The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Okay... probably not the most popular opinion on the site...
But, look at it this way...
Starting in the seventies, and early-late eighties, Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, et al. pretty much owned the console market... with a large array of different PC's (Speccy, C64, Dragon, Amstrad, etc....) owning the gaming computers market share...
Games although initially very basic, they advanced at quite a startling rate (with little to no expansion on the initial systems hardware spec... The C64 was the same system I the late eighties that it was in the early... even if it did have a different case)... and were often remarkably complex...
However the important thing was that games were on the whole unique... Although many didn’t ideas really work... and there were many clones (three were/are more Pac Man clones around than should be feasibly possible)... There were two original gaming styles for every clone written...
Equally... Games weren’t just unique in that gaming genres... platformers, shootemups, etc were not around or were still developing... which in some ways is true... but in others... (There were an enormous number of scrolling platform games written before '85... With just as many vertical, and side scrolling shootemups... and more than enough 3D games (though lacking a little in image mapping)
As much as developing new games and gaming styles, people were trying new ideas out all the time, different ways of doing the same thing, new slants on old ideas...
Although, with the release of the NES and Master Systems in the US and Europe things started to change, games stopped trying out so many new ideas... with side scrolling platformers, Golden Axe style beatem-ups, side scrolling shootemups, etc.. Filling a larger percentage of the release charts. New ideas we replaced with games that guaranteed cash... developed within a limited number of gaming genres...
Even killing off a number of then exceptionally popular genres (Arcade Adventures anyone?)
Now, this could have been because of the larger market base, games having more money used, spent on advertising, TV spots, etc..
However, the earlier systems (Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, etc...) had used the same marketing techniques, and kept a wider range of gaming styles...
And more importantly, the latest crop of computer systems (STs, Amiga, the newly VGA'ed PCs) which were going strong during the times of the NES, Master System, MegaDrive, SNES, etc... Were still mass-producing new gameplay styles, elements, and attempts... A place where new ideas and concepts were still being created...
This was all before the release of Sony’s system... which in one sense means that the large number of people and costs in development of a computer games hadn’t really arrived yet... groups of 3-4 people were enough to write a hit title... often still one coder did the whole job...
Equally, it pretty much killed the chances of, in these high profile, high cost, title times, that new ideas are rarely tried and even more rarely accepted...
It was, it would appear Nintendo and SEGAS responsibility that new games ideas, and original concepts are much more scarce in today’s systems... (and not Sonys after all)... That original ideas are put over in 'novelty' releases, rather than in the attempt to create new gaming genres, new styles, in computer entertainment development...
Not to worry though huh? :)
But, look at it this way...
Starting in the seventies, and early-late eighties, Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, et al. pretty much owned the console market... with a large array of different PC's (Speccy, C64, Dragon, Amstrad, etc....) owning the gaming computers market share...
Games although initially very basic, they advanced at quite a startling rate (with little to no expansion on the initial systems hardware spec... The C64 was the same system I the late eighties that it was in the early... even if it did have a different case)... and were often remarkably complex...
However the important thing was that games were on the whole unique... Although many didn’t ideas really work... and there were many clones (three were/are more Pac Man clones around than should be feasibly possible)... There were two original gaming styles for every clone written...
Equally... Games weren’t just unique in that gaming genres... platformers, shootemups, etc were not around or were still developing... which in some ways is true... but in others... (There were an enormous number of scrolling platform games written before '85... With just as many vertical, and side scrolling shootemups... and more than enough 3D games (though lacking a little in image mapping)
As much as developing new games and gaming styles, people were trying new ideas out all the time, different ways of doing the same thing, new slants on old ideas...
Although, with the release of the NES and Master Systems in the US and Europe things started to change, games stopped trying out so many new ideas... with side scrolling platformers, Golden Axe style beatem-ups, side scrolling shootemups, etc.. Filling a larger percentage of the release charts. New ideas we replaced with games that guaranteed cash... developed within a limited number of gaming genres...
Even killing off a number of then exceptionally popular genres (Arcade Adventures anyone?)
Now, this could have been because of the larger market base, games having more money used, spent on advertising, TV spots, etc..
However, the earlier systems (Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, etc...) had used the same marketing techniques, and kept a wider range of gaming styles...
And more importantly, the latest crop of computer systems (STs, Amiga, the newly VGA'ed PCs) which were going strong during the times of the NES, Master System, MegaDrive, SNES, etc... Were still mass-producing new gameplay styles, elements, and attempts... A place where new ideas and concepts were still being created...
This was all before the release of Sony’s system... which in one sense means that the large number of people and costs in development of a computer games hadn’t really arrived yet... groups of 3-4 people were enough to write a hit title... often still one coder did the whole job...
Equally, it pretty much killed the chances of, in these high profile, high cost, title times, that new ideas are rarely tried and even more rarely accepted...
It was, it would appear Nintendo and SEGAS responsibility that new games ideas, and original concepts are much more scarce in today’s systems... (and not Sonys after all)... That original ideas are put over in 'novelty' releases, rather than in the attempt to create new gaming genres, new styles, in computer entertainment development...
Not to worry though huh? :)
Page:
Okay... probably not the most popular opinion on the site...
But, look at it this way...
Starting in the seventies, and early-late eighties, Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, et al. pretty much owned the console market... with a large array of different PC's (Speccy, C64, Dragon, Amstrad, etc....) owning the gaming computers market share...
Games although initially very basic, they advanced at quite a startling rate (with little to no expansion on the initial systems hardware spec... The C64 was the same system I the late eighties that it was in the early... even if it did have a different case)... and were often remarkably complex...
However the important thing was that games were on the whole unique... Although many didn’t ideas really work... and there were many clones (three were/are more Pac Man clones around than should be feasibly possible)... There were two original gaming styles for every clone written...
Equally... Games weren’t just unique in that gaming genres... platformers, shootemups, etc were not around or were still developing... which in some ways is true... but in others... (There were an enormous number of scrolling platform games written before '85... With just as many vertical, and side scrolling shootemups... and more than enough 3D games (though lacking a little in image mapping)
As much as developing new games and gaming styles, people were trying new ideas out all the time, different ways of doing the same thing, new slants on old ideas...
Although, with the release of the NES and Master Systems in the US and Europe things started to change, games stopped trying out so many new ideas... with side scrolling platformers, Golden Axe style beatem-ups, side scrolling shootemups, etc.. Filling a larger percentage of the release charts. New ideas we replaced with games that guaranteed cash... developed within a limited number of gaming genres...
Even killing off a number of then exceptionally popular genres (Arcade Adventures anyone?)
Now, this could have been because of the larger market base, games having more money used, spent on advertising, TV spots, etc..
However, the earlier systems (Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, etc...) had used the same marketing techniques, and kept a wider range of gaming styles...
And more importantly, the latest crop of computer systems (STs, Amiga, the newly VGA'ed PCs) which were going strong during the times of the NES, Master System, MegaDrive, SNES, etc... Were still mass-producing new gameplay styles, elements, and attempts... A place where new ideas and concepts were still being created...
This was all before the release of Sony’s system... which in one sense means that the large number of people and costs in development of a computer games hadn’t really arrived yet... groups of 3-4 people were enough to write a hit title... often still one coder did the whole job...
Equally, it pretty much killed the chances of, in these high profile, high cost, title times, that new ideas are rarely tried and even more rarely accepted...
It was, it would appear Nintendo and SEGAS responsibility that new games ideas, and original concepts are much more scarce in today’s systems... (and not Sonys after all)... That original ideas are put over in 'novelty' releases, rather than in the attempt to create new gaming genres, new styles, in computer entertainment development...
Not to worry though huh? :)
But, look at it this way...
Starting in the seventies, and early-late eighties, Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, et al. pretty much owned the console market... with a large array of different PC's (Speccy, C64, Dragon, Amstrad, etc....) owning the gaming computers market share...
Games although initially very basic, they advanced at quite a startling rate (with little to no expansion on the initial systems hardware spec... The C64 was the same system I the late eighties that it was in the early... even if it did have a different case)... and were often remarkably complex...
However the important thing was that games were on the whole unique... Although many didn’t ideas really work... and there were many clones (three were/are more Pac Man clones around than should be feasibly possible)... There were two original gaming styles for every clone written...
Equally... Games weren’t just unique in that gaming genres... platformers, shootemups, etc were not around or were still developing... which in some ways is true... but in others... (There were an enormous number of scrolling platform games written before '85... With just as many vertical, and side scrolling shootemups... and more than enough 3D games (though lacking a little in image mapping)
As much as developing new games and gaming styles, people were trying new ideas out all the time, different ways of doing the same thing, new slants on old ideas...
Although, with the release of the NES and Master Systems in the US and Europe things started to change, games stopped trying out so many new ideas... with side scrolling platformers, Golden Axe style beatem-ups, side scrolling shootemups, etc.. Filling a larger percentage of the release charts. New ideas we replaced with games that guaranteed cash... developed within a limited number of gaming genres...
Even killing off a number of then exceptionally popular genres (Arcade Adventures anyone?)
Now, this could have been because of the larger market base, games having more money used, spent on advertising, TV spots, etc..
However, the earlier systems (Atari, Coleco, Intellivision, etc...) had used the same marketing techniques, and kept a wider range of gaming styles...
And more importantly, the latest crop of computer systems (STs, Amiga, the newly VGA'ed PCs) which were going strong during the times of the NES, Master System, MegaDrive, SNES, etc... Were still mass-producing new gameplay styles, elements, and attempts... A place where new ideas and concepts were still being created...
This was all before the release of Sony’s system... which in one sense means that the large number of people and costs in development of a computer games hadn’t really arrived yet... groups of 3-4 people were enough to write a hit title... often still one coder did the whole job...
Equally, it pretty much killed the chances of, in these high profile, high cost, title times, that new ideas are rarely tried and even more rarely accepted...
It was, it would appear Nintendo and SEGAS responsibility that new games ideas, and original concepts are much more scarce in today’s systems... (and not Sonys after all)... That original ideas are put over in 'novelty' releases, rather than in the attempt to create new gaming genres, new styles, in computer entertainment development...
Not to worry though huh? :)
I don't have much time to write a long reply but
Nintendo's Mario really created the 2D side scrolling platform.
Sega's Sonic created the 2D side scrolling platformer but with the ability of going forward and back.
so i disagree.
Nintendo's Mario really created the 2D side scrolling platform.
Sega's Sonic created the 2D side scrolling platformer but with the ability of going forward and back.
so i disagree.
Ö=ResŒvilfan=Ö wrote:
> I don't have much time to write a long reply but
Nintendo's Mario
> really created the 2D side scrolling platform.
Sega's Sonic
> created the 2D side scrolling platformer but with the ability of
> going forward and back.
> so i disagree.
Ther were already hundreds (literally) of sideways scrollers for the computers before the release of Super Mario Bros. in Japan (several years before we got out hands on it)
There were also quite a few 2 way scrollers out... I always understood sonics big thing to be his speed?...
Neither of these are new innovations in the field?
> I don't have much time to write a long reply but
Nintendo's Mario
> really created the 2D side scrolling platform.
Sega's Sonic
> created the 2D side scrolling platformer but with the ability of
> going forward and back.
> so i disagree.
Ther were already hundreds (literally) of sideways scrollers for the computers before the release of Super Mario Bros. in Japan (several years before we got out hands on it)
There were also quite a few 2 way scrollers out... I always understood sonics big thing to be his speed?...
Neither of these are new innovations in the field?
In a way I agree Shanks, but not totally. I mean, where would gaming be without little old Mario runnig around the screen, or Sonic jumping and rolling all over the place. Sonic and Mario are the to that really gave gaming a boost.
:)
:)
Partly true but Nintendo and Sega standardised the games market more than ruined it. If it was not for standardisation a lot of the companies would have gone bust because of the price of developing for so many different systems and there were quite a few. Also nowadays there would be more lawsuits as you would not be allowed to make a console that played other consoles games straight out the box without their permission. Simply patents and copyright.
But Sega and Nintendo have brought some innovations to gaming in other ways. Sega made Jet Set Radio which is an innovative game as there is nothing like it, that I know of any way. Also Phantasy Star Online was innovative in tha it was an online console game and there is the speech system that lets you speak to people in other languages. Nintendo innovated with the Transfer Pak and Pokemon Stadium and Hey You Pikachu. So in some ways you are right but Sega and Nintendo have helped gaming more than we give them credit for. Sony have ruined it with boring bad sequels.
Biggles
But Sega and Nintendo have brought some innovations to gaming in other ways. Sega made Jet Set Radio which is an innovative game as there is nothing like it, that I know of any way. Also Phantasy Star Online was innovative in tha it was an online console game and there is the speech system that lets you speak to people in other languages. Nintendo innovated with the Transfer Pak and Pokemon Stadium and Hey You Pikachu. So in some ways you are right but Sega and Nintendo have helped gaming more than we give them credit for. Sony have ruined it with boring bad sequels.
Biggles
I don't like you Biggles.
Maybe the console market wasn't that popular.
Page: