Slashdot Mirror
Best Original Games of 2003?
PapaZit writes "It seems like most of the games that I purchase these days are sequels: GTA3 and Vice City , Zelda: Wind Waker, even Knights of the Old Republic and Galaxies built on the Star Wars franchise. What are the best original (not a sequel or franchise) games that you've played this year?"
Viewtiful Joe and Beyond Good and Evil are both excellent.
Later,
Patrick
Eye Toy: Play - it got my parents, my inlaws, and even my wife's aunt and uncle up out of their seats to "Wash some windows"
Awesome fun for the whole family.
Seems like a pretty silly game, but I ran my demo time out and am seriously considering buying the full version. Orbz 2 demo and screenshots can be found here. Seriously, don't knock until you try it out.
I am not sure there *is* an original game : there are strategy games, like Civ, Warcraft, there are Doom like (once again obviously unoriginal), there are multiplayer games...
Well, the last time I saw a NEW game and said "WOW" was when I saw people playing Dance Dance revolution...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Duke Nukem Forever. It's the first game to have been in development for 5 years with no apparent progress. It's like these guys invented slacking. Actually they stole the tactic from Ion Storm and John Romero, but 3D Realms has taken it to a whole new level.
How much more original can you get? I owe all of my failing grades to these gods of slothfulness.
This generic DNF-bashing comment has been made possible by too much free time during winter break.
True story.
In the same vein I'd have to say pikmin rocked for me. Obviously not *made* this year, but it's the most original game I've *played* all year.
XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable. --Dram
Can I just say that I'm sick and tired of people equating sequels with a lack of creativity in games? No? I'll go ahead and do it anyway.
I'm sick and tired of people equating a sequels with a lack of creativity in games.
We need to get over the mistaken notion that sequel == uncreative or even easy. It may be true (but not 100% true) that sequels are indicative of recycled creative ideas in the world of film and books (though note that we have no problem with good dramatic television shows that run for many episodes). But games are different from these things. One of the important ways that games are different from movies is that games are software. I don't think that any of us would complain that Adobe keeps releasing sequel after sequel to Photoshop. Photoshop 7.0 is a dramatically better product than Photoshop 1.0. Linux kernel current.number is a more robust OS kernel than Linux kernel 1.0. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect that (game title) 2.0 could be a better title than (game title) 1.0.
To pick a recent example - by all accounts, Project Gotham Racing 2 is a dramatically better product than Project Gotham Racing 1. They tweaked the interface, they made it prettier, they added new gameplay functionality and they generally made it a BETTER GAME. It is uncreative? I would argue that the cool new things that they added were very creative indeed.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
One problem -- GalCiv isn't particularily new or unique. It's been around for a decade now. In fact, the most recent Galactic Civilizations that you're playing is actually the fourth release in the series.
The original release was made in 1993 by StarDock Systems, and was published by Advanced Idea Machines. It was released for OS/2 2.1, and took off in a big way. Many people switched to OS/2 just for this game. It had the dubious honour, however, of having the ugliest box art ever! . It came in 4 diskettes, with a "Shipyards" expansion released later.
Then in 1995, StarDock produced "Galactic Civilizations 2", again for OS/2. They dumped AIM and became their own publishers -- resulting in vastly better box art :).
1998 saw the last GalCiv release for IBM's OS/2 platform -- Galactic Civilizations Gold. Bigger galaxy sizes, an even better AI, and new game elements made it a big hit, but by the time of its release IBM's OS/2 was eclipsed by the vastly inferiour Windows 95 and Windows 98, and the market just wasn't there for it.
I've been playing Galactic Civilizations for more than 10 years -- I was a registered beta tester for the original v1.0 release way back in 1993. It is a fantastic game, and it's designer, Brad Wardell, knows a thing or two about video game AI (when GalCiv 1 was released in 1993, nobody had seen anything like it in the AI department).
The only sad thing is that it's taken 10 years for Windows gamers to realize how amazing this series is. Early on in GalCiv's lifetime, it's developer, Mr. Wardell, was quoted as saying that the game couldn't be ported to the then-current DOS and Windows platforms, because neither had suitable multithreading to support the games design. It's kinda sad that it's taken more than 10 years for Windows to finally catch up to what OS/2 could do in 1993.
Yaz.