The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Oh right, well if it's just PGR2, then I can understand why. I found the game dull.
Ah, edited. I'll be using multiplayer as well, most probably for the co-op; but if you can have both...
Ah, edited. I'll be using multiplayer as well, most probably for the co-op; but if you can have both...
Apple Crumble wrote:
> lcarus wrote:
> Fair enough, but if you had broadband, you'd probably go the whole
> hog
> and buy a starter kit for it too?
>
> I've got BT Broadband, Live loaded up on my Xbox and a starter kit
> from when I bought PGR2
>
> It's just the PC's downstairs and I can't be anused to set it up.
>
Plus online play doesn't excite me. 3 mates round, barcadi and smirnoff, Halo 2 deatmatch. That's all I need.
> lcarus wrote:
> Fair enough, but if you had broadband, you'd probably go the whole
> hog
> and buy a starter kit for it too?
>
> I've got BT Broadband, Live loaded up on my Xbox and a starter kit
> from when I bought PGR2
>
> It's just the PC's downstairs and I can't be anused to set it up.
>
Plus online play doesn't excite me. 3 mates round, barcadi and smirnoff, Halo 2 deatmatch. That's all I need.
Dringo wrote:
> No Icarus I know 3 "casual" x-box owners and none of them
> own Live.
>
> And it is something like 1 million LIVE users at the moment. Which is
> utterly terrible!!
>
> There are loads and I mean millions of hardcore gamers who'd play
> LIVE but it doesn't appeal to the casual gamer.
And you're certain about this... how? Your particular survey involves 3 Xbox owners. Like, wow. Do they even have broadband? Ask those 3, if they would like to play online with voice on their Xbox, would they take up the chance?
>
So I'm not a casual gamer because I own Live? Pathetic, it's not black & white buddy.
> What tempts you with an X-box?
>
> Halo.
>
> Live.
>
> Other...
>
> I'm betting 80% halo, 15% live and 5% other.
Not really, the other games I buy for it are multi format; but because they're usually best played on the Xbox, hence me going for them.
And what tempts me and others with the Xbox is certainly a lot more than what tempts me with the competition.
> No Icarus I know 3 "casual" x-box owners and none of them
> own Live.
>
> And it is something like 1 million LIVE users at the moment. Which is
> utterly terrible!!
>
> There are loads and I mean millions of hardcore gamers who'd play
> LIVE but it doesn't appeal to the casual gamer.
And you're certain about this... how? Your particular survey involves 3 Xbox owners. Like, wow. Do they even have broadband? Ask those 3, if they would like to play online with voice on their Xbox, would they take up the chance?
>
So I'm not a casual gamer because I own Live? Pathetic, it's not black & white buddy.
> What tempts you with an X-box?
>
> Halo.
>
> Live.
>
> Other...
>
> I'm betting 80% halo, 15% live and 5% other.
Not really, the other games I buy for it are multi format; but because they're usually best played on the Xbox, hence me going for them.
And what tempts me and others with the Xbox is certainly a lot more than what tempts me with the competition.
I think connectivety is a good idea, it's spawned soem nice ideas, but it really isn't the future of gaming. It's a nice innovation but not the way Nintendo should be heading. They may as well just dig themselves a big hole to live it. It would be quicker after all.
I love Nintendo's little innovations, I really do (as stupid as some *coughmiccough* may be), but their emphasis on connectivety is just ridiculous. It's expensive, it's limited and it's a very niche market.
I enjoyed Pac-Man, I'll enjoy Four Swords, but really, why don't they just go back to what they do best, making great games? Their need to inject innovation into everything is getting annoying now. I want Zelda, not four stupid gits sitting aroudn with GBA's.
I want classic Nintendo damnit.
I love Nintendo's little innovations, I really do (as stupid as some *coughmiccough* may be), but their emphasis on connectivety is just ridiculous. It's expensive, it's limited and it's a very niche market.
I enjoyed Pac-Man, I'll enjoy Four Swords, but really, why don't they just go back to what they do best, making great games? Their need to inject innovation into everything is getting annoying now. I want Zelda, not four stupid gits sitting aroudn with GBA's.
I want classic Nintendo damnit.
I don't play games online.
But I am a hardcore gamer as well.
But I am a hardcore gamer as well.
Oh, okay then.
Well, I'm more of a 'I like games but I'm not an online nutcase' gamer.
Well, I'm more of a 'I like games but I'm not an online nutcase' gamer.
No you are not.
The fact you come online and discuss it means you are far from an adult gamer. You have opinions on games and know what is coming out.
Casual gamers are a gamer that gets magazines for cheats and doesn't know about half the releases that are coming unless they see it on the tele or in a magazine.
The fact you come online and discuss it means you are far from an adult gamer. You have opinions on games and know what is coming out.
Casual gamers are a gamer that gets magazines for cheats and doesn't know about half the releases that are coming unless they see it on the tele or in a magazine.
lcarus wrote:
> Fair enough, but if you had broadband, you'd probably go the whole hog
> and buy a starter kit for it too?
I've got BT Broadband, Live loaded up on my Xbox and a starter kit from when I bought PGR2
It's just the PC's downstairs and I can't be anused to set it up.
Plus I'm a casual gamer.
> Fair enough, but if you had broadband, you'd probably go the whole hog
> and buy a starter kit for it too?
I've got BT Broadband, Live loaded up on my Xbox and a starter kit from when I bought PGR2
It's just the PC's downstairs and I can't be anused to set it up.
Plus I'm a casual gamer.
Whitestripes X wrote:
> Ah yes, Xbox Live. The amazing service that roughly 8% of Xbox owners
> actually use.
>
> STUNNING SELLING
> POINT!"!!"$!"¬£$£!"!$£""!£$]4213p
Wahey. Here he is.
> Ah yes, Xbox Live. The amazing service that roughly 8% of Xbox owners
> actually use.
>
> STUNNING SELLING
> POINT!"!!"$!"¬£$£!"!$£""!£$]4213p
Wahey. Here he is.
No Icarus I know 3 "casual" x-box owners and none of them own Live.
And it is something like 1 million LIVE users at the moment. Which is utterly terrible!!
There are loads and I mean millions of hardcore gamers who'd play LIVE but it doesn't appeal to the casual gamer.
Go on get a survey and go around Game shops asking people
What tempts you with an X-box?
Halo.
Live.
Other...
I'm betting 80% halo, 15% live and 5% other.
And it is something like 1 million LIVE users at the moment. Which is utterly terrible!!
There are loads and I mean millions of hardcore gamers who'd play LIVE but it doesn't appeal to the casual gamer.
Go on get a survey and go around Game shops asking people
What tempts you with an X-box?
Halo.
Live.
Other...
I'm betting 80% halo, 15% live and 5% other.
Page: