The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I meant to answer the question : Which console is the best? but I got side tracked and I end up going on about the life and death of SEGA as a hardware manufacturer and escalating my fears about the success of Gamecube. Sorry! But please, read on.
Everyone asks the question : Which console is the best? but there can only be one answer... none of them are!
Each of the next generation consoles has its own strengths and weaknesses and for the most part, the success of a console is often not relative to the quality of it. I don't think that this is fair.
The Dreamcast was the first of the next generation consoles. It tried, it failed. The main reason for this is that SEGA did not have Joe consumer on their side.
After huge success with the Megadrive, SEGA promised something new... the world's first 32-bit console. At this point, SEGA were the company of choice in America and Europe although in Japan they weren't so popular. Then, with the public excited and pre-ordering Saturns, SEGA made a huge mistake.
Eager to keep the Megadrive going for as long as possible, SEGA delayed the Saturn and released the Mega CD and 32X. This did not go down well. Then SONY arrived on the scene offering screenshots of 'true 3D technology.'
SEGA made the same mistake with the Dreamcast while, although not extending the Saturn's life, they came up with some quirky adverts with no in-game screenshots at all. Once again, SONY delivered the goods. Or did they?
The Dreamcast, now dead, was a great console but failed due to SEGA's own stupidity. The PS2, in some people’s opinion has not lived fully up to the hype it generated. However, SONY have money coming in from DVD players and the like as well as PS2 and so can afford to advertise. In a way, the N64 might have done better with more advertising although NINTENDO could not afford it and NINTENDO may have gone the way of SEGA had they not had the GB to fall back on. NINTENDO are also losing support after failing to deliver top class in-house games such as Zelda and Mario at launch and with their proposal to turn the epic Zelda series into a cartoon ( I feel it will still be a great game, but there you go... )
NINTENDO and SEGA are great game manufacturers and their consoles ooze originality as far as games are concerned ( although DC had a lack of 3rd party support ) but PS2 seems to be developers console of choice, although that is changing now that they have seen X-Boxes popularity and taken into account that it is technically the superior console. I don’t like NINTENDO’s chances against MICROSOFT’s powerhouse and SONY’s incredible swarm of fans, despite GC being just as good as both.
Some people feel that PS2 has not fully lived up to its hype. GC may go the way of DC/N64 due to a lack of 3rd party support. X-Box may not secure the Japanese market. Each console also has its own down sides and merits, and each are pretty equal in terms of quality, but ultimately, people will take sales figures as a sign of quality and developers will produce for the most popular console, whether it’s best or not, resulting in a lack of decent games on the losing console in the war. It aint right! Let’s not have a repeat of the DC incident where a great console dies needlessly.
Everyone asks the question : Which console is the best? but there can only be one answer... none of them are!
Each of the next generation consoles has its own strengths and weaknesses and for the most part, the success of a console is often not relative to the quality of it. I don't think that this is fair.
The Dreamcast was the first of the next generation consoles. It tried, it failed. The main reason for this is that SEGA did not have Joe consumer on their side.
After huge success with the Megadrive, SEGA promised something new... the world's first 32-bit console. At this point, SEGA were the company of choice in America and Europe although in Japan they weren't so popular. Then, with the public excited and pre-ordering Saturns, SEGA made a huge mistake.
Eager to keep the Megadrive going for as long as possible, SEGA delayed the Saturn and released the Mega CD and 32X. This did not go down well. Then SONY arrived on the scene offering screenshots of 'true 3D technology.'
SEGA made the same mistake with the Dreamcast while, although not extending the Saturn's life, they came up with some quirky adverts with no in-game screenshots at all. Once again, SONY delivered the goods. Or did they?
The Dreamcast, now dead, was a great console but failed due to SEGA's own stupidity. The PS2, in some people’s opinion has not lived fully up to the hype it generated. However, SONY have money coming in from DVD players and the like as well as PS2 and so can afford to advertise. In a way, the N64 might have done better with more advertising although NINTENDO could not afford it and NINTENDO may have gone the way of SEGA had they not had the GB to fall back on. NINTENDO are also losing support after failing to deliver top class in-house games such as Zelda and Mario at launch and with their proposal to turn the epic Zelda series into a cartoon ( I feel it will still be a great game, but there you go... )
NINTENDO and SEGA are great game manufacturers and their consoles ooze originality as far as games are concerned ( although DC had a lack of 3rd party support ) but PS2 seems to be developers console of choice, although that is changing now that they have seen X-Boxes popularity and taken into account that it is technically the superior console. I don’t like NINTENDO’s chances against MICROSOFT’s powerhouse and SONY’s incredible swarm of fans, despite GC being just as good as both.
Some people feel that PS2 has not fully lived up to its hype. GC may go the way of DC/N64 due to a lack of 3rd party support. X-Box may not secure the Japanese market. Each console also has its own down sides and merits, and each are pretty equal in terms of quality, but ultimately, people will take sales figures as a sign of quality and developers will produce for the most popular console, whether it’s best or not, resulting in a lack of decent games on the losing console in the war. It aint right! Let’s not have a repeat of the DC incident where a great console dies needlessly.
Page:
Hah. I'm sorry if its kind of ironic me saying this, but a JAT walking about as if he owns the place??? I dunno. Oh, and 1 slight flaw in your posting. Your username is 'outlaw_uk2002', yet under your other username, 'FreddoMonster' (which you then changed to Chiffs)you said 'Its snowing here in Nepal'. You lie!!! You say you live in Nepal and the UK!!!!
Yawn. Could we stop starting threads about the console war as nobody gives a crap. Still, it was a very good post.
No, the Dreamcast was the last of the last generation consoles, because it competed with the N64 and PlayStation. It isn't going to compete with the GameCube or Xbox, and has barely been in existence as the same time as the PlayStation 2. Just a correction, because if you think about it, the Sega Saturn was 2 generation's technology ago, not 1.
I meant to answer the question : Which console is the best? but I got side tracked and I end up going on about the life and death of SEGA as a hardware manufacturer and escalating my fears about the success of Gamecube. Sorry! But please, read on.
Everyone asks the question : Which console is the best? but there can only be one answer... none of them are!
Each of the next generation consoles has its own strengths and weaknesses and for the most part, the success of a console is often not relative to the quality of it. I don't think that this is fair.
The Dreamcast was the first of the next generation consoles. It tried, it failed. The main reason for this is that SEGA did not have Joe consumer on their side.
After huge success with the Megadrive, SEGA promised something new... the world's first 32-bit console. At this point, SEGA were the company of choice in America and Europe although in Japan they weren't so popular. Then, with the public excited and pre-ordering Saturns, SEGA made a huge mistake.
Eager to keep the Megadrive going for as long as possible, SEGA delayed the Saturn and released the Mega CD and 32X. This did not go down well. Then SONY arrived on the scene offering screenshots of 'true 3D technology.'
SEGA made the same mistake with the Dreamcast while, although not extending the Saturn's life, they came up with some quirky adverts with no in-game screenshots at all. Once again, SONY delivered the goods. Or did they?
The Dreamcast, now dead, was a great console but failed due to SEGA's own stupidity. The PS2, in some people’s opinion has not lived fully up to the hype it generated. However, SONY have money coming in from DVD players and the like as well as PS2 and so can afford to advertise. In a way, the N64 might have done better with more advertising although NINTENDO could not afford it and NINTENDO may have gone the way of SEGA had they not had the GB to fall back on. NINTENDO are also losing support after failing to deliver top class in-house games such as Zelda and Mario at launch and with their proposal to turn the epic Zelda series into a cartoon ( I feel it will still be a great game, but there you go... )
NINTENDO and SEGA are great game manufacturers and their consoles ooze originality as far as games are concerned ( although DC had a lack of 3rd party support ) but PS2 seems to be developers console of choice, although that is changing now that they have seen X-Boxes popularity and taken into account that it is technically the superior console. I don’t like NINTENDO’s chances against MICROSOFT’s powerhouse and SONY’s incredible swarm of fans, despite GC being just as good as both.
Some people feel that PS2 has not fully lived up to its hype. GC may go the way of DC/N64 due to a lack of 3rd party support. X-Box may not secure the Japanese market. Each console also has its own down sides and merits, and each are pretty equal in terms of quality, but ultimately, people will take sales figures as a sign of quality and developers will produce for the most popular console, whether it’s best or not, resulting in a lack of decent games on the losing console in the war. It aint right! Let’s not have a repeat of the DC incident where a great console dies needlessly.
Everyone asks the question : Which console is the best? but there can only be one answer... none of them are!
Each of the next generation consoles has its own strengths and weaknesses and for the most part, the success of a console is often not relative to the quality of it. I don't think that this is fair.
The Dreamcast was the first of the next generation consoles. It tried, it failed. The main reason for this is that SEGA did not have Joe consumer on their side.
After huge success with the Megadrive, SEGA promised something new... the world's first 32-bit console. At this point, SEGA were the company of choice in America and Europe although in Japan they weren't so popular. Then, with the public excited and pre-ordering Saturns, SEGA made a huge mistake.
Eager to keep the Megadrive going for as long as possible, SEGA delayed the Saturn and released the Mega CD and 32X. This did not go down well. Then SONY arrived on the scene offering screenshots of 'true 3D technology.'
SEGA made the same mistake with the Dreamcast while, although not extending the Saturn's life, they came up with some quirky adverts with no in-game screenshots at all. Once again, SONY delivered the goods. Or did they?
The Dreamcast, now dead, was a great console but failed due to SEGA's own stupidity. The PS2, in some people’s opinion has not lived fully up to the hype it generated. However, SONY have money coming in from DVD players and the like as well as PS2 and so can afford to advertise. In a way, the N64 might have done better with more advertising although NINTENDO could not afford it and NINTENDO may have gone the way of SEGA had they not had the GB to fall back on. NINTENDO are also losing support after failing to deliver top class in-house games such as Zelda and Mario at launch and with their proposal to turn the epic Zelda series into a cartoon ( I feel it will still be a great game, but there you go... )
NINTENDO and SEGA are great game manufacturers and their consoles ooze originality as far as games are concerned ( although DC had a lack of 3rd party support ) but PS2 seems to be developers console of choice, although that is changing now that they have seen X-Boxes popularity and taken into account that it is technically the superior console. I don’t like NINTENDO’s chances against MICROSOFT’s powerhouse and SONY’s incredible swarm of fans, despite GC being just as good as both.
Some people feel that PS2 has not fully lived up to its hype. GC may go the way of DC/N64 due to a lack of 3rd party support. X-Box may not secure the Japanese market. Each console also has its own down sides and merits, and each are pretty equal in terms of quality, but ultimately, people will take sales figures as a sign of quality and developers will produce for the most popular console, whether it’s best or not, resulting in a lack of decent games on the losing console in the war. It aint right! Let’s not have a repeat of the DC incident where a great console dies needlessly.
Page: