The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The birth of a home entertainment system was a dream in many people’s minds until one day a Mr.Sinclair invented the Sinclair ZX81, the first ever home computer. From that very day we took one step closer to the future.
Well now we're at that future that so many people dreamed about and quite frankly, I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be. I know this has had numerous threads before and that everyone is sick of the subject but I feet that I have to give my opinion.
Nowadays we've got flashy graphics, online add-ons, DVD players and 8mm discs. Okay the GameCubes discs do look pretty cute but do we honestly need online capabilities or a DVD add on? No we don't. The fact that we have all these extra features is just going to do one thing and that’s bump the price of games consoles up through the roof.
Admittedly the online aspect of things is definitely he way to get excellent multiplayer gaming but did these companies actually ask us, the public if we wanted these things. No. Since the beginning of consoles we have been taking larger and larger steps away from the point of consoles. Yeah you’re probably sick of it but, it's gamely that matters, graphics help. The games on the earlier consoles are definitely more addictive than today’s games. That’s not to say that the games that are knocking around at the moment aren't fun because they are. The thing they're lacking though is that mysterious something. The something that makes sure you don't put down the game until 2 in the morning and you realise that you haven't blinked since 9. I'm talking about the sheer addictivness of games like Sensible Soccer and Tetris.
The games today have graphics in buckets, gameplay in nice sachets and addictivness in grains. The truth of the matter is that if a games not addictive enough to keep you coming back for more then it hasn't achieved its aim. Well it would have achieved part of its aim, it would have entertained but it wouldn't have hooked.
And now that we're going for extra features over games I'm actually worried that gaming as we know it might be left behind. A lot of people might say that this is the Future of Gaming but if it is then I don't want it. The thing I will look for in a game along with most other hardcore gamers out there is highly entertaining gameplay, good challenging aspects with a nice array of levels and sheer addictivness.
The SNES was great at this. the Super Nintendo Entertainment System didn't have great graphics. It had great games. Mario World is my number one game that I've ever played. It had 92 levels, fun and hilarious gameplay, a nice two-player option, and something that kept me coming back for more. The games graphics weren't great but they got me by.
Now to use a quote from meka_dragon
"If this is the future of Gaming, you can keep it"
RBS
Well now we're at that future that so many people dreamed about and quite frankly, I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be. I know this has had numerous threads before and that everyone is sick of the subject but I feet that I have to give my opinion.
Nowadays we've got flashy graphics, online add-ons, DVD players and 8mm discs. Okay the GameCubes discs do look pretty cute but do we honestly need online capabilities or a DVD add on? No we don't. The fact that we have all these extra features is just going to do one thing and that’s bump the price of games consoles up through the roof.
Admittedly the online aspect of things is definitely he way to get excellent multiplayer gaming but did these companies actually ask us, the public if we wanted these things. No. Since the beginning of consoles we have been taking larger and larger steps away from the point of consoles. Yeah you’re probably sick of it but, it's gamely that matters, graphics help. The games on the earlier consoles are definitely more addictive than today’s games. That’s not to say that the games that are knocking around at the moment aren't fun because they are. The thing they're lacking though is that mysterious something. The something that makes sure you don't put down the game until 2 in the morning and you realise that you haven't blinked since 9. I'm talking about the sheer addictivness of games like Sensible Soccer and Tetris.
The games today have graphics in buckets, gameplay in nice sachets and addictivness in grains. The truth of the matter is that if a games not addictive enough to keep you coming back for more then it hasn't achieved its aim. Well it would have achieved part of its aim, it would have entertained but it wouldn't have hooked.
And now that we're going for extra features over games I'm actually worried that gaming as we know it might be left behind. A lot of people might say that this is the Future of Gaming but if it is then I don't want it. The thing I will look for in a game along with most other hardcore gamers out there is highly entertaining gameplay, good challenging aspects with a nice array of levels and sheer addictivness.
The SNES was great at this. the Super Nintendo Entertainment System didn't have great graphics. It had great games. Mario World is my number one game that I've ever played. It had 92 levels, fun and hilarious gameplay, a nice two-player option, and something that kept me coming back for more. The games graphics weren't great but they got me by.
Now to use a quote from meka_dragon
"If this is the future of Gaming, you can keep it"
RBS
The birth of a home entertainment system was a dream in many people’s minds until one day a Mr.Sinclair invented the Sinclair ZX81, the first ever home computer. From that very day we took one step closer to the future.
Well now we're at that future that so many people dreamed about and quite frankly, I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be. I know this has had numerous threads before and that everyone is sick of the subject but I feet that I have to give my opinion.
Nowadays we've got flashy graphics, online add-ons, DVD players and 8mm discs. Okay the GameCubes discs do look pretty cute but do we honestly need online capabilities or a DVD add on? No we don't. The fact that we have all these extra features is just going to do one thing and that’s bump the price of games consoles up through the roof.
Admittedly the online aspect of things is definitely he way to get excellent multiplayer gaming but did these companies actually ask us, the public if we wanted these things. No. Since the beginning of consoles we have been taking larger and larger steps away from the point of consoles. Yeah you’re probably sick of it but, it's gamely that matters, graphics help. The games on the earlier consoles are definitely more addictive than today’s games. That’s not to say that the games that are knocking around at the moment aren't fun because they are. The thing they're lacking though is that mysterious something. The something that makes sure you don't put down the game until 2 in the morning and you realise that you haven't blinked since 9. I'm talking about the sheer addictivness of games like Sensible Soccer and Tetris.
The games today have graphics in buckets, gameplay in nice sachets and addictivness in grains. The truth of the matter is that if a games not addictive enough to keep you coming back for more then it hasn't achieved its aim. Well it would have achieved part of its aim, it would have entertained but it wouldn't have hooked.
And now that we're going for extra features over games I'm actually worried that gaming as we know it might be left behind. A lot of people might say that this is the Future of Gaming but if it is then I don't want it. The thing I will look for in a game along with most other hardcore gamers out there is highly entertaining gameplay, good challenging aspects with a nice array of levels and sheer addictivness.
The SNES was great at this. the Super Nintendo Entertainment System didn't have great graphics. It had great games. Mario World is my number one game that I've ever played. It had 92 levels, fun and hilarious gameplay, a nice two-player option, and something that kept me coming back for more. The games graphics weren't great but they got me by.
Now to use a quote from meka_dragon
"If this is the future of Gaming, you can keep it"
RBS
Well now we're at that future that so many people dreamed about and quite frankly, I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be. I know this has had numerous threads before and that everyone is sick of the subject but I feet that I have to give my opinion.
Nowadays we've got flashy graphics, online add-ons, DVD players and 8mm discs. Okay the GameCubes discs do look pretty cute but do we honestly need online capabilities or a DVD add on? No we don't. The fact that we have all these extra features is just going to do one thing and that’s bump the price of games consoles up through the roof.
Admittedly the online aspect of things is definitely he way to get excellent multiplayer gaming but did these companies actually ask us, the public if we wanted these things. No. Since the beginning of consoles we have been taking larger and larger steps away from the point of consoles. Yeah you’re probably sick of it but, it's gamely that matters, graphics help. The games on the earlier consoles are definitely more addictive than today’s games. That’s not to say that the games that are knocking around at the moment aren't fun because they are. The thing they're lacking though is that mysterious something. The something that makes sure you don't put down the game until 2 in the morning and you realise that you haven't blinked since 9. I'm talking about the sheer addictivness of games like Sensible Soccer and Tetris.
The games today have graphics in buckets, gameplay in nice sachets and addictivness in grains. The truth of the matter is that if a games not addictive enough to keep you coming back for more then it hasn't achieved its aim. Well it would have achieved part of its aim, it would have entertained but it wouldn't have hooked.
And now that we're going for extra features over games I'm actually worried that gaming as we know it might be left behind. A lot of people might say that this is the Future of Gaming but if it is then I don't want it. The thing I will look for in a game along with most other hardcore gamers out there is highly entertaining gameplay, good challenging aspects with a nice array of levels and sheer addictivness.
The SNES was great at this. the Super Nintendo Entertainment System didn't have great graphics. It had great games. Mario World is my number one game that I've ever played. It had 92 levels, fun and hilarious gameplay, a nice two-player option, and something that kept me coming back for more. The games graphics weren't great but they got me by.
Now to use a quote from meka_dragon
"If this is the future of Gaming, you can keep it"
RBS
Wasn't it 96?
VenomByte wrote:
> Wasn't it 96?
what??
> Wasn't it 96?
what??
ZX81 and Spectrums had a great edge over today's consoles in that you could spend a bit of time learning to create your own games, and in some cases these could be even better than the ones that came on the cassettes.
It's a shame that Sega and Nintendo lost that aspect, but then they were probably right in going for a games dedicated console rather than the home computer market which in the early 80s started to get really flooded out.
Those dedicated consoles (NES, SNES, Megadrive) took the gaming world by storm and managed to take down a few arcades along the way as gaming moved into the arena of our living rooms and bedrooms, but then Sony came along and redefined what 'gaming' was actually all about, not just being a hardcore 'must get hi-score' mentality, but gaming as a form of 'entertainment' in the mainstream, and shook the world of hardcore gamers to its feet.
But now that the next gen consoles are upon us, only Sega seem to have developed a console that has at its core the gamer in mind. Sony have gone off and build the PS2 'hybrid' machine, X-Box are developing a different creature to the normal console altogether, and what the GameCube will eventually do is still at the wait and see stage.
The DreamCast has attempted to add online gameplay, but at a serious cost compared to using a free ISP with a PC, and until the costs of consoles online is brought down in the UK, this extra feature is not worth that much extra.
I agree, games consoles should be for games, nothing else, but that is our opinion as hardcore gamers, other more casual players may think differently, and as the market has increased, the manufacturers have taken this into account when building their hybrid machines.
Good old Sega. :-)
It's a shame that Sega and Nintendo lost that aspect, but then they were probably right in going for a games dedicated console rather than the home computer market which in the early 80s started to get really flooded out.
Those dedicated consoles (NES, SNES, Megadrive) took the gaming world by storm and managed to take down a few arcades along the way as gaming moved into the arena of our living rooms and bedrooms, but then Sony came along and redefined what 'gaming' was actually all about, not just being a hardcore 'must get hi-score' mentality, but gaming as a form of 'entertainment' in the mainstream, and shook the world of hardcore gamers to its feet.
But now that the next gen consoles are upon us, only Sega seem to have developed a console that has at its core the gamer in mind. Sony have gone off and build the PS2 'hybrid' machine, X-Box are developing a different creature to the normal console altogether, and what the GameCube will eventually do is still at the wait and see stage.
The DreamCast has attempted to add online gameplay, but at a serious cost compared to using a free ISP with a PC, and until the costs of consoles online is brought down in the UK, this extra feature is not worth that much extra.
I agree, games consoles should be for games, nothing else, but that is our opinion as hardcore gamers, other more casual players may think differently, and as the market has increased, the manufacturers have taken this into account when building their hybrid machines.
Good old Sega. :-)
FantasyMeister wrote:
> ZX81 and Spectrums had a great edge over today's consoles in that
> you could spend a bit of time learning to create your own games, and
> in some cases these could be even better than the ones that came on
> the cassettes.
It's a shame that Sega and Nintendo lost that
> aspect, but then they were probably right in going for a games
> dedicated console rather than the home computer market which in the
> early 80s started to get really flooded out.
Those dedicated
> consoles (NES, SNES, Megadrive) took the gaming world by storm and
> managed to take down a few arcades along the way as gaming moved
> into the arena of our living rooms and bedrooms, but then Sony came
> along and redefined what 'gaming' was actually all about, not just
> being a hardcore 'must get hi-score' mentality, but gaming as a form
> of 'entertainment' in the mainstream, and shook the world of
> hardcore gamers to its feet.
But now that the next gen consoles
> are upon us, only Sega seem to have developed a console that has at
> its core the gamer in mind. Sony have gone off and build the PS2
> 'hybrid' machine, X-Box are developing a different creature to the
> normal console altogether, and what the GameCube will eventually do
> is still at the wait and see stage.
The DreamCast has attempted
> to add online gameplay, but at a serious cost compared to using a
> free ISP with a PC, and until the costs of consoles online is
> brought down in the UK, this extra feature is not worth that much
> extra.
I agree, games consoles should be for games, nothing else,
> but that is our opinion as hardcore gamers, other more casual
> players may think differently, and as the market has increased, the
> manufacturers have taken this into account when building their
> hybrid machines.
Good old Sega. :-)
right on FM
> ZX81 and Spectrums had a great edge over today's consoles in that
> you could spend a bit of time learning to create your own games, and
> in some cases these could be even better than the ones that came on
> the cassettes.
It's a shame that Sega and Nintendo lost that
> aspect, but then they were probably right in going for a games
> dedicated console rather than the home computer market which in the
> early 80s started to get really flooded out.
Those dedicated
> consoles (NES, SNES, Megadrive) took the gaming world by storm and
> managed to take down a few arcades along the way as gaming moved
> into the arena of our living rooms and bedrooms, but then Sony came
> along and redefined what 'gaming' was actually all about, not just
> being a hardcore 'must get hi-score' mentality, but gaming as a form
> of 'entertainment' in the mainstream, and shook the world of
> hardcore gamers to its feet.
But now that the next gen consoles
> are upon us, only Sega seem to have developed a console that has at
> its core the gamer in mind. Sony have gone off and build the PS2
> 'hybrid' machine, X-Box are developing a different creature to the
> normal console altogether, and what the GameCube will eventually do
> is still at the wait and see stage.
The DreamCast has attempted
> to add online gameplay, but at a serious cost compared to using a
> free ISP with a PC, and until the costs of consoles online is
> brought down in the UK, this extra feature is not worth that much
> extra.
I agree, games consoles should be for games, nothing else,
> but that is our opinion as hardcore gamers, other more casual
> players may think differently, and as the market has increased, the
> manufacturers have taken this into account when building their
> hybrid machines.
Good old Sega. :-)
right on FM
One good post deserves another :-)
aww ta m8 :-)