Viewing Thread:
"It's by me, so it must be good? Right?"

This post may seem as though it's having a go at Sony and the PS2, but it's not. Sony are in business to make money, to be succesful, and they have achieved that, so all credit to them. This post is about my annoyance with people who complain about the lack of originality in the games market today, yet then confess to owning a PS2. Excuse me?! How can you say that?

If you like the sort of games available for the PS2, fine, no problem, but why do some people who do that then complain about the lack or originality? I'm not getting at specific people here, just the populace in general. And I'm not just throwing wild accusations around because of my dislike for Sony and the PS2. I grudgingly respect the both of them. What I'm complaining about lies in fact, and can bu summed up by this simple statement:

The PS2 has the largest number of least original titles EVER.

Simple. I don't mean sequels either, all platforms have sequels. I'm talking about genre defining games. All platforms have those as well, except the PS2. The PC probably has most, simply due to the nature of the system. Let's have a look at a few "acknowledged classics" of recent times, shall we?

Black and White (PC), Deus Ex (PC), Jet Set Radio (DC), Goldeneye (N64), Zelda (N64), Tony Hawks (PSX), Half Life (PC), M:SR (DC), this list goes on and on. Yet none of these titles appeared initially on the PS2. Why not? I know that the PS2 is still young as a console, but there are games scheduled for both the XBox and 'Cube that will push genres to their limits, maybe even begin new genres. Please, don't throw the old "What about GT3?" at me either. The game that Sony is using to sell their next-gen console is a re-hash of a 3 year old game, but with better graphics. 'Nuff said.

Is Sony's position a reflection the the state of the industry at the moment? At a time when more people are involved in emulation than with online games (emulation fans number in their millions, as opposed to the mere tens of thousands who play online), it seems that we are aching to get back to the roots of gaming, rather than embrace new things. Maybe Sony have it right?

Maybe it is because the money men have taken over the industry. No longer can someone program a game in their bedroom, take it to the local computer shop for people to try out, and it get turned into a multiplatform, multi-title, million dollar franchise, which is what happened with Worms. That just won't happen any more. Games companies are run by business men, not programmers.

The sole purpose of a games company is to make money, and if they have a product that will sell to the masses, how-ever boring or rubbish it is, they will make it. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire anyone? Countless TombRaider clones? Countless The Sims add-ons. But can you really blame them for not wanting to try anything different? Look at MS Train Sim, how many jokes, how much ridicule was there about that game, just because it was trying to be different?

Luckily, some developers do have the money, the inspiration and the name to pull something new out of the bag. Games like Max Payne, B&W, Jet Set Radio etc, the ones I mentioned earlier. All either new genres, or pushing an exisitng genre to it's limits. It seems though, that you need to be an established name in the industry, before you get to go your own way. Peter Molyneux (B&W) and Warren Spector (Deus Ex) both started out in the gaming industry, when you could just get a couple of people together and make a classic. It is harder now for new people/companies to do that.

I just hope that with (hopefully) all the new gamers that are brought into our fantastic gaming world by the new consoles, the developers will pay attention, and gives us the original titles we need. Also, next time you complain about the lack of originality, just check to make sure you're not actually contributing to the amount of dross we have to put up with at the moment.

Personally, I think that Sega's different devellopment teams have split up and each are backing a different platform.

You the PS2 has a new "Rez" game.
I suppose the PS2 is getting more than simple DC conversions after all...

Your Honour wrote:
> Which could be why developers like
> Sega are relesing their more..... bizarre titles, such as MokeyBall,
> on other platforms.


Hmm... check out 'Rez', coming soon to PS2 from Sega. If that isn't new and bizarre...

Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
Truly original games are hard to come by on any platform these
> days, in my view the subject - though maybe not intended by YH in
> his original post - is just another poor attmempt at knocking the
> PS2, after everything else has failed.


Ok, perhaps I need to make myslef clear here, so as to make sure I'm not mis-interpreted.

What I was saying was that from what I've seen, the PS2 has the least number of genre defining titles.

As it's already been said, if an FPS is released on a PC, it's immediately compared to Half Life, if one is released on a conmsole, its compared to Goldeneye.

The PS2 doesn't seem to have any of these titles.

But I didn't say that was a bad thing.

IT could be that Sony are supplying gamers with what they want. A console that plays good games. With the titles that are out there, you know what you're getting. It's all standard stuff.

In an age where more people are in on the emulation scene (fans number in their millions) than play online (merely 10's of thousands) it would seem that gamers like to know what they are getting. It's the old "If it ain't broke" scenario.

Which could be why developers like Sega are relesing their more..... bizarre titles, such as MokeyBall, on other platforms.

Sorted.

Yep, now I'm certain.

Strafex wrote:
> Most devellopers are idiots. They think that he
> billions of PS owners automatically got a PS2 and still release as
> much as they possibly can.

Well, if there *is* a problem with PS2 games, then that is it - the developers. Unfortunately, many are happy to churn out the same old pap time and again (3DO/Army Men anyone?)

There no valid reason that any game on PS2, GC, DC or Xbox can't be developed for every other platform, and indeed many are appearing on all of the platforms. The only reason(s) - in most cases - that platform A gets a game before platform B (exclusives omitted) is the development cost. To get a game out for all four platforms at the would require four dedicated teams, and only the very largest software houses could afford that.

Even the 'mighty' EA can't manage it. They have a dedicated PS2 team for Madden, and a dedicated PC team for the same game. PS2 is EA's primary development platform, and as such the PS2 gets the best version of the games. Madden 2002 on PC is receiving many of the features that were in Madden 2001 - while Madden 2002 on PS2 is having new innovations, which will no doubt pass down to Madden 2003 for PC next year.

And so it goes on. Being first with a game isn't *always* best, though. Giants is coming to PS2 with gameplay tweaks and many more polys than the PC version. The developers of Deus Ex have listened to criticism of the original PC game and are improving aspects of it for the PS2 release. So in the end, everything evens out.


> Although there are enough decent games
> on there (the ones you've bought), there's atleast 10 times as much
> drivel

I have no argument there, but then it's often worth sifting through the rocks to find the precious gems - of which PS1 owners had plenty, and so too will PS2 owners.


> Which is my point against your "Sega using the cube as a crap filter" comment.

That comment was made mostly tongue in cheek!


> Mainly multiplayer - PS2 CAN do multiplayer but more often than not, it
> doesn't

Ah, but whose fault is that? Certainly not Sony's or PS2's. There is absolutely no reason that PS2 games can't be multiplayer - and yes, I include 4-player in that. People constantly throw up the multitap argument, but in my opinion, it isn't valid. The multitap is not expensive (thir-party ones are even cheaper), and even if it were, it is a one-time investment. If the software justifies it, people will buy multitaps. Even on a Dreamcast, Gamecube and Xbox, there is still additional investment to be made in three extra controllers - so why is a multitap such a big deal?


> It's a new idea - most PS2 owners prefer tried and tested,
> just like YH said.

That may or may not be true, but then the same argument could be levelled at Sonic, Pokemon and Mario games. Sure, the format may have changed, but it's still a tried and tested brand that they know is going to sell.


> But, most people in this forum think that the future of
> gaming is elsewhere.

Ah, but could that not be because those people still need to convince themselves? After all, none of them actually have the machine they're shouting about yet. PS2 owners - in general, but with the odd idiotic exception - don't feel the need to shout about it, as they have it and are content, not feeling the need to justify it.

Sure, I always defend the PS2 when I feel it necessary, but I've never started a thread about how great I think it is. I know that PS2 is here to stay, simply because it has the brand, the software, the backing and the sales to ensure that developers can't ignore it. Of course there will be better machines - time waits for no man, and nor does technology - but PS2 has the ammo to fight any battle.

But to be honest, I don't think PS2 has to fight a battle.

Nintendo aren't direct competition with Sony, as both companies have both admitted - their *primary* target audiences are very different. I have to be honest and say that, any and all bias aside, my own opinion is that if they *were* in direct competition, Nintendo would lose.

Xbox is another matter. Mr Gates doesn't like Sony, and the machine is very similar to PS2 in what it offers. Both companies are giants, and Xbox is supposedly superior (I know what the specs say, but specs aren't everything, as we already know) - but Sony aren't as widely disliked as Microsoft. And while Mr Gates may be throwing millions at the advertising, the fact is that Microsoft has to create and sustain an image of 'cool' - something which Sony already have, and something which the very name 'Microsoft' betrays.

That said, and as FM has said elsewhere, I think the modern market is big enough to take all three machines. Unfortunately, as Sega have proven, good games are not sufficient to sustain a console platform. The only thing needed to sustain a console is funding, and all three companies seem to have that.

Are you all doing this deliberately because I have a monitor that can't display a resoultion higher than 800x600? Well, I'm warning you, when I get my new 17" TFT, then you'll be sorry.

Turbonutter wrote:
> I refuse to reply to this, because I just can't be arsed to have
> this huge argument at this time of night.

Okay then. I suggest you do so in the morning, after a STRONG cup of coffee.

I agree with you what you said about the PC owners buying anything.

Basically, just about everyone, from hardcore gamers (like the clan freaks Goatboy hates), and complete casual gamers (who are clueless about windows explorer) so any liscensed game can sell and there's still a large market for hardcore gamers.

It's where ideas are tested and then if they're good, they get ported to console format.

Most devellopers are idiots. They think that he billions of PS owners automatically got a PS2 and still release as much as they possibly can.

Although there are enough decent games on there (the ones you've bought), there's atleast 10 times as much drivel (the stuff you steered clear from) and I don't think Sega would test a game out on the cube first.

Which is my point against your "Sega using the cube as a crap filter" comment.

The cube got it because Monkey Ball is:

Cute and cuddly graphics - most PS2 owners can't see past these.
Mainly multiplayer - PS2 CAN do multiplayer but more often than not, it doesn't
It's a new idea - most PS2 owners prefer tried and tested, just like YH said.


No digging at the PS2 but it doesn't compete so well in the originality and multiplayer stakes.
That's not to say that it's completely devoid of multiplayer and innovation because one or two neat ideas of games have come on it.

But, most people in this forum think that the future of gaming is elsewhere.

Strafex wrote:
> A group of gamers said to be the same breed of gamers that lap
> up Fifa, Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire and Simpsons Wrestling.

At least 2 of those were also lapped up by PC gamers, though...

Again, this is all down to personal taste. If a game sells, a sequel is inevitable. If the sequel sells, another is inevitable.

If people like a game and complete it, what exactly is wrong with wanting more of the same? PS2 has its share of original games, which people either sl@g off or conveniently overlook.

At the end of the day, if the games are enjoyable and worth playing in their own right, who cares if they're original or not? Truly original games are hard to come by on any platform these days, in my view the subject - though maybe not intended by YH in his original post - is just another poor attmempt at knocking the PS2, after everything else has failed.

Most of the the 'original' games people shout about on other systems seem, to me at least, to be far from it. Instead they are just variations on existing themes, or combinations of existing genres with more polish and a few bells and whistles.

Even down to something like Deus Ex on the PC (which I have, and love to play). It got all the rave 'originality' reviews going, but it's basically a standard FPS with a decent story, some nice graphics, and the ability to enhance you character. Nothing amazingly original.

Even the arguments like 'Developer X is producing more games for the 'cube and X-box' are irrelevant. Yes, at this moment in time, they might be - that doesn't mean that it will always be the case. Each company will at some point develop more for one platform than another. None of these developers are 'abandoning' PS2, and quite simply are unlikely to.

The only way anyone has managed to stop someone developing for PS2 so far has been to offer them a wad of cash, and that says more about the two companies involved than it does about PS2 and its future.

I don't that people are afraid of releasing crap on the Playstation 2.

A group of gamers said to be the same breed of gamers that lap up Fifa, Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire and Simpsons Wrestling.

I reckon the real reason why Monkey Ball is Gamecube only is that it's a multiplayer game.

Sega naturally released it on the best multiplayer machine.