The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Which Zelda are you talking about?? OOT had a lot of walking around in a field, and it was boring, but Link's Awakening is class.
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.
Only if you're expecting an all out action game.
For most of us, Zelda had the fair balance of fighting, exploring, puzzle solving and talking to people.
It was a well balanced adventure.
It had action where it was needed and where there was action, it was good and intense.
> 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.
Only if you're expecting an all out action game.
For most of us, Zelda had the fair balance of fighting, exploring, puzzle solving and talking to people.
It was a well balanced adventure.
It had action where it was needed and where there was action, it was good and intense.
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.
I don't think I did, Super Monkey Ball will be on the PS2, I wont buy it. There are several Jetski games coming to the PS2, I wont by any of them. And as for Luigi;s mansion, I just have no interest in the game whatsoever, I have watched all the videos on IGN for the game, and I don't see anything in the game which would make me want to buy it.
Bonus wrote:
> Dismissed most of them?? I don't think that you could name any Gamecube games I
> haven't heard of.
I've heard and seen a fair bit of those PS2 games too.
But that doesn't mean that you didn't decide that you didn't want them before you saw them.
That run down you did on the 3 launch games proved that you'd looked for the worst in them and the worst only.
That's more less dismissal.
I've done similar things with PS2 titles.
You sometime subconsiously decide that you don't care for a game, simply because you know you won't be getting it.
Some games though are so amazing that they manage to break through this.
Take Pikmin for example.
> Dismissed most of them?? I don't think that you could name any Gamecube games I
> haven't heard of.
I've heard and seen a fair bit of those PS2 games too.
But that doesn't mean that you didn't decide that you didn't want them before you saw them.
That run down you did on the 3 launch games proved that you'd looked for the worst in them and the worst only.
That's more less dismissal.
I've done similar things with PS2 titles.
You sometime subconsiously decide that you don't care for a game, simply because you know you won't be getting it.
Some games though are so amazing that they manage to break through this.
Take Pikmin for example.
OK, the game is already finshed (it's gone to production in America), so if you can find any site that's played it, I'll take that back.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Rougue Leader 2 (or whatever) is supposed to be so poor that Miyamoto won't
> release any preview code or shot video clips in longer than 2 second cuts.
From a dodgy source I suppose.
The magazines will be playing it soon. Then we'll know for sure, but I doubt that they'll make a mess of it.
> Rougue Leader 2 (or whatever) is supposed to be so poor that Miyamoto won't
> release any preview code or shot video clips in longer than 2 second cuts.
From a dodgy source I suppose.
The magazines will be playing it soon. Then we'll know for sure, but I doubt that they'll make a mess of it.
Dismissed most of them?? I don't think that you could name any Gamecube games I haven't heard of.
You were finding the smallest excuse to cuss the Gamecube, if not it's hardware then the launch games.
And i meant that Wave Race and SSX are comparable for their time.
SSX was state of the art in it's time and Wave Race is state of the art now.
And I know that you probably don't care for most Gamecube games although I've no doubt that without realising, you dismissed most of them mainly because you knew you'd already chosen a PS2 rather than a Gamecube.
Likewise, I couldn't care less for more or less all the games on your list.
Everyone has a slight bias deep inside them.
And i meant that Wave Race and SSX are comparable for their time.
SSX was state of the art in it's time and Wave Race is state of the art now.
And I know that you probably don't care for most Gamecube games although I've no doubt that without realising, you dismissed most of them mainly because you knew you'd already chosen a PS2 rather than a Gamecube.
Likewise, I couldn't care less for more or less all the games on your list.
Everyone has a slight bias deep inside them.
Rougue Leader 2 is a very impressive looking game, I have Starfighter on the PS2, and if it as good as that, it will be brilliant.
Page: