The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Living in the fantasy failure of Nintendo's world it is easy to be misled.
Lack of games has meant both the Gamecube and the X-box has failed to even dent the monster of the Playstation. Pull out fantastic games all you want, there just isn't enough to please all those billions of games players.
Nintendo promise revolution, Microsoft promise variety... Sony promise to damage the profits of both its rivals even further. One of them is almost certainly correct.
There is always a get out clause for Nintendo, being such a massive games developer themselves they CAN always become a simply 2nd or 3rd party developer. Unless Microsoft can increase the amount of games they have on their system, they have no such get out clause.
Both Microsoft and Nintendo are struggling. Yep Nintendo have a lot of money and so do Microsoft. But neither wish to support a massive loss. We've discussed a combined effort of Microsoft and Nintendo which would increase game out put, fan basses and variety of system capabilties.
It won't happen.
Microsoft will continue to pump money into their dead weight and Nintendo will try and invent another "innovative" idea.
When "revolution" was announced we all looked at the Bongo's, at the DS and at the (shudder) Microphone. Nintendo will add some imagintive new way to play games and hope it'll take off. Nintendo said the DS is a clue to the future of Revolution. What two screens? a microphone built in? Touch screen? What exactly Nintendo, unless all are implemented I cannot see this "revolutionising" gaming... just confusing it.
How about GBA 2? Or GameBoy Evolution. A simple gaming device, plenty of buttons, a nice well made screen, 2 analogue sticks for the ultimate gaming on the go. With revolution graphics.
Certainly that will be possible soon. Handheld gaming just looks better and better and you know it. There is no longer any restrictions.
Especially by 2006.
The revolution of gaming could feature a nice new controller, that in fact could also be a GBE. I don't mean a GBE CAN be used. Rather a GBE has the same buttons as a Revolution Controller.
Is it not time Nintendo really revolutionised gaming with a "GOOD" idea.
Connectivity is the damn future of gaming and you know it. What Nintendo "could" do is endless. 2 versions of the game, one for the GBE and one for the Gamecube. Maybe sold together. Play one, save it to the GBE and continue the GBE version on the go.
Or how about play the game on Revolution and download the game from the disc onto the GBE's format. GBE's games are avalible via download through Revolution.
Maybe I'm going too far here. Downloading the game you are playing to play "on the go" seems daft. Why not simply plug a GBE into the tele and play it straight?
Well Revolution will be this DVD/Music/Internet hybrid. The GBE's late 2006 launch will halt the PSP's advance. And Nintendo will be looking at a system to die for.
Imagine, playing a football game on Revolution. Download the save file on the "memory card" which is specific for the game and is used as the source for the GBE. The game is already on the card but the saved data from the Revolution title can be transferred to it. Then take a bus and continue the game you were playing.
This would sell. It is essentially buy one game and play it wherever you want, on two different systems. Multiplayer avalible via one and single player the other. It would work.
But is the technology ready? Can Nintendo really produce a machine that runs revolution graphics, plays revolution sized games that is easily downloadable onto a memory card? And doesn't eat battery life to death? Well if Nintendo can make a handheld that has 2 processors and 2 screens and still have a good battery life then I don't doubt it for a second. There is no need for a laser, I'm not talking CD's... I don't want some MP3 player hybrid...
And IPODS are lasting longer and longer as batteries become better and better.
Christmas 2006 for the Revolution and the Evolution could be the idea time for a real gaming "revolution". Whether it'll take off or not is a different matter entirely.
Lack of games has meant both the Gamecube and the X-box has failed to even dent the monster of the Playstation. Pull out fantastic games all you want, there just isn't enough to please all those billions of games players.
Nintendo promise revolution, Microsoft promise variety... Sony promise to damage the profits of both its rivals even further. One of them is almost certainly correct.
There is always a get out clause for Nintendo, being such a massive games developer themselves they CAN always become a simply 2nd or 3rd party developer. Unless Microsoft can increase the amount of games they have on their system, they have no such get out clause.
Both Microsoft and Nintendo are struggling. Yep Nintendo have a lot of money and so do Microsoft. But neither wish to support a massive loss. We've discussed a combined effort of Microsoft and Nintendo which would increase game out put, fan basses and variety of system capabilties.
It won't happen.
Microsoft will continue to pump money into their dead weight and Nintendo will try and invent another "innovative" idea.
When "revolution" was announced we all looked at the Bongo's, at the DS and at the (shudder) Microphone. Nintendo will add some imagintive new way to play games and hope it'll take off. Nintendo said the DS is a clue to the future of Revolution. What two screens? a microphone built in? Touch screen? What exactly Nintendo, unless all are implemented I cannot see this "revolutionising" gaming... just confusing it.
How about GBA 2? Or GameBoy Evolution. A simple gaming device, plenty of buttons, a nice well made screen, 2 analogue sticks for the ultimate gaming on the go. With revolution graphics.
Certainly that will be possible soon. Handheld gaming just looks better and better and you know it. There is no longer any restrictions.
Especially by 2006.
The revolution of gaming could feature a nice new controller, that in fact could also be a GBE. I don't mean a GBE CAN be used. Rather a GBE has the same buttons as a Revolution Controller.
Is it not time Nintendo really revolutionised gaming with a "GOOD" idea.
Connectivity is the damn future of gaming and you know it. What Nintendo "could" do is endless. 2 versions of the game, one for the GBE and one for the Gamecube. Maybe sold together. Play one, save it to the GBE and continue the GBE version on the go.
Or how about play the game on Revolution and download the game from the disc onto the GBE's format. GBE's games are avalible via download through Revolution.
Maybe I'm going too far here. Downloading the game you are playing to play "on the go" seems daft. Why not simply plug a GBE into the tele and play it straight?
Well Revolution will be this DVD/Music/Internet hybrid. The GBE's late 2006 launch will halt the PSP's advance. And Nintendo will be looking at a system to die for.
Imagine, playing a football game on Revolution. Download the save file on the "memory card" which is specific for the game and is used as the source for the GBE. The game is already on the card but the saved data from the Revolution title can be transferred to it. Then take a bus and continue the game you were playing.
This would sell. It is essentially buy one game and play it wherever you want, on two different systems. Multiplayer avalible via one and single player the other. It would work.
But is the technology ready? Can Nintendo really produce a machine that runs revolution graphics, plays revolution sized games that is easily downloadable onto a memory card? And doesn't eat battery life to death? Well if Nintendo can make a handheld that has 2 processors and 2 screens and still have a good battery life then I don't doubt it for a second. There is no need for a laser, I'm not talking CD's... I don't want some MP3 player hybrid...
And IPODS are lasting longer and longer as batteries become better and better.
Christmas 2006 for the Revolution and the Evolution could be the idea time for a real gaming "revolution". Whether it'll take off or not is a different matter entirely.
Page:
Azul XXX wrote:
> Apple Crumble wrote:
> I don't have mates
Ahaha.
Some people never give in, do they.
> Apple Crumble wrote:
> I don't have mates
Ahaha.
Some people never give in, do they.
Oh, and I wouldn't even consider playing a handheld console on a bus/train.
Apple Crumble wrote:
> I don't have mates
> I don't have mates
*hides under table*
Dringo wrote:
> But I am a hardcore gamer as well.
Shut up.
Other people may not spend their lives fapping over their favourite games company, writing giant, completely irrelevant essays and browsing the internet to find the latest, up-to-the-minute news about something that won't be out for 3 years, but it doesn't mean they enjoy the games any less than you do. Games are about enjoyment, not about who's a "real gamer".
People who don't care about the politics and business behind gaming might even find them more fun to play in fact, since they actually play the games instead of sitting around in front of a computer reading/typing about them.
> But I am a hardcore gamer as well.
Shut up.
Other people may not spend their lives fapping over their favourite games company, writing giant, completely irrelevant essays and browsing the internet to find the latest, up-to-the-minute news about something that won't be out for 3 years, but it doesn't mean they enjoy the games any less than you do. Games are about enjoyment, not about who's a "real gamer".
People who don't care about the politics and business behind gaming might even find them more fun to play in fact, since they actually play the games instead of sitting around in front of a computer reading/typing about them.
Morbo wrote:
> Apple Crumble wrote:
>
> Plus online play doesn't excite me. 3 mates round, barcadi and
> smirnoff, Halo 2 deatmatch. That's all I need.
>
> Yeah i agree, but if your bored and your mates are not around you
> could play with yourself or with random people on the net. Take it as
> you want.
If I don't have mates round I'll play with my brother.
> Apple Crumble wrote:
>
> Plus online play doesn't excite me. 3 mates round, barcadi and
> smirnoff, Halo 2 deatmatch. That's all I need.
>
> Yeah i agree, but if your bored and your mates are not around you
> could play with yourself or with random people on the net. Take it as
> you want.
If I don't have mates round I'll play with my brother.
lcarus wrote:
> So you're not even going to try Halo 2 (or even Burnout 3) on Live
> then, despite having both the kit and the connection?
Nope.
£30 quid a year or a couple of mates?
I'll go my chums.
One of my friends has Live anyway, so I'll play over his.
> So you're not even going to try Halo 2 (or even Burnout 3) on Live
> then, despite having both the kit and the connection?
Nope.
£30 quid a year or a couple of mates?
I'll go my chums.
One of my friends has Live anyway, so I'll play over his.
Apple Crumble wrote:
>
> Plus online play doesn't excite me. 3 mates round, barcadi and
> smirnoff, Halo 2 deatmatch. That's all I need.
Yeah i agree, but if your bored and your mates are not around you could play with yourself or with random people on the net. Take it as you want.
>
> Plus online play doesn't excite me. 3 mates round, barcadi and
> smirnoff, Halo 2 deatmatch. That's all I need.
Yeah i agree, but if your bored and your mates are not around you could play with yourself or with random people on the net. Take it as you want.
So you're not even going to try Halo 2 (or even Burnout 3) on Live then, despite having both the kit and the connection?
I've got PGR2, Top Spin, Burnout 3 and Halo 2 is on the way.
Page: