The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Who is really "in the lead"?. Nintendo fans are all foaming out of th mouth at the sight of their favourite franchises coming to the Gamecube, Microsoft fans know that they have the most powerful console ever, almost in their grasp, and Sony fans are more than content with what they have and even more content on what is coming, so who is in the best position to take advantage?
Nintendo have been doing the rounds lately, there are loads of very hi-res screenshots and videos coming and showing that the system can look pretty, but the gameplay leaves a lot to be desired. Every Nintndo fan thinks that the new Nintendo games will shatter the earth and make everyone else look just a bit silly. This has been due to a massive showing from Nintendo at most of this year's major trade shows. At E3, everyone exlaimed at how much Nintendo had done with their systems, although, there is an expectation around Nintendo to provide this earth-shattering new experience, but I believe that many new Gamecube owners will be just as disappointed as some early PS2 owners were. The thing with Nintendo is that is seems to have developed a die hard, core following. These people will never buy anything but a Nintendo games system, and preach the word af the Nintendo faith, but it has a flaw. Just like the emperors new clothes, they tell us how pretty things are, and how good they will be but somewhow, no one can actually see anything solid in front of them, they have been duped. Zelda will be, another Zelda game, true to the very core of every Zelda game ever, and still trying it's best to emulate the success of the Snes version. Mario, will be another Nintendo platformer, maybe a couple of new puzzles, but nothing absolutely out of the blue that has never been done before. Luigi's mansion has little in the way of content, and isn't really being taken seriously by many. Last but not lesat, you come to the gorgeous Rogue Leader II. This game is a generic Star Wars flyer, it is prettier than any before, but it doesn't do anything new, I'm a fan of these games, so I am looking forward to seeing this one running, but it isn't exactly an earth shattering new experience.
Then there was Microsoft, the company who doesn't really know what to do next. They look at the money generated by the console industry, and agree that taking a share of the spoils would be nice. So they make a console, and try to go for the same stance as Sony. Nintendo have more or less a strangle hold over the younger gaming market, and Sony are very dominant in the 18+ area, so where does this leave Microsoft? They have nothing really to define their market. As a first party developer, they have absolutely nothing to go on. Very little comes out of Microsoft and succeeds on the PC as it is, so what did they expect from the Xbox? Well, third party support, and they got it, in bucket loads. But third party support doesn't define a console, it;s the first party game which show the direction the company is headed in. Admittedly the Xbox will have the strongest launch line up of any of the new consoles, with some well established licences making their way over, and looking better than ever before, but gamers don't really care about content, Sony have more than shown that. What Microsoft needed to do was beat people that their own game. They needed to show that they were just as good as, and then better than the competition. All they have managed to do, os make some very public mistakes, and show that at bestm they can match the output by the other two, this gives them a problem. Why will consumers leave their well eastablished brand for something else which is "just as good"?
Now we come to Sony. They have a well documented and serious line of difficulties, problems and failures with the Playstation 2, but the gamers didn't care. They have had a fairly lacklustre and slow initial year of launch, but the gamers didn't care. Sony have a massive share of the market, with an installed user base of Playstations, PSOnes and PS2 hitting almost 60% of the hardware market share. What Sony do have as a benefit over the rest is content imminent. The Internet will be upon us within mere months on th ePS2, and it is shaping up to be outstanding. With the Dreamcast the interent was never really pushed further than it was with the PC already, but with the PS2, companies are looking at the possibilities of broadband, and it is shaping up to have some outstanding content providers and online gaming capabilites. They also have excellent first party game production right acroos the world. This localised games production gives Sony a brilliant strategy point, their games can be tailored to appeal to different cultures. Sony also have a trump card with third party support, it's quite simple, no one else has just that much third party developer support. There is also the diversity and originality of the games, if you look at the games slated for PS2 release, most of the genre defining and new experiences will appear in the PS2. True their may be a lot of sequels, but no more than will be found on the Gamecube. So for all round, brilliant old school and new boundary pushing, Sony has what it takes to keep the PS2 at the top for a while.
Nintendo have been doing the rounds lately, there are loads of very hi-res screenshots and videos coming and showing that the system can look pretty, but the gameplay leaves a lot to be desired. Every Nintndo fan thinks that the new Nintendo games will shatter the earth and make everyone else look just a bit silly. This has been due to a massive showing from Nintendo at most of this year's major trade shows. At E3, everyone exlaimed at how much Nintendo had done with their systems, although, there is an expectation around Nintendo to provide this earth-shattering new experience, but I believe that many new Gamecube owners will be just as disappointed as some early PS2 owners were. The thing with Nintendo is that is seems to have developed a die hard, core following. These people will never buy anything but a Nintendo games system, and preach the word af the Nintendo faith, but it has a flaw. Just like the emperors new clothes, they tell us how pretty things are, and how good they will be but somewhow, no one can actually see anything solid in front of them, they have been duped. Zelda will be, another Zelda game, true to the very core of every Zelda game ever, and still trying it's best to emulate the success of the Snes version. Mario, will be another Nintendo platformer, maybe a couple of new puzzles, but nothing absolutely out of the blue that has never been done before. Luigi's mansion has little in the way of content, and isn't really being taken seriously by many. Last but not lesat, you come to the gorgeous Rogue Leader II. This game is a generic Star Wars flyer, it is prettier than any before, but it doesn't do anything new, I'm a fan of these games, so I am looking forward to seeing this one running, but it isn't exactly an earth shattering new experience.
Then there was Microsoft, the company who doesn't really know what to do next. They look at the money generated by the console industry, and agree that taking a share of the spoils would be nice. So they make a console, and try to go for the same stance as Sony. Nintendo have more or less a strangle hold over the younger gaming market, and Sony are very dominant in the 18+ area, so where does this leave Microsoft? They have nothing really to define their market. As a first party developer, they have absolutely nothing to go on. Very little comes out of Microsoft and succeeds on the PC as it is, so what did they expect from the Xbox? Well, third party support, and they got it, in bucket loads. But third party support doesn't define a console, it;s the first party game which show the direction the company is headed in. Admittedly the Xbox will have the strongest launch line up of any of the new consoles, with some well established licences making their way over, and looking better than ever before, but gamers don't really care about content, Sony have more than shown that. What Microsoft needed to do was beat people that their own game. They needed to show that they were just as good as, and then better than the competition. All they have managed to do, os make some very public mistakes, and show that at bestm they can match the output by the other two, this gives them a problem. Why will consumers leave their well eastablished brand for something else which is "just as good"?
Now we come to Sony. They have a well documented and serious line of difficulties, problems and failures with the Playstation 2, but the gamers didn't care. They have had a fairly lacklustre and slow initial year of launch, but the gamers didn't care. Sony have a massive share of the market, with an installed user base of Playstations, PSOnes and PS2 hitting almost 60% of the hardware market share. What Sony do have as a benefit over the rest is content imminent. The Internet will be upon us within mere months on th ePS2, and it is shaping up to be outstanding. With the Dreamcast the interent was never really pushed further than it was with the PC already, but with the PS2, companies are looking at the possibilities of broadband, and it is shaping up to have some outstanding content providers and online gaming capabilites. They also have excellent first party game production right acroos the world. This localised games production gives Sony a brilliant strategy point, their games can be tailored to appeal to different cultures. Sony also have a trump card with third party support, it's quite simple, no one else has just that much third party developer support. There is also the diversity and originality of the games, if you look at the games slated for PS2 release, most of the genre defining and new experiences will appear in the PS2. True their may be a lot of sequels, but no more than will be found on the Gamecube. So for all round, brilliant old school and new boundary pushing, Sony has what it takes to keep the PS2 at the top for a while.
Page:
Shocktrooper wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I know that Blaze have said they can't make G-Surfers
> for the GameCube because
> it can't handle the maths.
I know for a fact
> that Extreme G3 for the GameCube has the ability for 4 player madness, whereas
> the PS2 version can't, simply because it isn't powerful enough to handle 4
> people on the screen at once.
> I rest my case.
No, it's because the developers can't be bothered to get it to work.
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I know that Blaze have said they can't make G-Surfers
> for the GameCube because
> it can't handle the maths.
I know for a fact
> that Extreme G3 for the GameCube has the ability for 4 player madness, whereas
> the PS2 version can't, simply because it isn't powerful enough to handle 4
> people on the screen at once.
> I rest my case.
No, it's because the developers can't be bothered to get it to work.
Shocktrooper wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I know that Blaze have said they can't make G-Surfers
> for the GameCube because
> it can't handle the maths.
I know for a fact
> that Extreme G3 for the GameCube has the ability for 4 player madness, whereas
> the PS2 version can't, simply because it isn't powerful enough to handle 4
> people on the screen at once.
I rest my case.
EG3 for GC is gonna be awesome, i have already claimed it for 1 of my GAD wins.
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I know that Blaze have said they can't make G-Surfers
> for the GameCube because
> it can't handle the maths.
I know for a fact
> that Extreme G3 for the GameCube has the ability for 4 player madness, whereas
> the PS2 version can't, simply because it isn't powerful enough to handle 4
> people on the screen at once.
I rest my case.
EG3 for GC is gonna be awesome, i have already claimed it for 1 of my GAD wins.
Turbonutter wrote:
> I know that Blaze have said they can't make G-Surfers for the GameCube because
> it can't handle the maths.
I know for a fact that Extreme G3 for the GameCube has the ability for 4 player madness, whereas the PS2 version can't, simply because it isn't powerful enough to handle 4 people on the screen at once.
I rest my case.
> I know that Blaze have said they can't make G-Surfers for the GameCube because
> it can't handle the maths.
I know for a fact that Extreme G3 for the GameCube has the ability for 4 player madness, whereas the PS2 version can't, simply because it isn't powerful enough to handle 4 people on the screen at once.
I rest my case.
Heh, probably, but somehow methinks people don't choose their careers by what games they like ;-)
You'll probably kill yourself too.
"No need to slow down at that wall. If I happen to hit it at 100 MPH then the car will simply bounce off and no harm will be done!"
:-D
Being a Platforming fan I might become an international explorer.
Shouldn't be too dangerous.
If some savage animal comes along then I'll jump on its head. If I happen to to get hit by one then I'll either shrink or lose all my rings. No problem really as there's bound to plenty or Rings/Mushrooms around.
As for climbing across chasms, mountains and pits, not danger really.
If I accidently slip off and fall into a great nothingness then I'll just found myself back at the top with one less life.
No problems there.
TV's with my face on it and green mushrooms are sure to be everywhere!
:-D
"No need to slow down at that wall. If I happen to hit it at 100 MPH then the car will simply bounce off and no harm will be done!"
:-D
Being a Platforming fan I might become an international explorer.
Shouldn't be too dangerous.
If some savage animal comes along then I'll jump on its head. If I happen to to get hit by one then I'll either shrink or lose all my rings. No problem really as there's bound to plenty or Rings/Mushrooms around.
As for climbing across chasms, mountains and pits, not danger really.
If I accidently slip off and fall into a great nothingness then I'll just found myself back at the top with one less life.
No problems there.
TV's with my face on it and green mushrooms are sure to be everywhere!
:-D
I want to be a touring car driver but I'm not sure how I'd go about it. I'll probably end up being/failing at being a lawer and race cars as a hobby.
F-Zero X clearly wasn't one of the games you played...
It's all down to style.
You seem to like Racers wether they be cartoony or ultra realistic.
Planning to be a Driver when you grow up?
It's all down to style.
You seem to like Racers wether they be cartoony or ultra realistic.
Planning to be a Driver when you grow up?
Yes. I originally owned a PlayStation for a while but was really willing to give the N64 a chance. So, me and a mate swapped our consoles for a couple of months. It was OK at first I guess, with a whole catalog of new games to rent, but I quickly became aware that I much prefered the style of games on the PlayStation. Believe me, I was wholly prepared to keep the N64. This was a "trial separation", and I already had saved up enough for an N64. It was lucky for me that I did do the trial, otherwise I would have wasted a fair bit of money.
I did enjoy the 3am games of MarioKart with my roomies (boarding school), but it was only one game and it would be stupid to buy a console on the basis of one game.
So, I decided to give Nintendo and their good-although-slower games a miss and stick to my faster-pace, more exciting games on the PlayStation. In hindsight, I suppose the Saturn and Dreamcast would have been the best console for me, but I could see them failing, and the urge of a home Ridge Racer was too strong, even against Daytona ;-)
I did enjoy the 3am games of MarioKart with my roomies (boarding school), but it was only one game and it would be stupid to buy a console on the basis of one game.
So, I decided to give Nintendo and their good-although-slower games a miss and stick to my faster-pace, more exciting games on the PlayStation. In hindsight, I suppose the Saturn and Dreamcast would have been the best console for me, but I could see them failing, and the urge of a home Ridge Racer was too strong, even against Daytona ;-)
Turbonutter wrote:
> Strafex wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
Hang on, this might get messy unless I do it a certain way.
Turbo wrote:
> The thing is, most Nintendo games
> TEND to be quite
> lethargic and just generally
> actionless. Even Zelda
> had a disappointing
> amount of fighting in it.
So I wrote:
> So you don't like
> Zelda because it wasn't
> completely all out action all the way through, but
> defend GT3 when people call
> it boring for having now car damage.
This encouraged Turbo to write:
Er,
> yes, I defend it because GT3 isn't boring! I really don't know what you're
> getting at here. Please clarify.
To which I reply:
I'm going to beg you once more to read my GAD winning topic about "Lack of Tension".
The game doesn't punish you properly for crashing and it loses the "sense of danger" that makes the sport so exciting and appealing.
I know calling it boring is an exaduration, but so it saying that Nintendo's cartoony games are based in happy land.
Another thing I wrote:
> If you don't like Final Fantasy
> then
> it's understandable.
> you don't really care for storyline
> led
> games.
Answered by Turbo who wrote:
>FF VII was OK, but not the greatest game ever.
And he proved me right.
Storyline and adventure isn't his cup of tea.
He prefers all out action from start to finish.
Ofcourse, if he had liked Final Fantasy:
>
> Otherwise, you're just being biased and subconisously hold something
>
> against Zelda which you looked for as you couldn't own the game.
Turbo had answer for that though:
Well that
> can't be right, because at one point I did own Zelda. Many people forget that I
> did use to have an N64.
But did look for the best or the worst in it?
Did he genuinely dislike it or did he just feel let down after all the hype?
People being biased? I wrote that:
> it happens
> from time to time.
Mr Nutter said that:
Only
> with Nintys, remember when everyone was slagging off SSX before they knew that
> they were going to get SSX Tricky?
I don't remember that at all actually.
We might have said that it was the only title which made the PS2 look better than the Dreamcast but apart from one or two crazed newbies (the sort you find behind every format) we didn't hold anything against it.
Oh, and I can assure you that PS2 owners and N64 owners are equally biased only due to the stupidity of NOM, many nintys tend to write it in a not so mature way.
They'll soon grow out of it though.
> Strafex wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
Hang on, this might get messy unless I do it a certain way.
Turbo wrote:
> The thing is, most Nintendo games
> TEND to be quite
> lethargic and just generally
> actionless. Even Zelda
> had a disappointing
> amount of fighting in it.
So I wrote:
> So you don't like
> Zelda because it wasn't
> completely all out action all the way through, but
> defend GT3 when people call
> it boring for having now car damage.
This encouraged Turbo to write:
Er,
> yes, I defend it because GT3 isn't boring! I really don't know what you're
> getting at here. Please clarify.
To which I reply:
I'm going to beg you once more to read my GAD winning topic about "Lack of Tension".
The game doesn't punish you properly for crashing and it loses the "sense of danger" that makes the sport so exciting and appealing.
I know calling it boring is an exaduration, but so it saying that Nintendo's cartoony games are based in happy land.
Another thing I wrote:
> If you don't like Final Fantasy
> then
> it's understandable.
> you don't really care for storyline
> led
> games.
Answered by Turbo who wrote:
>FF VII was OK, but not the greatest game ever.
And he proved me right.
Storyline and adventure isn't his cup of tea.
He prefers all out action from start to finish.
Ofcourse, if he had liked Final Fantasy:
>
> Otherwise, you're just being biased and subconisously hold something
>
> against Zelda which you looked for as you couldn't own the game.
Turbo had answer for that though:
Well that
> can't be right, because at one point I did own Zelda. Many people forget that I
> did use to have an N64.
But did look for the best or the worst in it?
Did he genuinely dislike it or did he just feel let down after all the hype?
People being biased? I wrote that:
> it happens
> from time to time.
Mr Nutter said that:
Only
> with Nintys, remember when everyone was slagging off SSX before they knew that
> they were going to get SSX Tricky?
I don't remember that at all actually.
We might have said that it was the only title which made the PS2 look better than the Dreamcast but apart from one or two crazed newbies (the sort you find behind every format) we didn't hold anything against it.
Oh, and I can assure you that PS2 owners and N64 owners are equally biased only due to the stupidity of NOM, many nintys tend to write it in a not so mature way.
They'll soon grow out of it though.
Strafex wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> The thing is, most Nintendo games TEND to be quite
> lethargic and just generally
> actionless. Even Zelda had a disappointing
> amount of fighting in it.
> So you don't like Zelda because it wasn't
> completely all out action all the way through, but defend GT3 when people call
> it boring for having now car damage.
Er, yes, I defend it because GT3 isn't boring! I really don't know what you're getting at here. Please clarify.
> If you don't like Final Fantasy then
> it's understandable.
> you don't really care for storyline led
> games.
FF VII was OK, but not the greatest game ever.
> Otherwise, you're just being biased and subconisously hold something
> against Zelda which you looked for as you couldn't own the game.
Well that can't be right, because at one point I did own Zelda. Many people forget that I did use to have an N64.
> it happens
> from time to time.
Only with Nintys, remember when everyone was slagging off SSX before they knew that they were going to get SSX Tricky?
> Turbonutter wrote:
> The thing is, most Nintendo games TEND to be quite
> lethargic and just generally
> actionless. Even Zelda had a disappointing
> amount of fighting in it.
> So you don't like Zelda because it wasn't
> completely all out action all the way through, but defend GT3 when people call
> it boring for having now car damage.
Er, yes, I defend it because GT3 isn't boring! I really don't know what you're getting at here. Please clarify.
> If you don't like Final Fantasy then
> it's understandable.
> you don't really care for storyline led
> games.
FF VII was OK, but not the greatest game ever.
> Otherwise, you're just being biased and subconisously hold something
> against Zelda which you looked for as you couldn't own the game.
Well that can't be right, because at one point I did own Zelda. Many people forget that I did use to have an N64.
> it happens
> from time to time.
Only with Nintys, remember when everyone was slagging off SSX before they knew that they were going to get SSX Tricky?
Page: