The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The Paystation, it's architecture, and the way you develop for it.
What the people at Sony are saying sounds much like what Nintendo were saying before the N64 was released.
All the talk of a very complicated architecture that's capable of so much, but you have to do a lot of hard work to get it to do that.
Exactly what Nintendo were saying.
The difference with Sony, however, is that they already have the games, the system is going to be profitable, but the developers are going to have to work hard, really hard to achieve thier ambitions.
So we won't see a lack of third parties working for Sony, not by a long way, but we've already seen the delays. GT3 was put back for how long?
When this was happening on the N64 how the Playstation owners laughed. The Ninties said "I don't care as long as the game is better in the end". Now that's what the Playstation gamers say. It's true though, we'd all rather have better games, even if we have to wait.
Nintendo have completely changed the way their console works for developers with the Gamecube. They've learnt from thier mistakes. Developers get a great deal of instant gratification working on 'Cube titles, it has been said. This makes the developers happy, and they'll work better.
Now I know which arguement comes next, I'll beat you to it. (I wonder if anyone will give up before they get this far, and write this before they read the following?)
The Playstation games will get better as time passes, the Gamecube will reach it's peak relatively early.
The Playstation games will get better. In fact they have done. I can now see two games worthy of what the machine is capable of. In the future their games will get better still.
Early Gamecube games won't get the best from the system. The learning curve may be shallow, but it is still there, and it will take a little while before developers start to use the machine properly.
But will developers reach a peak?
I don't believe they will. The architecture may be set so it seems that they will, but was it not said that the SNES would peak long before it did?
This so called 'peak' was shattered not once but twice with stunning works that set new benchmarks for quality on the SNES. Firstly the 'Super FX' chip. Starwing was the first game to show this off, and it was amazing. What the SNES could now do, compared to the early games was quite shocking.
Better was to come when Rare got their act together. Donkey Kong 64 is a truely amazing game. It's huge, and it looks absolutely great, for a SNES title. That 'peak' was again left far behind.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no way that Nintendo would allow the Gamecube to peak, and continue to produce games at the same level. They're all about innovation, and development and evolution of games on a system has always been important.
There may be a perceived peak, but it is merely a glass ceiling, waiting to be broken through, and don't worry, it will be.
What the people at Sony are saying sounds much like what Nintendo were saying before the N64 was released.
All the talk of a very complicated architecture that's capable of so much, but you have to do a lot of hard work to get it to do that.
Exactly what Nintendo were saying.
The difference with Sony, however, is that they already have the games, the system is going to be profitable, but the developers are going to have to work hard, really hard to achieve thier ambitions.
So we won't see a lack of third parties working for Sony, not by a long way, but we've already seen the delays. GT3 was put back for how long?
When this was happening on the N64 how the Playstation owners laughed. The Ninties said "I don't care as long as the game is better in the end". Now that's what the Playstation gamers say. It's true though, we'd all rather have better games, even if we have to wait.
Nintendo have completely changed the way their console works for developers with the Gamecube. They've learnt from thier mistakes. Developers get a great deal of instant gratification working on 'Cube titles, it has been said. This makes the developers happy, and they'll work better.
Now I know which arguement comes next, I'll beat you to it. (I wonder if anyone will give up before they get this far, and write this before they read the following?)
The Playstation games will get better as time passes, the Gamecube will reach it's peak relatively early.
The Playstation games will get better. In fact they have done. I can now see two games worthy of what the machine is capable of. In the future their games will get better still.
Early Gamecube games won't get the best from the system. The learning curve may be shallow, but it is still there, and it will take a little while before developers start to use the machine properly.
But will developers reach a peak?
I don't believe they will. The architecture may be set so it seems that they will, but was it not said that the SNES would peak long before it did?
This so called 'peak' was shattered not once but twice with stunning works that set new benchmarks for quality on the SNES. Firstly the 'Super FX' chip. Starwing was the first game to show this off, and it was amazing. What the SNES could now do, compared to the early games was quite shocking.
Better was to come when Rare got their act together. Donkey Kong 64 is a truely amazing game. It's huge, and it looks absolutely great, for a SNES title. That 'peak' was again left far behind.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no way that Nintendo would allow the Gamecube to peak, and continue to produce games at the same level. They're all about innovation, and development and evolution of games on a system has always been important.
There may be a perceived peak, but it is merely a glass ceiling, waiting to be broken through, and don't worry, it will be.
I loved reading that post... well structured.
I completley agree one of Capcoms reasons for shifting RE development over to Gamecube as the GC is easier to work on :D
Sony are making mistakes and Nintendo are sorting out their problems who will win in the end. Who cares my Nintendo games is what makes my console rule so there. Stuff these other factors.
I completley agree one of Capcoms reasons for shifting RE development over to Gamecube as the GC is easier to work on :D
Sony are making mistakes and Nintendo are sorting out their problems who will win in the end. Who cares my Nintendo games is what makes my console rule so there. Stuff these other factors.
Why Sony REALLY decided on the completely unusual and new architecture is baffling...
They say that, although it takes longer to master, it has better results.
I say that a system with the same components, but more orthadox architecture would allow developers to make good looking games more easily thus leaving less delays and less problems (anti aliasing was a problem for ages!). Ok, so in the long term, the console may not live up to the other architecture, but at least the games come out more fluidly- and that's what gaming is about!
Sonic
They say that, although it takes longer to master, it has better results.
I say that a system with the same components, but more orthadox architecture would allow developers to make good looking games more easily thus leaving less delays and less problems (anti aliasing was a problem for ages!). Ok, so in the long term, the console may not live up to the other architecture, but at least the games come out more fluidly- and that's what gaming is about!
Sonic
Umm...
I think you meant Donkey Kong Country didn't you?
Donkey Kong 64 came out (suprisingly) on the N64. (it wasn't actually the 64th in the series)
;-)
I think you meant Donkey Kong Country didn't you?
Donkey Kong 64 came out (suprisingly) on the N64. (it wasn't actually the 64th in the series)
;-)
"Better was to come when Rare got their act together. Donkey Kong 64 is a truely amazing game. It's huge, and it looks absolutely great, for a SNES title."
*cough*
Surely now, DVD is the ultimate format, and I don't think we're going to get a huge increase in data storage in the next five years.
So why can't consoles keep the same developing patterns? This is what Microsoft have/tried to done/do with the X-Box at least, keeping Direct X, which is quite common for the PC user.
The Gamecube, easy, apparently. So why change the structure... unless of course they switch to DVD, which is a good possibility, but surely it would be the same process anyway? Just upgrade this, tweak that, and you've basically got the same system but faster. That's when consoles turn into PCs, I suppose.
*cough*
Surely now, DVD is the ultimate format, and I don't think we're going to get a huge increase in data storage in the next five years.
So why can't consoles keep the same developing patterns? This is what Microsoft have/tried to done/do with the X-Box at least, keeping Direct X, which is quite common for the PC user.
The Gamecube, easy, apparently. So why change the structure... unless of course they switch to DVD, which is a good possibility, but surely it would be the same process anyway? Just upgrade this, tweak that, and you've basically got the same system but faster. That's when consoles turn into PCs, I suppose.
Meka_Dragon wrote:
There may be a
> perceived peak, but it is merely a glass ceiling, waiting to be broken through,
> and don't worry, it will be.
No I don't think it will. Consoles are never around long enough for them to display their true potential. There are still usergroups out there today that are finding new ways of squeezing more out of a ZX81 home computer simply by changing algoritms in the machine code language that the Z80A processor uses.
Any cartridge based console (SNES, Megadrive, N64) has theoretically unlimited potential because of the extra firmware that can be squeezed into the cartridge format itself.
The next gen consoles (PS2, XBox, Gamecube) will never reach their true potentials because in 5 years time we'll have the PS3, YBox and Flamecube out. There is NO WAY that any team of programmers can fully get to grips with the complicated architecture of our current systems within a 5 year timespan.
There is a general consensus though that the PSX was pushed to its very limits by Metal Gear Solid from a technical point of view (from a gameplay point of view they could have had 3, 4 or even more discs to make the game longer), but even so, imagine if the N64 and the PSX weren't going to be replaced by the Gamecube and the PS2, 3 or 4 years down the line we'd be seeing games we'd have never have thought possible on these 32-bit and 64-bit platforms.
Even today games are still being released for the Dreamcast that push the envelope of graphics out further, cram more features into one disc, and enhance gaming more than anyone could have thought possible when Sega's fated console was first released.
It seems a shame to me that console manufacturers have to constantly compete with each other to bring out the latest hardware when the current systems could be doing so much more given just a little more investment of time.
There may be a
> perceived peak, but it is merely a glass ceiling, waiting to be broken through,
> and don't worry, it will be.
No I don't think it will. Consoles are never around long enough for them to display their true potential. There are still usergroups out there today that are finding new ways of squeezing more out of a ZX81 home computer simply by changing algoritms in the machine code language that the Z80A processor uses.
Any cartridge based console (SNES, Megadrive, N64) has theoretically unlimited potential because of the extra firmware that can be squeezed into the cartridge format itself.
The next gen consoles (PS2, XBox, Gamecube) will never reach their true potentials because in 5 years time we'll have the PS3, YBox and Flamecube out. There is NO WAY that any team of programmers can fully get to grips with the complicated architecture of our current systems within a 5 year timespan.
There is a general consensus though that the PSX was pushed to its very limits by Metal Gear Solid from a technical point of view (from a gameplay point of view they could have had 3, 4 or even more discs to make the game longer), but even so, imagine if the N64 and the PSX weren't going to be replaced by the Gamecube and the PS2, 3 or 4 years down the line we'd be seeing games we'd have never have thought possible on these 32-bit and 64-bit platforms.
Even today games are still being released for the Dreamcast that push the envelope of graphics out further, cram more features into one disc, and enhance gaming more than anyone could have thought possible when Sega's fated console was first released.
It seems a shame to me that console manufacturers have to constantly compete with each other to bring out the latest hardware when the current systems could be doing so much more given just a little more investment of time.
Only two comments to make there...
1. GT3 was put back for only a couple of months for actual development. The rest of the delay was for the rendering of the car models, and to include some of the latest cars from certain manufacturers.
2. As I understood it, the 'Super FX' chip on the SNES actually came in the cartridge with the games that used it? If so, it wasn't actually the SNES performance, but an add-on - something which won't be possible with a Gamecube disc.
Of course, there is the possibility (I suppose) of an add-on module for the Gamecube - but then would that make Nintendo any better than Sony, who have been slated for offering the HDD and Modem/Broadband adapter as an addon? Or the *rumour* some time ago of a plug-in graphics upgrade for the PS2?
1. GT3 was put back for only a couple of months for actual development. The rest of the delay was for the rendering of the car models, and to include some of the latest cars from certain manufacturers.
2. As I understood it, the 'Super FX' chip on the SNES actually came in the cartridge with the games that used it? If so, it wasn't actually the SNES performance, but an add-on - something which won't be possible with a Gamecube disc.
Of course, there is the possibility (I suppose) of an add-on module for the Gamecube - but then would that make Nintendo any better than Sony, who have been slated for offering the HDD and Modem/Broadband adapter as an addon? Or the *rumour* some time ago of a plug-in graphics upgrade for the PS2?
The Paystation, it's architecture, and the way you develop for it.
What the people at Sony are saying sounds much like what Nintendo were saying before the N64 was released.
All the talk of a very complicated architecture that's capable of so much, but you have to do a lot of hard work to get it to do that.
Exactly what Nintendo were saying.
The difference with Sony, however, is that they already have the games, the system is going to be profitable, but the developers are going to have to work hard, really hard to achieve thier ambitions.
So we won't see a lack of third parties working for Sony, not by a long way, but we've already seen the delays. GT3 was put back for how long?
When this was happening on the N64 how the Playstation owners laughed. The Ninties said "I don't care as long as the game is better in the end". Now that's what the Playstation gamers say. It's true though, we'd all rather have better games, even if we have to wait.
Nintendo have completely changed the way their console works for developers with the Gamecube. They've learnt from thier mistakes. Developers get a great deal of instant gratification working on 'Cube titles, it has been said. This makes the developers happy, and they'll work better.
Now I know which arguement comes next, I'll beat you to it. (I wonder if anyone will give up before they get this far, and write this before they read the following?)
The Playstation games will get better as time passes, the Gamecube will reach it's peak relatively early.
The Playstation games will get better. In fact they have done. I can now see two games worthy of what the machine is capable of. In the future their games will get better still.
Early Gamecube games won't get the best from the system. The learning curve may be shallow, but it is still there, and it will take a little while before developers start to use the machine properly.
But will developers reach a peak?
I don't believe they will. The architecture may be set so it seems that they will, but was it not said that the SNES would peak long before it did?
This so called 'peak' was shattered not once but twice with stunning works that set new benchmarks for quality on the SNES. Firstly the 'Super FX' chip. Starwing was the first game to show this off, and it was amazing. What the SNES could now do, compared to the early games was quite shocking.
Better was to come when Rare got their act together. Donkey Kong 64 is a truely amazing game. It's huge, and it looks absolutely great, for a SNES title. That 'peak' was again left far behind.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no way that Nintendo would allow the Gamecube to peak, and continue to produce games at the same level. They're all about innovation, and development and evolution of games on a system has always been important.
There may be a perceived peak, but it is merely a glass ceiling, waiting to be broken through, and don't worry, it will be.
What the people at Sony are saying sounds much like what Nintendo were saying before the N64 was released.
All the talk of a very complicated architecture that's capable of so much, but you have to do a lot of hard work to get it to do that.
Exactly what Nintendo were saying.
The difference with Sony, however, is that they already have the games, the system is going to be profitable, but the developers are going to have to work hard, really hard to achieve thier ambitions.
So we won't see a lack of third parties working for Sony, not by a long way, but we've already seen the delays. GT3 was put back for how long?
When this was happening on the N64 how the Playstation owners laughed. The Ninties said "I don't care as long as the game is better in the end". Now that's what the Playstation gamers say. It's true though, we'd all rather have better games, even if we have to wait.
Nintendo have completely changed the way their console works for developers with the Gamecube. They've learnt from thier mistakes. Developers get a great deal of instant gratification working on 'Cube titles, it has been said. This makes the developers happy, and they'll work better.
Now I know which arguement comes next, I'll beat you to it. (I wonder if anyone will give up before they get this far, and write this before they read the following?)
The Playstation games will get better as time passes, the Gamecube will reach it's peak relatively early.
The Playstation games will get better. In fact they have done. I can now see two games worthy of what the machine is capable of. In the future their games will get better still.
Early Gamecube games won't get the best from the system. The learning curve may be shallow, but it is still there, and it will take a little while before developers start to use the machine properly.
But will developers reach a peak?
I don't believe they will. The architecture may be set so it seems that they will, but was it not said that the SNES would peak long before it did?
This so called 'peak' was shattered not once but twice with stunning works that set new benchmarks for quality on the SNES. Firstly the 'Super FX' chip. Starwing was the first game to show this off, and it was amazing. What the SNES could now do, compared to the early games was quite shocking.
Better was to come when Rare got their act together. Donkey Kong 64 is a truely amazing game. It's huge, and it looks absolutely great, for a SNES title. That 'peak' was again left far behind.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no way that Nintendo would allow the Gamecube to peak, and continue to produce games at the same level. They're all about innovation, and development and evolution of games on a system has always been important.
There may be a perceived peak, but it is merely a glass ceiling, waiting to be broken through, and don't worry, it will be.