The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
In response to original topic (I don't have time tonight to read all messages)
You say Nintendo killed originality, however you also mention new genres in videogames including platformers.
Wasn't Donkey Kong, Nintendo's arcade game, the first platformer?
I rest my case!
Anyway, Nintendo made arcade games whilst the first home systems were out, Sega did and still do make games for home systems and arcades!
So they were there along with the first home systems!
You say Nintendo killed originality, however you also mention new genres in videogames including platformers.
Wasn't Donkey Kong, Nintendo's arcade game, the first platformer?
I rest my case!
Anyway, Nintendo made arcade games whilst the first home systems were out, Sega did and still do make games for home systems and arcades!
So they were there along with the first home systems!
Sega and Nintendo did take away some innovation but they made up for it in other areas. Like rumble paks.
Biggles
Biggles
Super Gohan wrote:
> Armitage Shanks, you said that Atari (among others) owned the
> console market. But, Atari went bankrupt, so they can't have been
> that popular, could they.
They had the longest lasting console ever produced...
The Atari 2600... realeased in '77 ... and was in production constantly until '89...
Atari, not popular? ... Pong anyone? :)
> Armitage Shanks, you said that Atari (among others) owned the
> console market. But, Atari went bankrupt, so they can't have been
> that popular, could they.
They had the longest lasting console ever produced...
The Atari 2600... realeased in '77 ... and was in production constantly until '89...
Atari, not popular? ... Pong anyone? :)
Edgy wrote:
Wasn't
> Donkey Kong, Nintendo's arcade game, the first platformer?
That was an Arcade game NOT a console or PC title... Also I was refering to their work sine the release of the NES+ in the US and Europe (not Japan)
However, I understand that since they put that info up on their site, they have had a number of people disputing the validity of the statement... It'll be interesting to see if the statement changes? :)
Anyway, Nintendo made arcade games whilst the first home
> systems were out, Sega did and still do make games for home systems
> and arcades!
So they were there along with the first home
> systems!
I think your missing the point here man? :)
Wasn't
> Donkey Kong, Nintendo's arcade game, the first platformer?
That was an Arcade game NOT a console or PC title... Also I was refering to their work sine the release of the NES+ in the US and Europe (not Japan)
However, I understand that since they put that info up on their site, they have had a number of people disputing the validity of the statement... It'll be interesting to see if the statement changes? :)
Anyway, Nintendo made arcade games whilst the first home
> systems were out, Sega did and still do make games for home systems
> and arcades!
So they were there along with the first home
> systems!
I think your missing the point here man? :)
Of cause Sega and Nintendo are original. Take Shenmue for example, it's an all new genre (FREE). Sega and Nintendo have always been at the cutting edge of originality, quality and fun games. They will always be the best and the only consoles I buy will be the ones that have either Sega or Nintendo making games for them.
YES TO GAMECUBE!
YES TO GAMECUBE!
Namostar wrote:
> AS, being that this is a good, well written topic, why didn't you
> post it in the prime forum?
lol... Cheers man...
Errm.. I guess, because its not a topic I was taking too seriously :)
Mainly though, because Chat is a better place to get a discussion than prime... No Console wars arguments in it as yet! :P
> AS, being that this is a good, well written topic, why didn't you
> post it in the prime forum?
lol... Cheers man...
Errm.. I guess, because its not a topic I was taking too seriously :)
Mainly though, because Chat is a better place to get a discussion than prime... No Console wars arguments in it as yet! :P
My God, this beat my topic about mascots? That's it, I'm convinced SR don't like me. Usually I wouldn't mind because I love this place but I'm really trying hard so I can get GT3. Maybe SR won't give me a GAD because they know they'll lose the sale? Well you know what? I might not buy it from here anyway.
I know exactly how Dan felt that time, and I can forgive him for it.
I know exactly how Dan felt that time, and I can forgive him for it.
Welcome to the wall, Turbonutter.
Yep, haven't won a gameaday since april.
Might be something to do with not writing anything good enough though....nah.....
As long as I don't mention filmaday, I'll be alright.
d'oh!
Might be something to do with not writing anything good enough though....nah.....
As long as I don't mention filmaday, I'll be alright.
d'oh!
Page: