The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When Baldurs Gate was out on the PC, it was an RPG.
Now it's out on the PS2, it's an action/adventure.
Why?
Does Sony not think that it's "cool" to have an RPG on their console? I know that the PS2 is a trendy console, and how we should (allegedly) all praise Sony for bringing gaming to the masses, but does something change when it's out on the PS2?
Another example is the graphics from Jak & Daxter. This quote is taken from the preview of Jak & Daxter in OPSM2, talking about the ingame graphics:
"The overall look sits surprisingly comfortably between Disneyesque rosy cheeks, and the sexier, streamlined aesthetic of Japanese anime. In this way the game meets traditional expectations of how a platformer should be drawn but undercuts all that wholesomeness with a dash of disquietude."
Basically, for those that haven't seen any screen shots, it looks cartoony. It's a fun cartoony platformy type game, and the graphics reflect this, bright colours etc. This certainly isn't Resident Evil or Silent Hill, that's for sure.
So why doesn't the preview say this?
Has Sony banned them from saying a game looks cartoony so that the PS2 keeps its "adult image"?
Is that also why I have seen more adverts for FIFA than I have Pro Evo Soccer? Because FIFA has the name, the image, and Sony want to capitalise on this, especailly as we are coming up to Christmas?
At the end of the day, I suppose that Sony just want to sell consoles, and they don't seem too bothered how they go about this.
Don't get me wrong, I like my PS2, I have some great games and am glad I bought it, but it does seem that Sony are "bending" some facts, so that the machine seems more attractive to the target audience.
Which is why J&D is an "engrossing and challenging platformer with non-cartoony graphics, er honest guv. Even though it looks cartoony, it's, er, not. Really."
And the biggest RPG on the PC isn't, in fact, and RPG. But something that sounds like a lot like the popular Tomb Raider series: an Action/Adventure game.
Nice.
Now it's out on the PS2, it's an action/adventure.
Why?
Does Sony not think that it's "cool" to have an RPG on their console? I know that the PS2 is a trendy console, and how we should (allegedly) all praise Sony for bringing gaming to the masses, but does something change when it's out on the PS2?
Another example is the graphics from Jak & Daxter. This quote is taken from the preview of Jak & Daxter in OPSM2, talking about the ingame graphics:
"The overall look sits surprisingly comfortably between Disneyesque rosy cheeks, and the sexier, streamlined aesthetic of Japanese anime. In this way the game meets traditional expectations of how a platformer should be drawn but undercuts all that wholesomeness with a dash of disquietude."
Basically, for those that haven't seen any screen shots, it looks cartoony. It's a fun cartoony platformy type game, and the graphics reflect this, bright colours etc. This certainly isn't Resident Evil or Silent Hill, that's for sure.
So why doesn't the preview say this?
Has Sony banned them from saying a game looks cartoony so that the PS2 keeps its "adult image"?
Is that also why I have seen more adverts for FIFA than I have Pro Evo Soccer? Because FIFA has the name, the image, and Sony want to capitalise on this, especailly as we are coming up to Christmas?
At the end of the day, I suppose that Sony just want to sell consoles, and they don't seem too bothered how they go about this.
Don't get me wrong, I like my PS2, I have some great games and am glad I bought it, but it does seem that Sony are "bending" some facts, so that the machine seems more attractive to the target audience.
Which is why J&D is an "engrossing and challenging platformer with non-cartoony graphics, er honest guv. Even though it looks cartoony, it's, er, not. Really."
And the biggest RPG on the PC isn't, in fact, and RPG. But something that sounds like a lot like the popular Tomb Raider series: an Action/Adventure game.
Nice.
Page:
Looking at it again, maybe the wording I used was a bit wrong. I ment to say Sony concentrate more upon 'image' than 'quality'. There is no doubt Sony do come out with some outstanding games.
Ortega...
I see your point, and I was mainly saying that Sony don't just make bad games, and their image look good. They're not in it to make bad games. They want to make good games, but also concentrate on advertising as well.
Good point about the market though, very true. Sony now need to begin really bringing out some good stuff, and at the moment I think they're doing it. We'll have to wait till after the Christmas rush though to really find out.
I see your point, and I was mainly saying that Sony don't just make bad games, and their image look good. They're not in it to make bad games. They want to make good games, but also concentrate on advertising as well.
Good point about the market though, very true. Sony now need to begin really bringing out some good stuff, and at the moment I think they're doing it. We'll have to wait till after the Christmas rush though to really find out.
are you totally ripping it masta blasta rasta or whatever your name is? why did you have to quote the whole damn message only to add the fact that you agree?
fitz wrote:
> Sony are relying on their vast coverage of all the gaming population through the
> PSOne to justify the purchase of the PS2. While I disagree with this in
> principle, why should Sony have to play the morally correct way when Nintendo
> and Microsoft are using their sheer reputation to sell their console.
The
> PSOne catered for all tastes in the games made for it. It was the console that
> brought gaming to the masses, and everyone appreciates that. This was all done
> while yopu had Nintendo and Sega being happy just selling to a small, abeit
> captive market. Sony broke the monopoly, and Microsoft are trying to do the
> same. This seems to be following the same trend that the PSOne
> followed:
1.Two companies have monopoly over gaming market
2.New company
> enters fray with high quality console, with games aimed at wide
> spectrum
3.Public take to new console, and buy new console and games, which are
> reasonably priced.
4.One of the old companies faces hardship.
The XBox may
> not comply to the latter of point 3, but the XBox has had £500 million
> spent on publicity alone, and so the positive saturation in the press of the
> XBox hype means two things:
1.People will buy it.
2.Some will be
> disappointed because it cant live up to all the hype it was given.
The games
> will have to be highly priced, as the XBox loses money on every sale, so that
> the price will not be dropped until the main component, the GeForce3 graphics
> card falls, which won't be any time soon. The games will have to be highly
> priced, as well as popular, to make back the loss on the console. The console
> won't be able to live up to all the hype, as there are so many games, from so
> many publishers, given so much publicity, reviewers will pick games apart when
> the novelty of playing it wears off. It will take only a couple of cash-ins like
> FIFA or generic games for people to become disgruntled. The XBox games are
> trying to mimic the origianl PSOnes in that there was many of them, and they did
> not aim for one specific user group.
The GC has not had as much publicity as
> any of the other consoles, and the release date is not even certain yet. There
> are some excellent title coming out for it, like Pikmin, however the primary
> praise given for it consists of "Look at wave race, the water looks very
> real". The customised DVD size means that it will take very long, if at all
> to be chipped. This was the PS2's strong point. There were cheap, albeit illegal
> games available for next to nothing. The smaller size also means that it might
> not be capable of any DVD movie playback. The price however will be the main
> selling point. Nintendo have been known to aim their games at children, with a
> lot of Mario cash ins in the past, and cute games being common. It is tipped to
> have many more childrens games for this console, even if it does now have the
> Resident Evil series.
Then theres the PS2. The PS2 is out now, meaning that
> people can buy it now, and there are already great titles like GT3 and GTA3. It
> is priced cheaply and has DVD playback. There is plenty of time between now and
> the release of its rivals, and it already has a 20 million user base worldwide.
> It has a monopoly over Christmas, and MGS2 is also on the horizon. The
> technology exists to play imported games, and the games made aims themselves at
> all groups, from children to adults, and cater for all tastes. The games now are
> tending to aim themselves at the mid-late teens, with more action-adventure and
> survival horror games.
I think the PS2 will be the most successful, due to
> its prior user base, price, great games and widespread popularity, even if the
> XBox will be a novelty at first due to its graphics, and the overhyped
> Halo.
The GC will sell steadily, even if it does not become popular with the
> masses, and all I hope is that Nintendo don't exclude many third party
> developers, as it is apparent from the success of the PSOne, PS2 and XBox (In
> USA) that having third party games is vital. Nintendo maintains a good quality
> of games, but the other consoles may have many poor games, but the number and
> quality of some of the others justifies it.
Where would we be without games
> like GT3, Soul Reaver etc.
I think having some really bad games like Army Men
> and Vib Ribbon is fine as long as there are some great games that stand out.
Very VERY true
> Sony are relying on their vast coverage of all the gaming population through the
> PSOne to justify the purchase of the PS2. While I disagree with this in
> principle, why should Sony have to play the morally correct way when Nintendo
> and Microsoft are using their sheer reputation to sell their console.
The
> PSOne catered for all tastes in the games made for it. It was the console that
> brought gaming to the masses, and everyone appreciates that. This was all done
> while yopu had Nintendo and Sega being happy just selling to a small, abeit
> captive market. Sony broke the monopoly, and Microsoft are trying to do the
> same. This seems to be following the same trend that the PSOne
> followed:
1.Two companies have monopoly over gaming market
2.New company
> enters fray with high quality console, with games aimed at wide
> spectrum
3.Public take to new console, and buy new console and games, which are
> reasonably priced.
4.One of the old companies faces hardship.
The XBox may
> not comply to the latter of point 3, but the XBox has had £500 million
> spent on publicity alone, and so the positive saturation in the press of the
> XBox hype means two things:
1.People will buy it.
2.Some will be
> disappointed because it cant live up to all the hype it was given.
The games
> will have to be highly priced, as the XBox loses money on every sale, so that
> the price will not be dropped until the main component, the GeForce3 graphics
> card falls, which won't be any time soon. The games will have to be highly
> priced, as well as popular, to make back the loss on the console. The console
> won't be able to live up to all the hype, as there are so many games, from so
> many publishers, given so much publicity, reviewers will pick games apart when
> the novelty of playing it wears off. It will take only a couple of cash-ins like
> FIFA or generic games for people to become disgruntled. The XBox games are
> trying to mimic the origianl PSOnes in that there was many of them, and they did
> not aim for one specific user group.
The GC has not had as much publicity as
> any of the other consoles, and the release date is not even certain yet. There
> are some excellent title coming out for it, like Pikmin, however the primary
> praise given for it consists of "Look at wave race, the water looks very
> real". The customised DVD size means that it will take very long, if at all
> to be chipped. This was the PS2's strong point. There were cheap, albeit illegal
> games available for next to nothing. The smaller size also means that it might
> not be capable of any DVD movie playback. The price however will be the main
> selling point. Nintendo have been known to aim their games at children, with a
> lot of Mario cash ins in the past, and cute games being common. It is tipped to
> have many more childrens games for this console, even if it does now have the
> Resident Evil series.
Then theres the PS2. The PS2 is out now, meaning that
> people can buy it now, and there are already great titles like GT3 and GTA3. It
> is priced cheaply and has DVD playback. There is plenty of time between now and
> the release of its rivals, and it already has a 20 million user base worldwide.
> It has a monopoly over Christmas, and MGS2 is also on the horizon. The
> technology exists to play imported games, and the games made aims themselves at
> all groups, from children to adults, and cater for all tastes. The games now are
> tending to aim themselves at the mid-late teens, with more action-adventure and
> survival horror games.
I think the PS2 will be the most successful, due to
> its prior user base, price, great games and widespread popularity, even if the
> XBox will be a novelty at first due to its graphics, and the overhyped
> Halo.
The GC will sell steadily, even if it does not become popular with the
> masses, and all I hope is that Nintendo don't exclude many third party
> developers, as it is apparent from the success of the PSOne, PS2 and XBox (In
> USA) that having third party games is vital. Nintendo maintains a good quality
> of games, but the other consoles may have many poor games, but the number and
> quality of some of the others justifies it.
Where would we be without games
> like GT3, Soul Reaver etc.
I think having some really bad games like Army Men
> and Vib Ribbon is fine as long as there are some great games that stand out.
Very VERY true
Ant wrote:
So you're saying Sony don't want to make good
> games??
just a few quick points.
In the '90s, Sony concentrated more upon 'image' to sell their consoles rather than 'quality'.
Nintendo concentrated on 'quality' without giving much attention at all towards the image given out.
Nintendo came 2nd to Sony becasue thats the way market works. The general public dont look for the best thing, they let the 'image' do all the thinking.
I'm not aiming this at any of the established gamers in these forums, but the casual 'eazy geezer' gamer.
So you're saying Sony don't want to make good
> games??
just a few quick points.
In the '90s, Sony concentrated more upon 'image' to sell their consoles rather than 'quality'.
Nintendo concentrated on 'quality' without giving much attention at all towards the image given out.
Nintendo came 2nd to Sony becasue thats the way market works. The general public dont look for the best thing, they let the 'image' do all the thinking.
I'm not aiming this at any of the established gamers in these forums, but the casual 'eazy geezer' gamer.
But you may be right. Sony don't exactly specialise in 'cartoonie' platformers, if that's even a term. And Nintendo, despite what people will say, do. So perhaps Sony don't want to advertise cartoonie games as good games. Can you blame them?
Sibs: Yes.
Okay then. {:)
Sibs: Yes.
Okay then. {:)
Armatige Shanks wrote:
Thats true... although to be fair, I'm sure their wallets
> will help sooth their pain? ...
Very true. :-)
Though isnt Baulders Gate, at least, for
> them, yesterdays news... They have spent a considerable amount of time on their
> newer game engine (I was never a big fan of the Baulder Gate (infinity?) engine,
> it always felt felt very 486?)
They may be usign an all new engine, but they're still using the BG name, so I would have thought they wouldn't want that spoiled.
As for the 486 "look", I don't know. I'm not a huge fan of RPG's, so I haven't played it, but I do get the impression the graphics engine wasn't hugely advanced...
Thats true... although to be fair, I'm sure their wallets
> will help sooth their pain? ...
Very true. :-)
Though isnt Baulders Gate, at least, for
> them, yesterdays news... They have spent a considerable amount of time on their
> newer game engine (I was never a big fan of the Baulder Gate (infinity?) engine,
> it always felt felt very 486?)
They may be usign an all new engine, but they're still using the BG name, so I would have thought they wouldn't want that spoiled.
As for the 486 "look", I don't know. I'm not a huge fan of RPG's, so I haven't played it, but I do get the impression the graphics engine wasn't hugely advanced...
Sibs wrote:
> Sony are scared of showing that the most popular games (and consoles...) are not
> always the best. It is scared to show gamers that cartoony ('kiddie') games can
> be good, as this would play to Nintendos favour. Basically, it does want to sell
> consoles however possible. This is one reason why I prefer Nintendo. It wants to
> make good games, and believes through this will sell consoles. Maybe it's kind
> of a niave view of the world, but still...
So you're saying Sony don't want to make good games??
They have a target audience, as do Nintendo. And they're not 'scared' of showing cartoonie games, because Crash Bandicoot was one of their main franchises on PS1. Lots of people don't like cartoonie games. Perhaps one of the reasons for the PSX doing so much better than the N64 was that it offered something new and different from Mario.
Also, cartoony or cartoonie isn't a word. So it wouldn't look very good if a mag used those words, would it? {:)
> Sony are scared of showing that the most popular games (and consoles...) are not
> always the best. It is scared to show gamers that cartoony ('kiddie') games can
> be good, as this would play to Nintendos favour. Basically, it does want to sell
> consoles however possible. This is one reason why I prefer Nintendo. It wants to
> make good games, and believes through this will sell consoles. Maybe it's kind
> of a niave view of the world, but still...
So you're saying Sony don't want to make good games??
They have a target audience, as do Nintendo. And they're not 'scared' of showing cartoonie games, because Crash Bandicoot was one of their main franchises on PS1. Lots of people don't like cartoonie games. Perhaps one of the reasons for the PSX doing so much better than the N64 was that it offered something new and different from Mario.
Also, cartoony or cartoonie isn't a word. So it wouldn't look very good if a mag used those words, would it? {:)
Your Honour wrote:
That is a
> possibility, but surely whoever made it originally for the PC (forgotten their
> name) wouldn't want the reputation soiled?
They have got a HUGE follwoing on
> the PC with the games and add on packs, so why risk reducing that by letting the
> repuatation of the game go down from "top RPG", to
> "action/adventure Tomb Raider type jobby"?
Thats true... although to be fair, I'm sure their wallets will help sooth their pain? ...
Though isnt Baulders Gate, at least, for them, yesterdays news... They have spent a considerable amount of time on their newer game engine (I was never a big fan of the Baulder Gate (infinity?) engine, it always felt felt very 486?)
That is a
> possibility, but surely whoever made it originally for the PC (forgotten their
> name) wouldn't want the reputation soiled?
They have got a HUGE follwoing on
> the PC with the games and add on packs, so why risk reducing that by letting the
> repuatation of the game go down from "top RPG", to
> "action/adventure Tomb Raider type jobby"?
Thats true... although to be fair, I'm sure their wallets will help sooth their pain? ...
Though isnt Baulders Gate, at least, for them, yesterdays news... They have spent a considerable amount of time on their newer game engine (I was never a big fan of the Baulder Gate (infinity?) engine, it always felt felt very 486?)
Armatige Shanks wrote:
Maybe the PS2 Baulders Gate is a cut-down version of the PC
> Baulders Gate?
I read a post about a console gamer whos friend felt
> overwhelemed by Baulder Gate on the PC, so maybe they have made the gameplay
> more approachable by a wider audience for the console market...
Rather like
> Origin did for the Ultima series when they released Ultima Games on the SNES and
> Gameboy?
That is a possibility, but surely whoever made it originally for the PC (forgotten their name) wouldn't want the reputation soiled?
They have got a HUGE follwoing on the PC with the games and add on packs, so why risk reducing that by letting the repuatation of the game go down from "top RPG", to "action/adventure Tomb Raider type jobby"?
Maybe the PS2 Baulders Gate is a cut-down version of the PC
> Baulders Gate?
I read a post about a console gamer whos friend felt
> overwhelemed by Baulder Gate on the PC, so maybe they have made the gameplay
> more approachable by a wider audience for the console market...
Rather like
> Origin did for the Ultima series when they released Ultima Games on the SNES and
> Gameboy?
That is a possibility, but surely whoever made it originally for the PC (forgotten their name) wouldn't want the reputation soiled?
They have got a HUGE follwoing on the PC with the games and add on packs, so why risk reducing that by letting the repuatation of the game go down from "top RPG", to "action/adventure Tomb Raider type jobby"?
Page: