The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There has been an ongoing debate for a long time now as to which are better, PCs or consoles. As any statistical analyst will tell you, they both are! It all depends on how you define better and how you present the figures.
So, what do we mean by better? Higher resolution graphics, more colours, faster frame rates, 3D graphics, 2D graphics, 3D sound, multi-player capability, specialist hardware, lots of publishers supporting it, fewer publishers supporting it, more games available, less games available, easy to program, large user base, quick to get up and running...? The list goes on. Anyone with a mind to could make any of the above sound like either a good thing or a bad thing.
For example, the system with the higher resolution graphics is better because it allows more detail to be shown on screen. The images look smoother (less jagged) and as a result, they look more realistic.
But wait a minute, the system with the higher resolution graphics is worse because when playing on a T.V. all that extra detail is lost and important elements in games can be missed because of it. Also, the higher the resolution the more memory is needed and the longer it takes to display the screen. This could take valuable CPU time calculating the elements that need to be placed in the offscreen buffer which could otherwise be used to perform extra gameplay features.
Hmmm, what about multi-player capability, then? The more players there are, the better. You can have all your mates round and play at the same time. You can even play with or against people on the other side of the world.
Maybe so, but multi-player capability is a bad thing because the vast majority of people play solo and so don't benefit from the multi-player options of games. Softcos often spend a lot of time on this side of the game to the detriment of the solo player option. They skimp on plot and shove in droids to make up for the lack of human players. Single-player systems would therefore have no games with these redundant features, and hence more with indepth gameplay.
Well, systems with loads of games available are definitely better because you've got a whole array of games to choose from, and you're bound to find something that you like. Those with few games will have you waiting for ages for the next one to come.
Actually, systems with lots of games tend to have little or no quality control, so a lot of the stuff that arrives on the shelves isn't worth the CDs their stored on. How are you to know which are good or bad? A good review in a magazine is no guarantee of quality. No, systems with fewer games are better as these tend to be of higher quality and have more effort put into them. If you have to wait a little, that's good because it makes you appreciate the game more and play it again to find hidden elements, rather than tossing it aside when you've finished it once.
As you can see, it's possible to pick holes in any argument that is given one way or the other, depending upon how you look at it. Since we are all different - our tastes, views and biases differ - so will be our choice of system. No one choice is right or wrong for everybody and it would be ludicrous to suggest that it should be. Yet sadly this is exactly what many people seem to think should be the case. Once a decision has been made to buy a system, their egos seems to take over and they have to defend that decision at all costs. To not do so would be to admit that they made a mistake and have wasted their money.
As long as we're happy with the system we've got, that's all that should matter. The fact that someone else has a different one is irrelevant.
So, what do we mean by better? Higher resolution graphics, more colours, faster frame rates, 3D graphics, 2D graphics, 3D sound, multi-player capability, specialist hardware, lots of publishers supporting it, fewer publishers supporting it, more games available, less games available, easy to program, large user base, quick to get up and running...? The list goes on. Anyone with a mind to could make any of the above sound like either a good thing or a bad thing.
For example, the system with the higher resolution graphics is better because it allows more detail to be shown on screen. The images look smoother (less jagged) and as a result, they look more realistic.
But wait a minute, the system with the higher resolution graphics is worse because when playing on a T.V. all that extra detail is lost and important elements in games can be missed because of it. Also, the higher the resolution the more memory is needed and the longer it takes to display the screen. This could take valuable CPU time calculating the elements that need to be placed in the offscreen buffer which could otherwise be used to perform extra gameplay features.
Hmmm, what about multi-player capability, then? The more players there are, the better. You can have all your mates round and play at the same time. You can even play with or against people on the other side of the world.
Maybe so, but multi-player capability is a bad thing because the vast majority of people play solo and so don't benefit from the multi-player options of games. Softcos often spend a lot of time on this side of the game to the detriment of the solo player option. They skimp on plot and shove in droids to make up for the lack of human players. Single-player systems would therefore have no games with these redundant features, and hence more with indepth gameplay.
Well, systems with loads of games available are definitely better because you've got a whole array of games to choose from, and you're bound to find something that you like. Those with few games will have you waiting for ages for the next one to come.
Actually, systems with lots of games tend to have little or no quality control, so a lot of the stuff that arrives on the shelves isn't worth the CDs their stored on. How are you to know which are good or bad? A good review in a magazine is no guarantee of quality. No, systems with fewer games are better as these tend to be of higher quality and have more effort put into them. If you have to wait a little, that's good because it makes you appreciate the game more and play it again to find hidden elements, rather than tossing it aside when you've finished it once.
As you can see, it's possible to pick holes in any argument that is given one way or the other, depending upon how you look at it. Since we are all different - our tastes, views and biases differ - so will be our choice of system. No one choice is right or wrong for everybody and it would be ludicrous to suggest that it should be. Yet sadly this is exactly what many people seem to think should be the case. Once a decision has been made to buy a system, their egos seems to take over and they have to defend that decision at all costs. To not do so would be to admit that they made a mistake and have wasted their money.
As long as we're happy with the system we've got, that's all that should matter. The fact that someone else has a different one is irrelevant.
Page:
How long have you guys been around. I've only been here for a week.
"So Blue," they will say "why the hell did you start an old topic running again?"
Just to show that these things seem to run in circles. I've been on this forum for quite a while, lurking around, watching, until the right moment! It's interesting to see that most of the conversations keep getting brought up again and again.
The relevance (could never spell that word) of this to future gaming? Is 'What will we be talking about in the future of this forum?' Will it all go around again, or will it be something completely different. If we all get our wishes of non-linear games and virtual reality, what will we have to talk about?
The real reason for this post? - I'm bored and there's no one else around, ok?! :-)
Just to show that these things seem to run in circles. I've been on this forum for quite a while, lurking around, watching, until the right moment! It's interesting to see that most of the conversations keep getting brought up again and again.
The relevance (could never spell that word) of this to future gaming? Is 'What will we be talking about in the future of this forum?' Will it all go around again, or will it be something completely different. If we all get our wishes of non-linear games and virtual reality, what will we have to talk about?
The real reason for this post? - I'm bored and there's no one else around, ok?! :-)
There has been an ongoing debate for a long time now as to which are better, PCs or consoles. As any statistical analyst will tell you, they both are! It all depends on how you define better and how you present the figures.
So, what do we mean by better? Higher resolution graphics, more colours, faster frame rates, 3D graphics, 2D graphics, 3D sound, multi-player capability, specialist hardware, lots of publishers supporting it, fewer publishers supporting it, more games available, less games available, easy to program, large user base, quick to get up and running...? The list goes on. Anyone with a mind to could make any of the above sound like either a good thing or a bad thing.
For example, the system with the higher resolution graphics is better because it allows more detail to be shown on screen. The images look smoother (less jagged) and as a result, they look more realistic.
But wait a minute, the system with the higher resolution graphics is worse because when playing on a T.V. all that extra detail is lost and important elements in games can be missed because of it. Also, the higher the resolution the more memory is needed and the longer it takes to display the screen. This could take valuable CPU time calculating the elements that need to be placed in the offscreen buffer which could otherwise be used to perform extra gameplay features.
Hmmm, what about multi-player capability, then? The more players there are, the better. You can have all your mates round and play at the same time. You can even play with or against people on the other side of the world.
Maybe so, but multi-player capability is a bad thing because the vast majority of people play solo and so don't benefit from the multi-player options of games. Softcos often spend a lot of time on this side of the game to the detriment of the solo player option. They skimp on plot and shove in droids to make up for the lack of human players. Single-player systems would therefore have no games with these redundant features, and hence more with indepth gameplay.
Well, systems with loads of games available are definitely better because you've got a whole array of games to choose from, and you're bound to find something that you like. Those with few games will have you waiting for ages for the next one to come.
Actually, systems with lots of games tend to have little or no quality control, so a lot of the stuff that arrives on the shelves isn't worth the CDs their stored on. How are you to know which are good or bad? A good review in a magazine is no guarantee of quality. No, systems with fewer games are better as these tend to be of higher quality and have more effort put into them. If you have to wait a little, that's good because it makes you appreciate the game more and play it again to find hidden elements, rather than tossing it aside when you've finished it once.
As you can see, it's possible to pick holes in any argument that is given one way or the other, depending upon how you look at it. Since we are all different - our tastes, views and biases differ - so will be our choice of system. No one choice is right or wrong for everybody and it would be ludicrous to suggest that it should be. Yet sadly this is exactly what many people seem to think should be the case. Once a decision has been made to buy a system, their egos seems to take over and they have to defend that decision at all costs. To not do so would be to admit that they made a mistake and have wasted their money.
As long as we're happy with the system we've got, that's all that should matter. The fact that someone else has a different one is irrelevant.
So, what do we mean by better? Higher resolution graphics, more colours, faster frame rates, 3D graphics, 2D graphics, 3D sound, multi-player capability, specialist hardware, lots of publishers supporting it, fewer publishers supporting it, more games available, less games available, easy to program, large user base, quick to get up and running...? The list goes on. Anyone with a mind to could make any of the above sound like either a good thing or a bad thing.
For example, the system with the higher resolution graphics is better because it allows more detail to be shown on screen. The images look smoother (less jagged) and as a result, they look more realistic.
But wait a minute, the system with the higher resolution graphics is worse because when playing on a T.V. all that extra detail is lost and important elements in games can be missed because of it. Also, the higher the resolution the more memory is needed and the longer it takes to display the screen. This could take valuable CPU time calculating the elements that need to be placed in the offscreen buffer which could otherwise be used to perform extra gameplay features.
Hmmm, what about multi-player capability, then? The more players there are, the better. You can have all your mates round and play at the same time. You can even play with or against people on the other side of the world.
Maybe so, but multi-player capability is a bad thing because the vast majority of people play solo and so don't benefit from the multi-player options of games. Softcos often spend a lot of time on this side of the game to the detriment of the solo player option. They skimp on plot and shove in droids to make up for the lack of human players. Single-player systems would therefore have no games with these redundant features, and hence more with indepth gameplay.
Well, systems with loads of games available are definitely better because you've got a whole array of games to choose from, and you're bound to find something that you like. Those with few games will have you waiting for ages for the next one to come.
Actually, systems with lots of games tend to have little or no quality control, so a lot of the stuff that arrives on the shelves isn't worth the CDs their stored on. How are you to know which are good or bad? A good review in a magazine is no guarantee of quality. No, systems with fewer games are better as these tend to be of higher quality and have more effort put into them. If you have to wait a little, that's good because it makes you appreciate the game more and play it again to find hidden elements, rather than tossing it aside when you've finished it once.
As you can see, it's possible to pick holes in any argument that is given one way or the other, depending upon how you look at it. Since we are all different - our tastes, views and biases differ - so will be our choice of system. No one choice is right or wrong for everybody and it would be ludicrous to suggest that it should be. Yet sadly this is exactly what many people seem to think should be the case. Once a decision has been made to buy a system, their egos seems to take over and they have to defend that decision at all costs. To not do so would be to admit that they made a mistake and have wasted their money.
As long as we're happy with the system we've got, that's all that should matter. The fact that someone else has a different one is irrelevant.
Page: