The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
That`s an excellent point. The HDD could be a major factor in the length of PS2s future. It undoubtedly has a long bright future, but just how long will "long" be? Will the extra space and capabilities extend its life, or cause more problems, like the 32X on Megadrive etc...
As for the internet, I think that could be a success, especially if it relies less on the HDD. If people can pick up cheap internet access, and not have to worry about lots of hard drive space, then the instant accessibility of the package may be more appealing!
The X-Box`s problem is not really who it is competing against, merely that it is competing full stop. Nintendo and Sony cover he whole games market between them, so is there space for a third? The gaming market is huge these days, so should easily support three, but will it limit the success of the consoles in direct competition?
As for the internet, I think that could be a success, especially if it relies less on the HDD. If people can pick up cheap internet access, and not have to worry about lots of hard drive space, then the instant accessibility of the package may be more appealing!
The X-Box`s problem is not really who it is competing against, merely that it is competing full stop. Nintendo and Sony cover he whole games market between them, so is there space for a third? The gaming market is huge these days, so should easily support three, but will it limit the success of the consoles in direct competition?
Heh, possibly. But the general picture is clear enough. I think that most people would assume that the X-box will compete more directly with the Sony target market, rather than the Nintendo demographic.
One other factor that may effect the outcome would be the success of the HDD for the PS2. Games designers will have another tool to work with when producing PS2 games, and if the PS2 is to successfully bring some of the more demanding PC style games across then the HDD may be required for a smooth and playable games experience.
I suppose it really depends on whether the PS2 owner is really interested in playing PC titles on their machine. The X-box is not as likely to draw its buyers from the Nintendo scene as it is from the PS2 or PC market, so will the PS2 need to have the top PC titles available to it, or are the more standard console titles enough?
I would have to say no, otherwise companies would not be releasing PC titles onto the PS2, the market is obviously there. The fact that the games console is now a powerful enough tool to handle PC spec. games answers part of the question, but not all of it.
When designing the PS2, Sony must of realised that it had the potential to produce PC quality games and compete against that portion of the market. Notice how cheap it is becoming to upgrade your PC right now? Look at how cheap memory is, or a decent 3D graphics card. Not only must they compete with other PC manufacturers, but now have to contend with a console that costs one fifth of the equivalent PC price and can run games of the same quality.
This, in my opinion is the major reason that we are seeing the Microsoft's pitch into the games console market now. With the increase in console power, a new section of the games playing market has been opened up to them; The Casual/Lazy PC gamer.
As Nintendo for the most part target the younger gamer (huge market anyway), it will fall to Sony and Microsoft to cash in on the gamer who wants PC quality games, but without the patch or compatibility faff that goes with it.
One other factor that may effect the outcome would be the success of the HDD for the PS2. Games designers will have another tool to work with when producing PS2 games, and if the PS2 is to successfully bring some of the more demanding PC style games across then the HDD may be required for a smooth and playable games experience.
I suppose it really depends on whether the PS2 owner is really interested in playing PC titles on their machine. The X-box is not as likely to draw its buyers from the Nintendo scene as it is from the PS2 or PC market, so will the PS2 need to have the top PC titles available to it, or are the more standard console titles enough?
I would have to say no, otherwise companies would not be releasing PC titles onto the PS2, the market is obviously there. The fact that the games console is now a powerful enough tool to handle PC spec. games answers part of the question, but not all of it.
When designing the PS2, Sony must of realised that it had the potential to produce PC quality games and compete against that portion of the market. Notice how cheap it is becoming to upgrade your PC right now? Look at how cheap memory is, or a decent 3D graphics card. Not only must they compete with other PC manufacturers, but now have to contend with a console that costs one fifth of the equivalent PC price and can run games of the same quality.
This, in my opinion is the major reason that we are seeing the Microsoft's pitch into the games console market now. With the increase in console power, a new section of the games playing market has been opened up to them; The Casual/Lazy PC gamer.
As Nintendo for the most part target the younger gamer (huge market anyway), it will fall to Sony and Microsoft to cash in on the gamer who wants PC quality games, but without the patch or compatibility faff that goes with it.
Actually, that was probably a little tight!
Possibly, though I still don`t think they`re targeting the same people. The age differences may be the deciding factor.
3-15 for Nintys
10+ for Sony
There are exceptions, but I expect the majority to fall into this category. Maybe 75%
3-15 for Nintys
10+ for Sony
There are exceptions, but I expect the majority to fall into this category. Maybe 75%
That`s a good point, and it does show that Microsoft`s position is the most frail of all of them.
Many say that Microsoft stand to do exactly what Sony did when they first arrived with the Playstation. However, its a totally different scenario this time. When Sony arrived they made gaming "cool", particularly for 16 year olds and over. It became open to a much larger market which allowed it a greater deal of success. With Microsoft`s entry, the gaming market is already very large, so whilst some expansion is inevitable, there isn`t quite as much space as there was before!
On the subject of Championship manager, I was never a fan of the game, so it doesn`t tempt me, but I can see that as a fairly serious factor in swaying Pc owners in its direction!
Many say that Microsoft stand to do exactly what Sony did when they first arrived with the Playstation. However, its a totally different scenario this time. When Sony arrived they made gaming "cool", particularly for 16 year olds and over. It became open to a much larger market which allowed it a greater deal of success. With Microsoft`s entry, the gaming market is already very large, so whilst some expansion is inevitable, there isn`t quite as much space as there was before!
On the subject of Championship manager, I was never a fan of the game, so it doesn`t tempt me, but I can see that as a fairly serious factor in swaying Pc owners in its direction!
I think this will be the main hurdle that Microsoft have to overcome, we'll see if they're able to do it or not. Nintendo and Sony have become so well established that even Sega failed to re-enter the console fray and recapture its former devotees.
Microsoft are probably the only company around that has the clout to break into the console market, to do that they will have to lure the PC owner considering a games console into buying the X-box rather than the PS2 or GameCube. More importantly, and perhaps somewhat overlooked, I feel that by using the X-box Microsoft can persuade the standard console player WITHOUT a PC to purchase the X-box rather than a PC.
Again I think it depends on the type of games that the X-box delivers; Championship Manager will be on X-box only for example. That'll be a big lure to the PC fan looking for a console. Sony have realised this, now we see FPS and RTS PC titles making the jump onto the PS2 platform. Though with games like Half Life or Age of Empires II this is retrospective to the initial release (obviously, the PS2 wasn't around!!), it proves to the PC owner that the PS2 can handle this type of game, and they won't be loosing out on what surely are the biggest genres for PC's at the moment.
This is the only angle that I can see Microsoft actively working with any success, though we laugh at Microsoft most of the time, it's still a name that carries considerable weight with it.
If you own a PC purely for games and it needs updating, I would think that most people in that situation would look long and hard at the cheaper option of the X-box. If the top PC games and on-line gameplay is there, why not??
Microsoft are probably the only company around that has the clout to break into the console market, to do that they will have to lure the PC owner considering a games console into buying the X-box rather than the PS2 or GameCube. More importantly, and perhaps somewhat overlooked, I feel that by using the X-box Microsoft can persuade the standard console player WITHOUT a PC to purchase the X-box rather than a PC.
Again I think it depends on the type of games that the X-box delivers; Championship Manager will be on X-box only for example. That'll be a big lure to the PC fan looking for a console. Sony have realised this, now we see FPS and RTS PC titles making the jump onto the PS2 platform. Though with games like Half Life or Age of Empires II this is retrospective to the initial release (obviously, the PS2 wasn't around!!), it proves to the PC owner that the PS2 can handle this type of game, and they won't be loosing out on what surely are the biggest genres for PC's at the moment.
This is the only angle that I can see Microsoft actively working with any success, though we laugh at Microsoft most of the time, it's still a name that carries considerable weight with it.
If you own a PC purely for games and it needs updating, I would think that most people in that situation would look long and hard at the cheaper option of the X-box. If the top PC games and on-line gameplay is there, why not??
Actually something you said just then really got me thinking Hooplah! Whilst my knowledge of the older games machines - spectrums and all is very limited, the part about Microsoft/nintendo/sony camps did make me think!
You mentioned we`ll all fall into a particular camp, one of the main contenders. Perhaps this will be Microsoft`s main fall down?
There are clear categories for Sony and Nintendo, but what can X-box offer that appeals to people that isn`t already on one of the other two? Sony and Nintendo are aiming at slightly different age groups and game styles, but X-Box only seems to be an overlap. Could this be a major problem for it?
You mentioned we`ll all fall into a particular camp, one of the main contenders. Perhaps this will be Microsoft`s main fall down?
There are clear categories for Sony and Nintendo, but what can X-box offer that appeals to people that isn`t already on one of the other two? Sony and Nintendo are aiming at slightly different age groups and game styles, but X-Box only seems to be an overlap. Could this be a major problem for it?
Nicely put there ssxpro.
It's definitely more to do with the games released on a particular console, than how much better one console is than the other. I think what console you get is just a personal choice as to what type of games you like, though there's less and less of a distinction between them every week it seems.
If you look back to the early days of the home computer with the CBM64, Spectrum 48 and Amstrad, there was no such thing as a mascot, or machine specific games series. If something came out, then it was a very good bet that it was available to all three machines. People seemed to argue less about which one was better than the other, except for Atari 800XL owners, who always argued. Perhaps it was because they didn't have the same games as everyone else, so they felt compelled to prove their machine with specifications and stuff like:
"I've got four channel sound and your crappy CBM64 has only got three. Spectrums only have two!"
After they'd gone away, we'd all start talking about games again which was much more interesting than arguing about specs.
That's the reason I think that Sony and Nintendo fans get at each other so much, and now that some of the same titles will be released on both the GameCube and the PS2 we can get back to discussing what is the better game - rather than better games machine. Sure they'll be some differences between the games, but they'll be similar enough to talk about them across the great console divide.
As has been mentioned, they'll always be the console specific titles to help separate us into Sony, Nintendo, or now Microsoft camps. When I bought PS2 I too looked at what I liked. I can't stand platform/jumpy games, I like Racing, Sports and Survival Horror. If I knew that Nintendo were going to go with EA titles and Resident Evil at the time, I might of been swayed. I doubt it though.
Along with that, we all have our personal preferences as to what makes good gaming. No matter what happens, they'll always be people that shout and scream about what is best, usually with the accuracy of a man throwing darts when blindfolded and drunk.
Just deal with it in the same way; Laugh at them!
It's definitely more to do with the games released on a particular console, than how much better one console is than the other. I think what console you get is just a personal choice as to what type of games you like, though there's less and less of a distinction between them every week it seems.
If you look back to the early days of the home computer with the CBM64, Spectrum 48 and Amstrad, there was no such thing as a mascot, or machine specific games series. If something came out, then it was a very good bet that it was available to all three machines. People seemed to argue less about which one was better than the other, except for Atari 800XL owners, who always argued. Perhaps it was because they didn't have the same games as everyone else, so they felt compelled to prove their machine with specifications and stuff like:
"I've got four channel sound and your crappy CBM64 has only got three. Spectrums only have two!"
After they'd gone away, we'd all start talking about games again which was much more interesting than arguing about specs.
That's the reason I think that Sony and Nintendo fans get at each other so much, and now that some of the same titles will be released on both the GameCube and the PS2 we can get back to discussing what is the better game - rather than better games machine. Sure they'll be some differences between the games, but they'll be similar enough to talk about them across the great console divide.
As has been mentioned, they'll always be the console specific titles to help separate us into Sony, Nintendo, or now Microsoft camps. When I bought PS2 I too looked at what I liked. I can't stand platform/jumpy games, I like Racing, Sports and Survival Horror. If I knew that Nintendo were going to go with EA titles and Resident Evil at the time, I might of been swayed. I doubt it though.
Along with that, we all have our personal preferences as to what makes good gaming. No matter what happens, they'll always be people that shout and scream about what is best, usually with the accuracy of a man throwing darts when blindfolded and drunk.
Just deal with it in the same way; Laugh at them!
Page: