The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So the last batch of Next Generation consoles have revealed themselves and shown us al sorts of great thing s that weren't possible on older machines.
More characters can be shown on screen. We have internet deathmatches, a complete demise of slowdown and a new age a reliability (apart from the Xbox :-D)
What I'd like to know is how things will advance from here.
More powerful machines might be able to create better graphics and put in more realism but apart from trivial details like that, the industry can't go forward much further.
Gone are the days of pixellation that made the 32bit age ugly. The graphics might get better but not noticably. Despite a HUGE difference in power, the PS2 games look not much different from DC ones.
There won't be another generation of consoles for atleast 6 years now and I can't imagine any radical improvements either.
Personally, I think that the next generation of consoles will ignor the need for a TV.
This has started already. The PSOne has a screen of it's own and handhelds have nearly reached the 3D 32-64bit stage.
Another way that this could happen is that games will be played using holograms (an idea that I've mentioned hundreds of times but has been ignored every single damn time!) where the console shows the game's characters as holograms on your very own floor.
Having a micro machines racing round your living room or have 2 characters beating ech other up on your own settee.
Borrower sized people for you to take pot shots at with a light gun or have earoplane dogfights around the light bulb.
I know that there are flaws like you'd have to have your entire living room in the computer's memory to it knew that if a character ran into your sofa it would have to hit it instead of going through it but it's the next step forward.
Either way, with the likes of me and Grix producing games in 5 or 6 years, you can certainly garauntee a bright future :-)
More characters can be shown on screen. We have internet deathmatches, a complete demise of slowdown and a new age a reliability (apart from the Xbox :-D)
What I'd like to know is how things will advance from here.
More powerful machines might be able to create better graphics and put in more realism but apart from trivial details like that, the industry can't go forward much further.
Gone are the days of pixellation that made the 32bit age ugly. The graphics might get better but not noticably. Despite a HUGE difference in power, the PS2 games look not much different from DC ones.
There won't be another generation of consoles for atleast 6 years now and I can't imagine any radical improvements either.
Personally, I think that the next generation of consoles will ignor the need for a TV.
This has started already. The PSOne has a screen of it's own and handhelds have nearly reached the 3D 32-64bit stage.
Another way that this could happen is that games will be played using holograms (an idea that I've mentioned hundreds of times but has been ignored every single damn time!) where the console shows the game's characters as holograms on your very own floor.
Having a micro machines racing round your living room or have 2 characters beating ech other up on your own settee.
Borrower sized people for you to take pot shots at with a light gun or have earoplane dogfights around the light bulb.
I know that there are flaws like you'd have to have your entire living room in the computer's memory to it knew that if a character ran into your sofa it would have to hit it instead of going through it but it's the next step forward.
Either way, with the likes of me and Grix producing games in 5 or 6 years, you can certainly garauntee a bright future :-)
Page:
Yeah, perhaps even Eidos will die out one day...
*looks into stars... dreaming...*
*looks into stars... dreaming...*
My point was that the next generation consoles after the Xbox and Gamecube won't be much better than than the 2 aforementioned consoles.
Like you said, people will be FORCED to take gaming to it's gameplay roots in order to make a decent game and cashing in on liscences just won't work.
During this time I suppose some of the less original companies will slowly die out or evolve to become more innoative.
I suppose that's a good thing because when gaming does advance, whether it be to holograms or a huge gaming multiplayer network, things will start fresh, with only the best devellopers still around.
Like you said, people will be FORCED to take gaming to it's gameplay roots in order to make a decent game and cashing in on liscences just won't work.
During this time I suppose some of the less original companies will slowly die out or evolve to become more innoative.
I suppose that's a good thing because when gaming does advance, whether it be to holograms or a huge gaming multiplayer network, things will start fresh, with only the best devellopers still around.
Good post, quite interesting. I'm particularly interested in your view that Sega's transition to a software only company was a promotion. It seems to me, that it was more like a 'costcutting' exercise for Sega, which doesn't really spell 'promotion' in my book. Still, at least their games will reach a wider audience now - unless of course, they do end up producing solely for Nintendo, and in that event, you certainly can't claim they've progressed.
Some things I'd like to see sometime, though I've never been able to find any, are sales statistics for consoles and games before and after the PSX era, particularly Nintendo's efforts. I've always wanted to know how much wider the market is - just to see a few facts to back up all these theories about the 'Sony effect'. Did Nintendo and Sega lose out, or just not gain enough? And by how much?
I know for a fact that the DC was the most successful Sega console ever in terms of number of sales..... yet halfway through it's life they announce they are to stop supporting it.
I know hwo lost and who gained... but I've never quite understood where all the money went.....
Some things I'd like to see sometime, though I've never been able to find any, are sales statistics for consoles and games before and after the PSX era, particularly Nintendo's efforts. I've always wanted to know how much wider the market is - just to see a few facts to back up all these theories about the 'Sony effect'. Did Nintendo and Sega lose out, or just not gain enough? And by how much?
I know for a fact that the DC was the most successful Sega console ever in terms of number of sales..... yet halfway through it's life they announce they are to stop supporting it.
I know hwo lost and who gained... but I've never quite understood where all the money went.....
Not quite. If I just automatically wrote a long reply, people would assume I was doing so to try to win a game. But to be honest, I just don't care anymore. I want to write a long reply, so I was asking to see what the people wanted.
I'm no Dan. But I'll give it a go.
Firstly. The amount of sequels. Does this signify that games creators are using less imagination to create games? Or are they expanding on a original idea, adding more ideas to it than what they originally came up with?
Perhaps both. Let's say that not all games were created equal. I would expect that many people would agree that the best Tomb Raider was the first one, and all the sequels have been lasy rehashs of it.
I know this sounds really biased, but if you look at the Mario series... each one has been a innovitive game. From the Mario Bros, all the way up to Super Mario 64. Excluding Mario 2 on the Gameboy, and the Mario on the GBA. :0)
Getting back on track, perhaps in the future we will see more sequels. Final Fantasy, Mario, Zelda will go on for as long as people buy the games.
But then, if we look at companies such as Konami and Rare, Konami announced no more MGS, even though they could make millions from more games, and Rareware announced no less than one sequel at E3, and two brand new franchaises. We know that two sequels are being made behind the scenes though... maybe more. :0)
Another point I've mentioned before, is that as soon as graphics can't be improved, game developers can start work again on the old fashioned roots of gaming. I.E. Gameplay, lastability...
Back in the C64 days, nobody gave a rats bottom about graphics. We all thought that they looked great, and at that stage, they did. But we didn't care that the graphics didn't look "real", or didn't refer to them as childish because they had bright colours or small pixelly characters. We just played the games. Why? Because they were fun.
As soon as gaming got popular, it suddenly turned into something that could be described as "cool". Obviously not by me though. I'm a geek, and I always will be.
But as soon as people start finding games trendy, there is always something that happens... if there are trendy games, then there are the uncool games. A balance must be struck.
Yeah, Nintendo. Were Nintendo childish years ago? Hell no. Why? Because they had no competition that made them seem childish. Certainly, gaming was seen as toys then, but the people that played them definitely didn't refer to them as toys.
So when people started to care about the style of games, put forward by the Playstation, then the other end of the scale started to suffer. Geeks suddenly broke from their messy hair cocoon, and entered a whole where people talked about the same things as they did.
The only real loss of this was third parties from Nintendo. But this was mainly due to their arrogant attitude towards cd's. Nintendo knew that they could get more royalties from using carts, so they sticked with them. It cost them dearly.
But strangely, not as much as Sega. And perhaps Sega have the future in their hands now, after being promoted to a games company. Sega know that graphics make a game not, unlike rivals EA. I think EA are shaking in their boots now, Sega make much better sports games than they do... they only have the James Bond, Harry Potter, and SSX licenses to fall back on now. These however, are big sellers, so EA are going to be around for a long time.
Oh yeah future of gaming. Went off track again.
Virtual reality? Not for a while. The hologram idea is good... but, who's got enough money to get it? Everyone that is hated throughout the world, really. ;0)
What about this Majestic game? Perhaps that's the way forward. The idea of mixing games with reality is a good one... but a very dangerous one indeed. I'm not sure of the psychological implementations of this. If you try to mix peoples visions of reality and games, something bad is bound to happen. That's not going to stop me from having a go at it, though. :0)
Ok. What've I said?
Sequels. Didn't really say much about that. Just mumbled about it.
Graphics becoming as good as they get, and gameplay being the main factor.
Gaming suddenly becoming cool. Are games going to become a geek thing again? I doubt it, somehow. Games are too much like films now.
Nintendo being arrogant. I doubt they'll do something like this again. They've learned their lesson.
Sega becoming a part of gaming future. Hopefully. :0)
And then mixing reality with games.
All in all, everything that someone, somewhere, has already written. If you've read this far, I apologise for wasting your time. :0)
I'm no Dan. But I'll give it a go.
Firstly. The amount of sequels. Does this signify that games creators are using less imagination to create games? Or are they expanding on a original idea, adding more ideas to it than what they originally came up with?
Perhaps both. Let's say that not all games were created equal. I would expect that many people would agree that the best Tomb Raider was the first one, and all the sequels have been lasy rehashs of it.
I know this sounds really biased, but if you look at the Mario series... each one has been a innovitive game. From the Mario Bros, all the way up to Super Mario 64. Excluding Mario 2 on the Gameboy, and the Mario on the GBA. :0)
Getting back on track, perhaps in the future we will see more sequels. Final Fantasy, Mario, Zelda will go on for as long as people buy the games.
But then, if we look at companies such as Konami and Rare, Konami announced no more MGS, even though they could make millions from more games, and Rareware announced no less than one sequel at E3, and two brand new franchaises. We know that two sequels are being made behind the scenes though... maybe more. :0)
Another point I've mentioned before, is that as soon as graphics can't be improved, game developers can start work again on the old fashioned roots of gaming. I.E. Gameplay, lastability...
Back in the C64 days, nobody gave a rats bottom about graphics. We all thought that they looked great, and at that stage, they did. But we didn't care that the graphics didn't look "real", or didn't refer to them as childish because they had bright colours or small pixelly characters. We just played the games. Why? Because they were fun.
As soon as gaming got popular, it suddenly turned into something that could be described as "cool". Obviously not by me though. I'm a geek, and I always will be.
But as soon as people start finding games trendy, there is always something that happens... if there are trendy games, then there are the uncool games. A balance must be struck.
Yeah, Nintendo. Were Nintendo childish years ago? Hell no. Why? Because they had no competition that made them seem childish. Certainly, gaming was seen as toys then, but the people that played them definitely didn't refer to them as toys.
So when people started to care about the style of games, put forward by the Playstation, then the other end of the scale started to suffer. Geeks suddenly broke from their messy hair cocoon, and entered a whole where people talked about the same things as they did.
The only real loss of this was third parties from Nintendo. But this was mainly due to their arrogant attitude towards cd's. Nintendo knew that they could get more royalties from using carts, so they sticked with them. It cost them dearly.
But strangely, not as much as Sega. And perhaps Sega have the future in their hands now, after being promoted to a games company. Sega know that graphics make a game not, unlike rivals EA. I think EA are shaking in their boots now, Sega make much better sports games than they do... they only have the James Bond, Harry Potter, and SSX licenses to fall back on now. These however, are big sellers, so EA are going to be around for a long time.
Oh yeah future of gaming. Went off track again.
Virtual reality? Not for a while. The hologram idea is good... but, who's got enough money to get it? Everyone that is hated throughout the world, really. ;0)
What about this Majestic game? Perhaps that's the way forward. The idea of mixing games with reality is a good one... but a very dangerous one indeed. I'm not sure of the psychological implementations of this. If you try to mix peoples visions of reality and games, something bad is bound to happen. That's not going to stop me from having a go at it, though. :0)
Ok. What've I said?
Sequels. Didn't really say much about that. Just mumbled about it.
Graphics becoming as good as they get, and gameplay being the main factor.
Gaming suddenly becoming cool. Are games going to become a geek thing again? I doubt it, somehow. Games are too much like films now.
Nintendo being arrogant. I doubt they'll do something like this again. They've learned their lesson.
Sega becoming a part of gaming future. Hopefully. :0)
And then mixing reality with games.
All in all, everything that someone, somewhere, has already written. If you've read this far, I apologise for wasting your time. :0)
Grix, there's a certain aurora surrounding you posts.
One of big-headdedness
One of big-headdedness
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Do you want a short or long reply now? I may as well give you the choice.
Long reply.
Then see if Dan2K1 can beat it...
> Do you want a short or long reply now? I may as well give you the choice.
Long reply.
Then see if Dan2K1 can beat it...
I read your post from ages ago...
Do you want a short or long reply now? I may as well give you the choice.
Do you want a short or long reply now? I may as well give you the choice.
Hope so. Perhaps they might find something even better than holograms. Something we haven't even dreamt of yet.
After all, before television, people would scoff at the idea of having moving pictures in your living room beamed live from across the world, so think what gaming could acheive given the next advance in technology.
There are always ways to improve and the next surprise is only just around the corner. Given enough incentive and a lucky breakthrough, we may see something special yet!
After all, before television, people would scoff at the idea of having moving pictures in your living room beamed live from across the world, so think what gaming could acheive given the next advance in technology.
There are always ways to improve and the next surprise is only just around the corner. Given enough incentive and a lucky breakthrough, we may see something special yet!
You were one of the very few people who replied.
Anyway. I'm sure as the we'll have a product in 8 or so years when the games industry needs to advance.
Anyway. I'm sure as the we'll have a product in 8 or so years when the games industry needs to advance.
Dan uk wrote:
>Another way that this
> could happen is that games will be played using holograms (an idea
> that I've mentioned hundreds of times but has been ignored every
> single damn time!) where the console shows the game's characters as
> holograms on your very own floor.
Ignored? We would never ignore you Dan! Anyway, everytime you've mentioned the hologram idea, I've mentioned the gas hologram idea. This is already being used (in testing anyway) as a crude form of hologram and looks similar to a hazey version of that game played on the Millenium Falcon, with the hologram beasts.
Problem is, the gas is expensive and not exactly safe enough to sell to children, plus it would be a bit noisy!
>Another way that this
> could happen is that games will be played using holograms (an idea
> that I've mentioned hundreds of times but has been ignored every
> single damn time!) where the console shows the game's characters as
> holograms on your very own floor.
Ignored? We would never ignore you Dan! Anyway, everytime you've mentioned the hologram idea, I've mentioned the gas hologram idea. This is already being used (in testing anyway) as a crude form of hologram and looks similar to a hazey version of that game played on the Millenium Falcon, with the hologram beasts.
Problem is, the gas is expensive and not exactly safe enough to sell to children, plus it would be a bit noisy!
Page: