The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Earlier today, whilst scanning the many excellent posts spread across the PS2 forum, I came across an interesting comment from a fellow poster. He/she suggested that I would enjoy a world where all console manufacturers worked together to create one console, rather than competing against eachother. This brought up an interesting point - Who should be having the war? The console manufacturers, or us (the fans/consumers)?
Quite honestly, the comment made earlier today was innacurate, as I believe that the competition between different manufacturers is very healthy. It keeps them all on their toes - if Nintendo makes a game of high quality, then Sony needs to do the same to keep its user base healthy, and vice versa. At present, Sony`s rivals are probably looking for something to rival Metal Gear Solid 2 in terms of hype and of course, quality.
If Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony combined forces, then obviously there would be benefits to the alliance, including a more varied knowledge of game production which would lead to a far more diverse selection of games. However, it would also lead to over confidence, and the alliance would begin to produce games of a lesser quality, with smaller production costs (To make more money whilst spending less themselves). This would certianly not be a good thing, and this alone outweighs the positive points that would come from such an alliance.
The competition between the console giants may be healthy, but that doesn`t apply to the fan base as well. Every person here is biased in one direction or another. Personally, I own an N64 as well as my Playstation, but that hasn`t stopped me being biased towards Sony (though I try to keep it to a minimum of course).
Our varying points of view lead to the famous "Console Wars" topics, and typical statements such as "my games better than yours" or "my console ...". Its pointless, especially as the "goodness" of a game usually depends on the user - for example Mario games, Zeldas, and other younger generation "cutesy" games are wasted on me, whether they are good games or not. Even Goldeneye was a little like looking through a soft focus when compared to the crisp realism of the Resident Evil series. When it comes to more adult games, admittedly containing violence and destruction (I try not to let it influence my personality) it may be that I think a less good game is actually a really worthwhile buy. Its all down to your personal preferences.
I totally disagree with the fans of particular consoles fighting it out. You buy a console in the hope that it will produce lots of games YOU like, it doesn`t matter what anybody else thinks (except perhaps your mother if it contains adult content). I chose PS2 partly because I loved the kind of games on the original Playstation - the fast pace of futuristic racers like Wipeout 2097, the brutal forces used in Tekken, the extreme realism of Gran Turismo, and the super smooth stealth involved in Metal Gear Solid. I also chose PS2 because I`d read lots of articles, and seen lots of pictures about games that were going to appear on the machine, such as SSX (the titles that brought the most quality to the PS2 launch), Gran Turismo 3, and of course Metal Gear Solid 2.
I`ll choose what I think is the best. You choose what you think is the best, and then lets accept that we`re all happy, and not criticise eachothers choices.
Quite honestly, the comment made earlier today was innacurate, as I believe that the competition between different manufacturers is very healthy. It keeps them all on their toes - if Nintendo makes a game of high quality, then Sony needs to do the same to keep its user base healthy, and vice versa. At present, Sony`s rivals are probably looking for something to rival Metal Gear Solid 2 in terms of hype and of course, quality.
If Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony combined forces, then obviously there would be benefits to the alliance, including a more varied knowledge of game production which would lead to a far more diverse selection of games. However, it would also lead to over confidence, and the alliance would begin to produce games of a lesser quality, with smaller production costs (To make more money whilst spending less themselves). This would certianly not be a good thing, and this alone outweighs the positive points that would come from such an alliance.
The competition between the console giants may be healthy, but that doesn`t apply to the fan base as well. Every person here is biased in one direction or another. Personally, I own an N64 as well as my Playstation, but that hasn`t stopped me being biased towards Sony (though I try to keep it to a minimum of course).
Our varying points of view lead to the famous "Console Wars" topics, and typical statements such as "my games better than yours" or "my console ...". Its pointless, especially as the "goodness" of a game usually depends on the user - for example Mario games, Zeldas, and other younger generation "cutesy" games are wasted on me, whether they are good games or not. Even Goldeneye was a little like looking through a soft focus when compared to the crisp realism of the Resident Evil series. When it comes to more adult games, admittedly containing violence and destruction (I try not to let it influence my personality) it may be that I think a less good game is actually a really worthwhile buy. Its all down to your personal preferences.
I totally disagree with the fans of particular consoles fighting it out. You buy a console in the hope that it will produce lots of games YOU like, it doesn`t matter what anybody else thinks (except perhaps your mother if it contains adult content). I chose PS2 partly because I loved the kind of games on the original Playstation - the fast pace of futuristic racers like Wipeout 2097, the brutal forces used in Tekken, the extreme realism of Gran Turismo, and the super smooth stealth involved in Metal Gear Solid. I also chose PS2 because I`d read lots of articles, and seen lots of pictures about games that were going to appear on the machine, such as SSX (the titles that brought the most quality to the PS2 launch), Gran Turismo 3, and of course Metal Gear Solid 2.
I`ll choose what I think is the best. You choose what you think is the best, and then lets accept that we`re all happy, and not criticise eachothers choices.
Page:
Nothing can compare to the WWF.Dragon Ball Z is a tottaly different program
I watch Dragon Ball Z.
Although it is pretty childish, it's no worse than WWF.
Although it is pretty childish, it's no worse than WWF.
And that's the key to what I meant by saying it. The content of a cartoon is not childish, the meduim that it is portrayed in just makes it more easily acceptable by younger minds.
Just as the range of the generalisation that is the word 'cartoon' encapsulates everything from Tom and Jerry to The Family Guy, Feature length animations and serious subjects.
Nintendo coat a games topic such as Zelda in bright colours and playful looking characters, so that it appeals to children. This doesn't detract from the fact that as a game it is not childish, and is quite engrossing and fairly challenging (if you like that sort of thing).
As is pointed out below, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. I watch cartoons all the time, and I'm 28.
Just as the range of the generalisation that is the word 'cartoon' encapsulates everything from Tom and Jerry to The Family Guy, Feature length animations and serious subjects.
Nintendo coat a games topic such as Zelda in bright colours and playful looking characters, so that it appeals to children. This doesn't detract from the fact that as a game it is not childish, and is quite engrossing and fairly challenging (if you like that sort of thing).
As is pointed out below, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. I watch cartoons all the time, and I'm 28.
With the exception of Beavis and Butthead :-D
As for the comment about cartoons not for kids... This is not entirely true. Fair enough, the Simpsons and a few others (in my case Pinky and the Brain) still appeal to adult audiences, but cartoons are chosen as children`s entertainment more often than not.
They are easier to look at, and understand. They entertain children much more than adults who look for more complex reactions, less achievable in a cartoon character. Children are more likely to watch cartoons than programs with real people in, and adults are the other way round.
They are easier to look at, and understand. They entertain children much more than adults who look for more complex reactions, less achievable in a cartoon character. Children are more likely to watch cartoons than programs with real people in, and adults are the other way round.
I am the Tarrant wrote:
> Yeah, well done ssxpro!!!!!
Now, onto business. I believe you we agreed if
> you won you'd claim THPS3 and give it to me.
*Tarrant flicks hand in an Obi-wan style
Ah, yes! Now I remember. I believe I agreed that if I won I`d claim THPS3 and give it to you.
Or will I have start a new topic
> entitled "ssxpro's private fetish"?
You could try it... but if you remember our MSN conversation, didn`t we mention the involvemnet of three in some form? :-) I could easily modify it to include you in the topic :-)
It could be fun! You post the topic, I`ll take us all down a level!
> Yeah, well done ssxpro!!!!!
Now, onto business. I believe you we agreed if
> you won you'd claim THPS3 and give it to me.
*Tarrant flicks hand in an Obi-wan style
Ah, yes! Now I remember. I believe I agreed that if I won I`d claim THPS3 and give it to you.
Or will I have start a new topic
> entitled "ssxpro's private fetish"?
You could try it... but if you remember our MSN conversation, didn`t we mention the involvemnet of three in some form? :-) I could easily modify it to include you in the topic :-)
It could be fun! You post the topic, I`ll take us all down a level!
Well done on your win ssxpro, it's been good to discuss this subject without it degenerating into a slagging match. Well done Strafex, a sensible Ninty can be something of a rarity......
;0)
I agree with what you say there, saying Nintendo is childish is like saying cartoons are only meant for kids. Not true. As you say, it's the style of the games that gives that impression, not the challenge involved in playing them. I think that's what most people have been trying to get across here, even if they've not succeeded....
Lots of people have complained at Sony about the decision to make the HDD an add on, rather than built in from the start. It is however, a fairly shrewd move to make. This kept the initial price down, and allowed a 'dual face' for the PS2 to develop.
If your happy with your PS2 as it stands then fine, there's no need to buy the HDD. If you want the HDD, and more importantly the type of games that will require the HDD to function then you shell out. From the prices banded around in US dollars for the HDD, we can expect to pay somewhere in the region of £90-£100 pounds for the unit.
If you are still looking for a new console, then with the PS2 retailing at £200 for the basics, include the HDD and there you go; A DVD/Next Gen Console with HDD for £300.
I don't think we need to question the longevity of consoles, in my mind there's only one reason that Microsoft has entered the Console market, and it's not to make friends....
;0)
I agree with what you say there, saying Nintendo is childish is like saying cartoons are only meant for kids. Not true. As you say, it's the style of the games that gives that impression, not the challenge involved in playing them. I think that's what most people have been trying to get across here, even if they've not succeeded....
Lots of people have complained at Sony about the decision to make the HDD an add on, rather than built in from the start. It is however, a fairly shrewd move to make. This kept the initial price down, and allowed a 'dual face' for the PS2 to develop.
If your happy with your PS2 as it stands then fine, there's no need to buy the HDD. If you want the HDD, and more importantly the type of games that will require the HDD to function then you shell out. From the prices banded around in US dollars for the HDD, we can expect to pay somewhere in the region of £90-£100 pounds for the unit.
If you are still looking for a new console, then with the PS2 retailing at £200 for the basics, include the HDD and there you go; A DVD/Next Gen Console with HDD for £300.
I don't think we need to question the longevity of consoles, in my mind there's only one reason that Microsoft has entered the Console market, and it's not to make friends....
Great post. Now lets hear it through a Ninty's eye! :-)
Firstly, it's definately fans wars in the forums.
Sony fans degrade the Nintendo as full of stupid colourful platformers. One of a similar style (Jax and Daxter) hits the PS2 and they rave about it as a super game.
Nintendo fans couldn't care less about the Resident Evil series... until 6 exclusive RE titles come to the Gamecube.
Suddenly, the series is classic.
I think that Microsoft and Sony are targeting the same market. Sony have the advantage of being there first while Microsoft have more more powerful/develloper friendly machine.
A small stereotype has snuck in though, the "Nintendo for kids" one (us Nintys have the equvilant of "Sequel Station")
All these Mario and Zelda and cute cuddly games are often more challenging and last longer than many of the "mature games".
You could say that these "mature" games are more mature in style only.
I'd say that all systems will have a fair range of games.
Microsoft and Sony will mainly go for the "mature" racing/realistic games.
Nintendo will put more emphasis on fun/not so serious games.
All systems will have a full range of "adult" titles (which aren't really so mature when you think about it).
I think that Sony and Microsoft also have an advantage in Single player gaming while Nintendo have a really strong advantage in the multiplayer arena.
Like so many people have said. It's all down to what suits you.
Firstly, it's definately fans wars in the forums.
Sony fans degrade the Nintendo as full of stupid colourful platformers. One of a similar style (Jax and Daxter) hits the PS2 and they rave about it as a super game.
Nintendo fans couldn't care less about the Resident Evil series... until 6 exclusive RE titles come to the Gamecube.
Suddenly, the series is classic.
I think that Microsoft and Sony are targeting the same market. Sony have the advantage of being there first while Microsoft have more more powerful/develloper friendly machine.
A small stereotype has snuck in though, the "Nintendo for kids" one (us Nintys have the equvilant of "Sequel Station")
All these Mario and Zelda and cute cuddly games are often more challenging and last longer than many of the "mature games".
You could say that these "mature" games are more mature in style only.
I'd say that all systems will have a fair range of games.
Microsoft and Sony will mainly go for the "mature" racing/realistic games.
Nintendo will put more emphasis on fun/not so serious games.
All systems will have a full range of "adult" titles (which aren't really so mature when you think about it).
I think that Sony and Microsoft also have an advantage in Single player gaming while Nintendo have a really strong advantage in the multiplayer arena.
Like so many people have said. It's all down to what suits you.
Well done, ssxpro, for the GAD win!
Page: