The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Wilmaaaaa wrote:
> SEGA killed originality,hmmmmm,i dont think so,look at some DC
> titles that have given us original ideas.Crazy Taxi,Samba di
> Amigo,Bass Fishing,lopads more,but i agree on Nintendo,they dont do
> anything other than pokemon at the mo...tisk tisk
It's generally accepted that you should put a space after punctuation.
> SEGA killed originality,hmmmmm,i dont think so,look at some DC
> titles that have given us original ideas.Crazy Taxi,Samba di
> Amigo,Bass Fishing,lopads more,but i agree on Nintendo,they dont do
> anything other than pokemon at the mo...tisk tisk
It's generally accepted that you should put a space after punctuation.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> 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
Ah, the sequel argument again. Also known as the, 'pure rubbish' argument.
> 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
Ah, the sequel argument again. Also known as the, 'pure rubbish' argument.
Agreed, Ant.
Wilmaaaaa wrote:
> SEGA killed originality,hmmmmm,i dont think so,look at some DC
> titles that have given us original ideas.Crazy Taxi,Samba di
> Amigo,Bass Fishing,lopads more,but i agree on Nintendo,they dont do
> anything other than pokemon at the mo...tisk tisk
The main point being not that originality had been completly wipped out... more that it had been replaced in favour of more standardised titles...
That whereas in the past 4 out of every 10 titles may have been trying something completly new... with Sega and Nintendo, it came down to .5 out of 10... 1 in every 20...
And that when new titles were released... (excatly those mentioned abve) that they were, more often than not, novelty titles... and written to be novelty titles...
Very few games, have, by their innovation sparked off a whole new genre, or style of genre that has been adopted by any other developers ala Tomb Raider, Dune2, Wolfenstein3d...
> SEGA killed originality,hmmmmm,i dont think so,look at some DC
> titles that have given us original ideas.Crazy Taxi,Samba di
> Amigo,Bass Fishing,lopads more,but i agree on Nintendo,they dont do
> anything other than pokemon at the mo...tisk tisk
The main point being not that originality had been completly wipped out... more that it had been replaced in favour of more standardised titles...
That whereas in the past 4 out of every 10 titles may have been trying something completly new... with Sega and Nintendo, it came down to .5 out of 10... 1 in every 20...
And that when new titles were released... (excatly those mentioned abve) that they were, more often than not, novelty titles... and written to be novelty titles...
Very few games, have, by their innovation sparked off a whole new genre, or style of genre that has been adopted by any other developers ala Tomb Raider, Dune2, Wolfenstein3d...
turbonutter wrote:
> 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.
Stop moaning!! Come here to discuss, don't come here towin.
Also, you're probably not winning as you're trying too hard.
> 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.
Stop moaning!! Come here to discuss, don't come here towin.
Also, you're probably not winning as you're trying too hard.
I will come here to discuss regardless but I really don't see why that topic won over mine. Normally I don't care but I really want to win so I can get GT3. What's the point in having a competition if you're not going to award it to people who try to win?
True i suppose, i haven't read your topic so i can't comment.
You should. Do you wnt me to POP it?
Page: