people that will disagree with you. If there's a solid definition for innovation, then why don't you share it with the rest of us?

You can hardly say that Square...

You seem to have a beef with Final Fantasy and Square that is affecting objectivity. Some of the points you bring up have very little to do with gameplay innovation ("prerendering technique"?). Was FarCry innovative when it demonstrated a number of newer (but not original) rendering techniques even though it had throughly derivative FPS gameplay?

Personally, I think the sphere grid system of advancement in FFX was very innovative. I don't know of an earlier game that used a similar mechanic, but I wouldn't be surprised if another game has done something similar. But, if that mechanic is original, does that make the whole game innovative? Probably not, but you were arguing that the specific mechanic isn't innovative.

Comparing Black and White to Catz/Dogz is silly. You could argue that, but you'd look a fool.

Ah, now come the personal attacks; a typical response when losing an argument. Don't worry, I don't take things personally. But, I should have B&W to a more obvious game like Creatures, instead. Or, am I still a fool for comparing two games where gameplay consists of training one or more neural nets, represented in game as "creatures", how to behave using positive and negative feedback? Or, will you argue that god-game layer was innovative (even if obviously derived from Populous)? Or that the gesture-based spells made the whole game innovative?

Fable did include a reasonable amount of new concepts and ideas over and above what Rune offered....

So, who decides what is a "reasonable amount" of "new" concepts? I guess it passes your personal tests, but there are other people that disagree. Consider Tomb Raider or Crusaders of Might & Magic as other games with varying degrees of similar gameplay mechanics. I still say innovation is in the eye of the beholder. It seems that you are proving Fable is innovative merely because you said so.

Also, stating you are a professional game developer doesn't really back up your arguements when they main (and far as I can see, only) game you develop is one you purchased from someone else. Excuse me while I scoff.

Again with the personal attacks? I made a single comment at the end of my post to show that I had some authority to speak on the things I did, not to make any invalid points valid.

But, yes, I bought Meridian 59 from 3DO before it went bankrupt. However, I had worked on the game for about 2 years while at 3DO. This is something your Google search probably wouldn't be able to tell you. Anyway, I've been working in the game industry since 1998, after quite a few years of amateur game development, including text MUD development in college. During my professional career I've worked as a programmer a single-player PC game, developed a simple scripting language for console game development, maintained a graphical chat system, designed small games as requested by customers, programmed a handheld game demo on contract, and started a business to develop online games that ended up purchasing the game I had worked on previously. I have worked with and gained the admiration and respect of many online developers who have been developing projects longer than you have probably been playing games.

So, while you're busy scoffing, feel free to share where your authority to define innovation comes from other than, "because I said so online!"

>>you manage a creature, a society, a world, a galaxy and a universe.

Its another Sim* game tweaking the old Populus formula from the 80s. Not exactly breaking new ground here.

The parent post shows one of the biggest issues when discussing "innovation", it's not very well defined. As the old joke goes, ask 5 people to describe "innovation" and you're likely to get 6 different answers. The definition really depends on each individual.

For example, the parent post says that all Final Fantasy games have, "Random battles, spells and bosses." Of course, so do many other games in the RPG genre, such as the old Wizardry games. How much change is needed before something is really innovative? Does Darklands count as derivative because it has random battles, spells, and bosses? Even though the "spells" are in terms of alchemic potions and prayers to saints? Does the historical setting of fantasy medieval Germany score some points? But, if these features make the game different and "innovative", why does a change in a system in Final Fantasy (such as the Materia system in FF7) or the setting (such as the industrial setting of FF7) fail to qualify? (Personally, I'll disagree that the changes to advancement like the materia system or sphere grid are "little" changes.)

Likewise, people can say things are innovative out of a lack of knowledge of games. The parent post says that Deus Ex is innovative, but many of the features found in that game first appeared in the System Shock series. So, does this mean that Deus Ex isn't really innovative? You could make similar arguments for Fable (which shares similar gameplay with Rune) and Black & White (which you could argue just puts Dogz or Catz in a more interesting environment.)

So, the original question remains: what is the limit for something to be innovative? Does it have to be completely different than anything that came before? I don't think that's realistic, because every game borrows some element from other games. Are sequels automatically disqualified? Not really, you can have innovative mechanics and gameplay wrapped up in a familiar type of story; however, some sequels are obviously just derivative. So, where do you draw the line? Can you make that consistent?

Of course, this whole argument ignores the fact that innovative games are very risky, and that the market is very hesitant to support anything too unfamiliar. For example, you need to have something identifiable (like a name such as "Final Fantasy") before people will try something "new" out. On the other hand, games that have been widely considered innovative (such as DOOM, The Sims, etc.) have been the catalysts that have grown the industry by leaps and bounds.

Some thoughts from a professional game developer,

The parent post shows one of the biggest issues when discussing "innovation", it's not very well defined. As the old joke goes, ask 5 people to describe "innovation" and you're likely to get 6 different answers. The definition really depends on each individual.

For example, the parent post says that all Final Fantasy games have, "Random battles, spells and bosses." Of course, so do many other games in the RPG genre, such as the old Wizardry games. How much change is needed before something is really innovative? Does Darklands count as derivative because it has random battles, spells, and bosses? Even though the "spells" are in terms of alchemic potions and prayers to saints? Does the historical setting of fantasy medieval Germany score some points? But, if these features make the game different and "innovative", why does a change in a system in Final Fantasy (such as the Materia system in FF7) or the setting (such as the industrial setting of FF7) fail to qualify? (Personally, I'll disagree that the changes to advancement like the materia system or sphere grid are "little" changes.)

Likewise, people can say things are innovative out of a lack of knowledge of games. The parent post says that Deus Ex is innovative, but many of the features found in that game first appeared in the System Shock series. So, does this mean that Deus Ex isn't really innovative? You could make similar arguments for Fable (which shares similar gameplay with Rune) and Black & White (which you could argue just puts Dogz or Catz in a more interesting environment.)

So, the original question remains: what is the limit for something to be innovative? Does it have to be completely different than anything that came before? I don't think that's realistic, because every game borrows some element from other games. Are sequels automatically disqualified? Not really, you can have innovative mechanics and gameplay wrapped up in a familiar type of story; however, some sequels are obviously just derivative. So, where do you draw the line? Can you make that consistent?

Of course, this whole argument ignores the fact that innovative games are very risky, and that the market is very hesitant to support anything too unfamiliar. For example, you need to have something identifiable (like a name such as "Final Fantasy") before people will try something "new" out. On the other hand, games that have been widely considered innovative (such as DOOM, The Sims, etc.) have been the catalysts that have grown the industry by leaps and bounds.

Some thoughts from a professional game developer,

The parent post shows one of the biggest issues when discussing "innovation", it's not very well defined. As the old joke goes, ask 5 people to describe "innovation" and you're likely to get 6 different answers. The definition really depends on each individual.

For example, the parent post says that all Final Fantasy games have, "Random battles, spells and bosses." Of course, so do many other games in the RPG genre, such as the old Wizardry games. How much change is needed before something is really innovative? Does Darklands count as derivative because it has random battles, spells, and bosses? Even though the "spells" are in terms of alchemic potions and prayers to saints? Does the historical setting of fantasy medieval Germany score some points? But, if these features make the game different and "innovative", why does a change in a system in Final Fantasy (such as the Materia system in FF7) or the setting (such as the industrial setting of FF7) fail to qualify? (Personally, I'll disagree that the changes to advancement like the materia system or sphere grid are "little" changes.)

Likewise, people can say things are innovative out of a lack of knowledge of games. The parent post says that Deus Ex is innovative, but many of the features found in that game first appeared in the System Shock series. So, does this mean that Deus Ex isn't really innovative? You could make similar arguments for Fable (which shares similar gameplay with Rune) and Black & White (which you could argue just puts Dogz or Catz in a more interesting environment.)

So, the original question remains: what is the limit for something to be innovative? Does it have to be completely different than anything that came before? I don't think that's realistic, because every game borrows some element from other games. Are sequels automatically disqualified? Not really, you can have innovative mechanics and gameplay wrapped up in a familiar type of story; however, some sequels are obviously just derivative. So, where do you draw the line? Can you make that consistent?

Of course, this whole argument ignores the fact that innovative games are very risky, and that the market is very hesitant to support anything too unfamiliar. For example, you need to have something identifiable (like a name such as "Final Fantasy") before people will try something "new" out. On the other hand, games that have been widely considered innovative (such as DOOM, The Sims, etc.) have been the catalysts that have grown the industry by leaps and bounds.

Some thoughts from a professional game developer,

The parent post shows one of the biggest issues when discussing "innovation", it's not very well defined. As the old joke goes, ask 5 people to describe "innovation" and you're likely to get 6 different answers. The definition really depends on each individual.

For example, the parent post says that all Final Fantasy games have, "Random battles, spells and bosses." Of course, so do many other games in the RPG genre, such as the old Wizardry games. How much change is needed before something is really innovative? Does Darklands count as derivative because it has random battles, spells, and bosses? Even though the "spells" are in terms of alchemic potions and prayers to saints? Does the historical setting of fantasy medieval Germany score some points? But, if these features make the game different and "innovative", why does a change in a system in Final Fantasy (such as the Materia system in FF7) or the setting (such as the industrial setting of FF7) fail to qualify? (Personally, I'll disagree that the changes to advancement like the materia system or sphere grid are "little" changes.)

Likewise, people can say things are innovative out of a lack of knowledge of games. The parent post says that Deus Ex is innovative, but many of the features found in that game first appeared in the System Shock series. So, does this mean that Deus Ex isn't really innovative? You could make similar arguments for Fable (which shares similar gameplay with Rune) and Black & White (which you could argue just puts Dogz or Catz in a more interesting environment.)

So, the original question remains: what is the limit for something to be innovative? Does it have to be completely different than anything that came before? I don't think that's realistic, because every game borrows some element from other games. Are sequels automatically disqualified? Not really, you can have innovative mechanics and gameplay wrapped up in a familiar type of story; however, some sequels are obviously just derivative. So, where do you draw the line? Can you make that consistent?

Of course, this whole argument ignores the fact that innovative games are very risky, and that the market is very hesitant to support anything too unfamiliar. For example, you need to have something identifiable (like a name such as "Final Fantasy") before people will try something "new" out. On the other hand, games that have been widely considered innovative (such as DOOM, The Sims, etc.) have been the catalysts that have grown the industry by leaps and bounds.

Some thoughts from a professional game developer,

The parent post shows one of the biggest issues when discussing "innovation", it's not very well defined. As the old joke goes, ask 5 people to describe "innovation" and you're likely to get 6 different answers. The definition really depends on each individual.

For example, the parent post says that all Final Fantasy games have, "Random battles, spells and bosses." Of course, so do many other games in the RPG genre, such as the old Wizardry games. How much change is needed before something is really innovative? Does Darklands count as derivative because it has random battles, spells, and bosses? Even though the "spells" are in terms of alchemic potions and prayers to saints? Does the historical setting of fantasy medieval Germany score some points? But, if these features make the game different and "innovative", why does a change in a system in Final Fantasy (such as the Materia system in FF7) or the setting (such as the industrial setting of FF7) fail to qualify? (Personally, I'll disagree that the changes to advancement like the materia system or sphere grid are "little" changes.)

Likewise, people can say things are innovative out of a lack of knowledge of games. The parent post says that Deus Ex is innovative, but many of the features found in that game first appeared in the System Shock series. So, does this mean that Deus Ex isn't really innovative? You could make similar arguments for Fable (which shares similar gameplay with Rune) and Black & White (which you could argue just puts Dogz or Catz in a more interesting environment.)

So, the original question remains: what is the limit for something to be innovative? Does it have to be completely different than anything that came before? I don't think that's realistic, because every game borrows some element from other games. Are sequels automatically disqualified? Not really, you can have innovative mechanics and gameplay wrapped up in a familiar type of story; however, some sequels are obviously just derivative. So, where do you draw the line? Can you make that consistent?

Of course, this whole argument ignores the fact that innovative games are very risky, and that the market is very hesitant to support anything too unfamiliar. For example, you need to have something identifiable (like a name such as "Final Fantasy") before people will try something "new" out. On the other hand, games that have been widely considered innovative (such as DOOM, The Sims, etc.) have been the catalysts that have grown the industry by leaps and bounds.

Some thoughts from a professional game developer,

The parent post shows one of the biggest issues when discussing "innovation", it's not very well defined. As the old joke goes, ask 5 people to describe "innovation" and you're likely to get 6 different answers. The definition really depends on each individual.

For example, the parent post says that all Final Fantasy games have, "Random battles, spells and bosses." Of course, so do many other games in the RPG genre, such as the old Wizardry games. How much change is needed before something is really innovative? Does Darklands count as derivative because it has random battles, spells, and bosses? Even though the "spells" are in terms of alchemic potions and prayers to saints? Does the historical setting of fantasy medieval Germany score some points? But, if these features make the game different and "innovative", why does a change in a system in Final Fantasy (such as the Materia system in FF7) or the setting (such as the industrial setting of FF7) fail to qualify? (Personally, I'll disagree that the changes to advancement like the materia system or sphere grid are "little" changes.)

Likewise, people can say things are innovative out of a lack of knowledge of games. The parent post says that Deus Ex is innovative, but many of the features found in that game first appeared in the System Shock series. So, does this mean that Deus Ex isn't really innovative? You could make similar arguments for Fable (which shares similar gameplay with Rune) and Black & White (which you could argue just puts Dogz or Catz in a more interesting environment.)

So, the original question remains: what is the limit for something to be innovative? Does it have to be completely different than anything that came before? I don't think that's realistic, because every game borrows some element from other games. Are sequels automatically disqualified? Not really, you can have innovative mechanics and gameplay wrapped up in a familiar type of story; however, some sequels are obviously just derivative. So, where do you draw the line? Can you make that consistent?

Of course, this whole argument ignores the fact that innovative games are very risky, and that the market is very hesitant to support anything too unfamiliar. For example, you need to have something identifiable (like a name such as "Final Fantasy") before people will try something "new" out. On the other hand, games that have been widely considered innovative (such as DOOM, The Sims, etc.) have been the catalysts that have grown the industry by leaps and bounds.

Some thoughts from a professional game developer,

No. Not Heart of Darknes. Heart of the Alien.

Or at least the screenshot showing the option to turn them on:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/dead-or- alive/screenshots/gameShotId,15217/

This is a scan of the boxart for The Elder Scrolls: Arena. I always wondered why the guys got to wear all the armor, I guess the life span of a lady fighter was very short in those days.

Tell me about it! My first was a Sinclair ZX-81 with an 8K ROM and a whopping 1K of memory (yes, that's 1024 bytes). I moved up to a Commodore VIC 20 and eventually to a Commodore 64, which lasted me throughout college.

Video games used to look like this.

Haven't I already played this? On the bright side, though, I -loved- EVO, so Spore should be quite enjoyable as well.

It's been done.

Anyone remember Skool Daze on the c64? http://www.mobygames.com/game/c64/skool-daze The objective, to steal back your awful school paper from the headmaster's office. Common activities include: Beating up fellow classmates, fighting with the school bully, shooting anyone you like with your slingshot and hoping someone else gets blamed, skipping classes, writing obscenities on the blackboard and more. Why are the school's piping up now? This type of game has been done before, granted with not as much exposure until now.

Anyone remember Deathtrack?

My favorites were always the SSI rpg/war/sim games from the 80s. You'd see these exciting covers, like Roadwar Europa. Take it home, load it up, and you get this!

My favorites were always the SSI rpg/war/sim games from the 80s. You'd see these exciting covers, like Roadwar Europa. Take it home, load it up, and you get this!

Sounds like Stonekeep. http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/stonekeep

And you're right; there wasn't much interesting to it. It was pushed so far back by its long development that when it was finally released it was way behind the curve in terms of technology and gameplay. BORING game.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/yars-revenge

No, what I'm saying is that in the OP, the games mentioned are NOT what you consider to be "innovation" either. Like I mentioned. I just didn't enjoy SotC, or Ico for that matter..they're great games. Just not my taste. (As well is Final Fantasy Tactics, or the various stealth games. Not my cup of tea)

Exit? How about Sink or Swim actually originally a DOS/Amiga game apparently, or S.O.S, also for the SNES. Both feature puzzle-platforming gameplay where the goal is to rescure a group of people. Exit without a doubt is done better than those games. But that's not the point.

I have Amplitude as well, and love it. But from the videos I've seen of Guitar Hero, it should be fairly easy to pick up...the GUI of the basic gameplay looks similar. Does the guitar controller change things? Without a doubt. But it doesn't make it a completly new genre. I still desperatly want the game however.

Lumines is amazing. Way better than Tetris. But it's still a block dropper. (Meteos is MUCH better however)

Psychonauts again, is amazing. I suspect however, if the Meat Circus stage was at the beginning of the game, and not the end, our view of the game might be a bit different. For some reason that stage was awfully poorly designed, especially one certain boss that had awful hit detection...then the rest of the bosses are easy as pie.

Okami...I'm a Clover Studios fanboy. What can I say?

What I'm saying is that electronic games that create new genres are VERY rare for such a mature industry, and if you include other forms of media, probably don't exist. And when they do, they're blatently obvious. The two that come to mind are the 3-d platformer, and the empire building sim (which had been attempted in board-game form) .

I'm just tired of people being predictable by trying to be "independent". The gaming industry, as it stands is pretty damn good in the signal-to-noise ratio. The Half-Life2s are JUST as innovative as the Psychonauts are JUST as innovative as the various Final Fantasy games are.

if a member of the RIAA board becomes, shall we say, "damaged"

Perhaps. But as Resident Evil fans will know, damage is certainly practical.

Don't laugh! I've found SUPAR SEKRET SATTELITE PIX of an early version of this amazing vehicle! Click here! There's a giant guy standing next to it!

Richard Garriott was making these kinds of elaborate games a decade ago.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/ultima-onlin e

Well, the chain does go back further. Firstly, much of the staff behind FFT had previously made Ogre Battle and Tactics Ogre. Of course, far more people were involved with the creation of FFT than the previous two. So the experiences there definately shaped the direction of FFT. If you're going to cite Shining Force as an influence, well I suppose you'd just as well cite Fire Emblem, even though one didn't make it to the states. Fire Emblem apparently sold very well in Japan but it seems NOA didn't feel they could sell it to their American demographics.

As for the characters themselves, the little of Ragnarok I played didn't seem that related to FFT. But then, I haven't played much of the original FFT either.

Well, the chain does go back further. Firstly, much of the staff behind FFT had previously made Ogre Battle and Tactics Ogre. Of course, far more people were involved with the creation of FFT than the previous two. So the experiences there definately shaped the direction of FFT. If you're going to cite Shining Force as an influence, well I suppose you'd just as well cite Fire Emblem, even though one didn't make it to the states. Fire Emblem apparently sold very well in Japan but it seems NOA didn't feel they could sell it to their American demographics.

As for the characters themselves, the little of Ragnarok I played didn't seem that related to FFT. But then, I haven't played much of the original FFT either.

I've always loved handhelds. Due to the whole idea that a handheld system is designed both for quick sessions (on a bus, for instance) and long playing periods (such as on a plane or in a hotel room), I think handhelds force developers to adhere to what I consider the ideals of video gaming: both instant playability and depth that inspires replay.

Obviously, puzzle games are the perfect match for this. I don't quite agree with some of 1up's puzzle game highlights. Tetris and Klax are true classics, but I'm not convinced that Meteos and Lumines are of the same calibre. Meteos times every game mode except for one, tilting it far in favour of quick sessions. It just isn't that enjoyable for a long period. Lumines falls victim to the exact opposite - the time attack modes aren't much fun but the normal mode is very addictive. The only problem with normal mode is that a typical single session often lasts more than half an hour!

Puzzle games aside, some of their choices and omissions are quite odd.

Donkey Kong on Game Boy is an expanded version of the arcade original, with 100 puzzle-heavy levels. It turns a classic arcade game into an even better home game. I think it's one of the finest games ever made. Mario vs Donkey Kong is a pseudo-sequel to the Game Boy one, but it doesn't quite live up to its predecessor. It's decent but far from being a true classic.

Final Fantasy Adventure, also on Game Boy, is Seiken Densetsu 1 renamed to cash in on the Final Fantasy name. Seiken Densetsu was also renamed for the western market, to Secret of Mana. Yes, Secret of Mana is a sequel to this Game Boy game. And this Game Boy game is the best action/rpg the system has to offer - edging out even The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (which is also a fantastic game and a must-own). Too bad the GBA remake, Sword of Mana, was awful.

Besides Klax, the Atari Lynx had quite a few other arcade ports. Roadblasters is a lot of fun. Robotron 2084 isn't perfect (due to the Lynx lacking a way to duplicate the original dual-joystick control system) but is still decent. S.T.U.N. Runner looks fantastic on the handheld and is the best home port of the game we ever received, even if it does use sprite scaling instead of polygons. Speaking of sprite scaling, Blue Lightning is an Afterburner clone with better graphics than any of the pre-32X home ports of Afterburner. The gameplay measures up, too. Chip's Challenge, another original design for the system (though it was ported to plenty of other systems eventually) is a very fun action/puzzle game like The Adventures of Lolo. It also has a geeky love story plot that I'm sure most Slashdotters will appreciate :)

The Game Gear was perhaps the most lacking of all mainstream handhelds (ignoring utter shit like the Gamate and Watara Supervision), but even it had some very good games. Crystal Warriors and Shining Force II: The Sword of Hajya are an excellent pair of strategy-RPGs with amazing depth for 8-bit handheld games. Bubble Bobble had a great port on GG (not

Duke Nukem 3D

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/duke-nukem-3d/sc reenshots/gameShotId,5640/

Sadly the best bit isn't there, where Duke rips off the head of the Overlord and shits down his neck !!

Ending to end all endings.

Time ticks away until I can play it again :

http://jonof.edgenetwork.org/index.php?p=jfduke3d

I thought of both Dune 2 and StarCraft 64, but it seemed to me that the author was referring to games specifically made for the console, and Herzog Zwei is the only one that fits that bill. Dune 2 was excellently ported, though, and there was another fine port of an RTS on the Genesis; Tyrants, better known as Mega lo Mania on the PC.

Rob

Anyone remember Sierra's EcoQuest? It taught me that algaes are perfect for this thing and that was in 1991!

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/ecoquest-the-sea rch-for-cetus/screenshots

There's already a Britney Spears game, on three platforms no less. Fear.