The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 posted this in "Prime" then I realised no-one would read it...so i decided to post it here as well...bring on the vitriolic comments.
Controversial headline eh? I know what you're thinking - "Unbeliever has clearly lost his mind. The games industry is better than it ever has been and with games like Vice City and Pro-Evo, Sony has single-handedly revitalised the games industry. So stuff that in your pipe and go away you Nintendo zealout."
Not so.
I'll explain why....
Cast your mind back to the halcyon days of the Megadrive and the SNES, when there were a wealth of good playable games out there. Some games were lucky enough to be ported over to another platform but generally they retained their host platform and were enjoyed by persons who owned either console. Yes, there were the usual mundane arguments over one console being "better" than another but as anyone knows, the strength of a console can only be judged on the quality of the games for the console. Anyone got a 3DO?
Developers were given free reign with their games without producers looking over their shoulders muttering about reaching projected sales targets and threatening to can the game before it gets released due to "rising costs" or "bad previews". Everyone was happy. Games got released, sometimes a few weeks late, and honest reviews came out because games mags didn't have to rely on companies' advertising to keep them in business - it was the gameplayers that supplied them with their money based on how many mags were sold.
Going off on a tangent for a moment, I don't know if anyone remembers, but THQ was one of the worst games developers ever and constantly received major criticism due to their lack-lustre poor games that were released. Nowadays it amazes me how far THQ has come but they were rubbish ten years ago. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, games weren't necessarily better than nowadays BUT (and this is a big but) there were far less below average, sub-standard rushed releases. People stuck with either Sega or Nintendo and didn't trust any other games company do to the industry justice. Any companies that thought otherwise soon found out the hard way - The Amstrad GX-4000 sank without a trace, the Amiga CD-32 disappeared without a whimper, the Jaguar was scuttled faster than Titanic. These being just a few examples. I remember when a company tried to release a handheld to rival the monchrome Gameboy (the name escapes me). The games were poor and it soon failed like its' predecessors.
So who do I blame for this? Sony, of course.
So why the heavy heart? Well, games were a niche market - much smaller than the vast profits in other entertainment industries, platforms were cheaper to develop for and a company's success wasn't marked by the amount of games franchises that it could get hold of - games didn't generally sell on the basis of the name of a game (although the Mario games were an exception as were the Sonic range) - they got judged on the playability. If a company released a bad game, it wouldn't sell well but the company wouldn't be forced out of business by it. Indeed, they'd re-double their efforts to get a quality product out and to tweak and refine it until it was perfect and then release it to the unsuspecting public and sit back and bask in the glow of critical acclaim when they'd satisfied gamers with their product.
We also saw a new age in re-invention and originality. Prince of Persia featured the most amazing fluidity ever witnessed, Flashback and Another World took the same feature and improved on it, Disney games were GOOD. Yes, hard to believe but Castle of Illusion was one of the Megadrive's finest moments. 2-D shoot-em-ups were in their prime and platformers constantly strove to establish the essential purchase, from Decap Attack to Quackshot - there was something for everyone. Populous entered the fray and everyone wanted to be God. Sim City amazed with it's accurate management system and FIFA reared its' ugly head! There was a game to satisfy everyone's tastes.
So, backtrack to 1995 (or rather, fast forward to 1995) when the Sony Playstation was first released. It came out with games like Ridge Racer and Destruction Derby that amazed gamers with arcade style graphics and soon became one of the biggest, most successful gaming platforms of all time. It lasted for over 7 years, something almost unheard of in such a volitile market and the company went from strength to strength. Marketing sold more Playstations than anything else and "casual gamers" got recognised for what they were. Parents played their son's/daughter's (let's not discriminate eh?) consoles. More people got into games and the industry as a whole got bigger with vast turnover margins.
So, what gives? Why the "ill-informed pompous" rant against the company that allegedly "kick started the games industry"?
Simple. People noticed. Games had more turnover and generated more income than any other entertainment industry in 2002. Bigwigs realised that it was big business rather than in the old days when they wanted to please customers with a great product. Even Bill Gates sat up, noticed and decided to get in on ther act. Games sold these days are more often than not on their title rather than quality. It's all a question of style over substance. Nowadays, games companies generally spend less time on developing games for consoles (of course there are exceptions). They obtain big licenses (James Bond, anyone?) and make a game to fit the license. They have deadlines to meet and if they don't reach them, there's no more financial support from the producers. So they release a substandard game that sells on its' name when they could have taken longer and released a great game. The Two Towers and Harry Potter are prime examples. Games developers are judged on their success by each release. Indeed one bad selling game could force a company out of business. Look at Rage Software, for example.
The hype associated with games and consoles was too much - Sega's Dreamcast breathed its' last breath while the PS2 was lauded. Why? The DC had the same, if not better architecture (don't argue with me on this one because I don't care about system stats as I said before) and the game were as good, if not better - Skies of Arcadia, Rez, Virtua Tennis etc. Sony forced Sega out of the market with its' slick marketing campaign and a load of false hype - the "emotion engine" turned out to be nothing but a chip, the "Third Place" was a foolish notion that no-one understood and only the success of killer titles sold it well. The Getaway was a flawed concept that couldn't live up to the hype it generated. Developers release sub-standard games that are hurriedly rushed into development for the host platforms. Then they get the multi-format treatment in an effort to maximise sales so now we don't get one below average game released, but THREE. On every console. So now we get three rubbish versions of Turok Evolution instead of one.
So what do we have these days? An over-saturated market with a wealth of generic games. Generic racing games, generic fighting games, generic sports games and generic 3-D adventure games. All below average, all wasting space on the shelf...and all selling mostly due to its' title name. I could count the number of decent games on each console on my hands. Why? When each console had over 100 games for it? Why are only about 5% of those games any good?
So who ruined the games industry? Sony. By selling so many consoles with their debut console, they shot themselves in the foot. Games players deserve better than this.
I don't care if no-one agrees with me on this touchy subject but i'll vent my frustration as much as I like about this subject. Next time you go into your GAME or EB shops (that probably weren't even there 6-7 years ago) look around you and look at the games everywhere. Look at the shelf space designated to poor games. Look at how the industry is suffering and then laugh as you buy your copy of Nightfire - because you're not to blame are you?
Controversial headline eh? I know what you're thinking - "Unbeliever has clearly lost his mind. The games industry is better than it ever has been and with games like Vice City and Pro-Evo, Sony has single-handedly revitalised the games industry. So stuff that in your pipe and go away you Nintendo zealout."
Not so.
I'll explain why....
Cast your mind back to the halcyon days of the Megadrive and the SNES, when there were a wealth of good playable games out there. Some games were lucky enough to be ported over to another platform but generally they retained their host platform and were enjoyed by persons who owned either console. Yes, there were the usual mundane arguments over one console being "better" than another but as anyone knows, the strength of a console can only be judged on the quality of the games for the console. Anyone got a 3DO?
Developers were given free reign with their games without producers looking over their shoulders muttering about reaching projected sales targets and threatening to can the game before it gets released due to "rising costs" or "bad previews". Everyone was happy. Games got released, sometimes a few weeks late, and honest reviews came out because games mags didn't have to rely on companies' advertising to keep them in business - it was the gameplayers that supplied them with their money based on how many mags were sold.
Going off on a tangent for a moment, I don't know if anyone remembers, but THQ was one of the worst games developers ever and constantly received major criticism due to their lack-lustre poor games that were released. Nowadays it amazes me how far THQ has come but they were rubbish ten years ago. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, games weren't necessarily better than nowadays BUT (and this is a big but) there were far less below average, sub-standard rushed releases. People stuck with either Sega or Nintendo and didn't trust any other games company do to the industry justice. Any companies that thought otherwise soon found out the hard way - The Amstrad GX-4000 sank without a trace, the Amiga CD-32 disappeared without a whimper, the Jaguar was scuttled faster than Titanic. These being just a few examples. I remember when a company tried to release a handheld to rival the monchrome Gameboy (the name escapes me). The games were poor and it soon failed like its' predecessors.
So who do I blame for this? Sony, of course.
So why the heavy heart? Well, games were a niche market - much smaller than the vast profits in other entertainment industries, platforms were cheaper to develop for and a company's success wasn't marked by the amount of games franchises that it could get hold of - games didn't generally sell on the basis of the name of a game (although the Mario games were an exception as were the Sonic range) - they got judged on the playability. If a company released a bad game, it wouldn't sell well but the company wouldn't be forced out of business by it. Indeed, they'd re-double their efforts to get a quality product out and to tweak and refine it until it was perfect and then release it to the unsuspecting public and sit back and bask in the glow of critical acclaim when they'd satisfied gamers with their product.
We also saw a new age in re-invention and originality. Prince of Persia featured the most amazing fluidity ever witnessed, Flashback and Another World took the same feature and improved on it, Disney games were GOOD. Yes, hard to believe but Castle of Illusion was one of the Megadrive's finest moments. 2-D shoot-em-ups were in their prime and platformers constantly strove to establish the essential purchase, from Decap Attack to Quackshot - there was something for everyone. Populous entered the fray and everyone wanted to be God. Sim City amazed with it's accurate management system and FIFA reared its' ugly head! There was a game to satisfy everyone's tastes.
So, backtrack to 1995 (or rather, fast forward to 1995) when the Sony Playstation was first released. It came out with games like Ridge Racer and Destruction Derby that amazed gamers with arcade style graphics and soon became one of the biggest, most successful gaming platforms of all time. It lasted for over 7 years, something almost unheard of in such a volitile market and the company went from strength to strength. Marketing sold more Playstations than anything else and "casual gamers" got recognised for what they were. Parents played their son's/daughter's (let's not discriminate eh?) consoles. More people got into games and the industry as a whole got bigger with vast turnover margins.
So, what gives? Why the "ill-informed pompous" rant against the company that allegedly "kick started the games industry"?
Simple. People noticed. Games had more turnover and generated more income than any other entertainment industry in 2002. Bigwigs realised that it was big business rather than in the old days when they wanted to please customers with a great product. Even Bill Gates sat up, noticed and decided to get in on ther act. Games sold these days are more often than not on their title rather than quality. It's all a question of style over substance. Nowadays, games companies generally spend less time on developing games for consoles (of course there are exceptions). They obtain big licenses (James Bond, anyone?) and make a game to fit the license. They have deadlines to meet and if they don't reach them, there's no more financial support from the producers. So they release a substandard game that sells on its' name when they could have taken longer and released a great game. The Two Towers and Harry Potter are prime examples. Games developers are judged on their success by each release. Indeed one bad selling game could force a company out of business. Look at Rage Software, for example.
The hype associated with games and consoles was too much - Sega's Dreamcast breathed its' last breath while the PS2 was lauded. Why? The DC had the same, if not better architecture (don't argue with me on this one because I don't care about system stats as I said before) and the game were as good, if not better - Skies of Arcadia, Rez, Virtua Tennis etc. Sony forced Sega out of the market with its' slick marketing campaign and a load of false hype - the "emotion engine" turned out to be nothing but a chip, the "Third Place" was a foolish notion that no-one understood and only the success of killer titles sold it well. The Getaway was a flawed concept that couldn't live up to the hype it generated. Developers release sub-standard games that are hurriedly rushed into development for the host platforms. Then they get the multi-format treatment in an effort to maximise sales so now we don't get one below average game released, but THREE. On every console. So now we get three rubbish versions of Turok Evolution instead of one.
So what do we have these days? An over-saturated market with a wealth of generic games. Generic racing games, generic fighting games, generic sports games and generic 3-D adventure games. All below average, all wasting space on the shelf...and all selling mostly due to its' title name. I could count the number of decent games on each console on my hands. Why? When each console had over 100 games for it? Why are only about 5% of those games any good?
So who ruined the games industry? Sony. By selling so many consoles with their debut console, they shot themselves in the foot. Games players deserve better than this.
I don't care if no-one agrees with me on this touchy subject but i'll vent my frustration as much as I like about this subject. Next time you go into your GAME or EB shops (that probably weren't even there 6-7 years ago) look around you and look at the games everywhere. Look at the shelf space designated to poor games. Look at how the industry is suffering and then laugh as you buy your copy of Nightfire - because you're not to blame are you?
Page:
El Blokey wrote:
> ALL the consoles have AAA games on them, Gamecube with arguably the least.
*Stops reading*
> ALL the consoles have AAA games on them, Gamecube with arguably the least.
*Stops reading*
SONY RULE!!!!
Slik, you said yourself you won't be swayed by casual gamers. But you moan about them. Why do you care?
I'm with El-Blokey, I don't care what people spend their money on, as long as it isn't affecting what I like.
John.J wrote:
> Yes, but the thing is people still buy rubbish games because they are
> usually lisenced games. And people will still continue to buy bad
> games.
What point are you trying to make? People still buy Westlife albums. As long as I get my Supergrass CD I'm happy. They're wasting their own money. So are people who watch tosh like Sweet Home Alabama.
> Yes, but the thing is people still buy rubbish games because they are
> usually lisenced games. And people will still continue to buy bad
> games.
What point are you trying to make? People still buy Westlife albums. As long as I get my Supergrass CD I'm happy. They're wasting their own money. So are people who watch tosh like Sweet Home Alabama.
Unbeliever wrote:
> As to making games "cool". well that's the stupidest thing
> I've ever heard. Games were "cool" years before Sony came
> along.
Really? They weren't considered geeky, only for dateless, lifeless nerds in their bedrooms?
> If El Blokey means more mainstream, then yes, he's right.
> Mainstream doesn't necessarily mean better, though.
Without Sony we wouldn't have Ico, or Frequency, or Gran Turismo or any number of games.
> As to making games "cool". well that's the stupidest thing
> I've ever heard. Games were "cool" years before Sony came
> along.
Really? They weren't considered geeky, only for dateless, lifeless nerds in their bedrooms?
> If El Blokey means more mainstream, then yes, he's right.
> Mainstream doesn't necessarily mean better, though.
Without Sony we wouldn't have Ico, or Frequency, or Gran Turismo or any number of games.
There's always been naff games around for all consoles since the dawn of consoles. Sony didn't change that, they just replaced the Dreamcast by knocking SEGA out of the equation. (The DC had its fair share of naff games too).
Sony made the major contribution of making gaming more widespread and more socially acceptable, forcing other manufacturers to keep up with heavy marketing, escalating the console wars to such an extent that Microsoft (always up for a scrap) joined the fray.
Now, instead of just Saturn and N64 and a host of non-entity consoles struggling to get a foothold, you've got PS2, XBox and Gamecube all fully established, all with AAA titles, and all with their fair share of naff games.
Whereas in the past you'd get maybe 1 top title for every 15 games released, you now STILL get 1 top title for every 15 games released, just more choice of which console to play them on.
The blame for naff games lies squarely with the publishers for releasing them in the first place. Like they always did in the past, and always will do in the future no matter how big or small the gaming industry is.
Sony made the major contribution of making gaming more widespread and more socially acceptable, forcing other manufacturers to keep up with heavy marketing, escalating the console wars to such an extent that Microsoft (always up for a scrap) joined the fray.
Now, instead of just Saturn and N64 and a host of non-entity consoles struggling to get a foothold, you've got PS2, XBox and Gamecube all fully established, all with AAA titles, and all with their fair share of naff games.
Whereas in the past you'd get maybe 1 top title for every 15 games released, you now STILL get 1 top title for every 15 games released, just more choice of which console to play them on.
The blame for naff games lies squarely with the publishers for releasing them in the first place. Like they always did in the past, and always will do in the future no matter how big or small the gaming industry is.
$lik wrote:
> *cough*blatant sonyphile*cough*
Ooh, boy am I gonna pick this to shreds.
> If anyone "MADE" the games
> industry then it was Nintendo, right from the early 80's Nintendo has
> gone from strength to strength as a games company, produced numerous
> consoles each successfull in their own right, redifined the meaning of
> inovation, took many risks and pulled them off resulting in some of
> the finest games ever made and they practically invented the console
> that you speak so "highly" of, The Playstation.
Nintendo created the games industry, along with the other founding fathers. They're doing well for themselves this generation. Sony made the industry what it is TODAY.
> Sony then broke their contract with Nintendo, plaugerised the idea,
> made it into a console and slapped the Sony Playstation brand on it,
> their sucess from there on in was only down to a mass wave of casual
> gamers who lapped up every single sub-standard game that came on the
> market mainly because they were so mentally incapacitated to know
> better in the first place, the only other contributing factor was Sony
> being the marketing wh0re of a company that it is advertising their
> beloved "Playstation" left, right, center and up the back
> passage.
Nobody knows the truth about that contract - for a long time it was believed Nintendo did, and a few months ago there was a titter that Sony did. Who cares. Nintendo had the chance to go with CDs as a media, and failed due to its uptight attitude towards piracy. Think of the games the PSOne had to sell the machine early on - Wipeout, Tekken, Metal Gear Solid. All of which either invented or reinvigorated a genre. Sony actually advertised cleverly. You NEED to expose a new product. And it got noticed by lots of people. Rightfully. The N64 was a marketing disaster.
> As for cool pfff puhlease, cool in a casual gamers view is just a
> brand that is popular in their brainwashed group of imbiciles. And as
> for the xbox, dont even get me started on that one.
Xbox has brought us Halo, the best FPS ever. I'd like to see you try rip apart a console based just on the fact you like Nintendo.
> and NO I will NOT be silenced by this mass wave of casual gamers who
> would'nt be able to tell what a game is if it even slapped them black
> and blue in the face and eyes.,
Sorry, but do casual gamers have different rights to you? Are you better than them because you're "in the know"? ALL the consoles have AAA games on them, Gamecube with arguably the least.
> ffs i could go on and on about my hatred for Sony for turning an
> industry of innovation and promise into a money hungry race for
> supremacy
They turned it into an attractive market which brought with it more customers for EVERYBODY (yes, including Nintendo).
> but i wont, i will stop here but I will make myself known
> to have absolutley no respect for companys like Sony and Microsoft
Not even the fact that Microsoft is the reason you're accessing this internet page?
> and
> will allways admire Nintendo for all that THEY have done, and how THEY
> have shaped the industry from the day it was born and Nintendo will
> allwqays have their hardcore following of True gamers that will be
> with them untill their demise and thats something that neither Sony or
> Microsoft can lay claim to.
Nintendo don't shape anything anymore apart from the handheld market. Stop being such a zealot. You're arguing for the sake of it because I'm sticking up for Sony.
> *cough*blatant sonyphile*cough*
Ooh, boy am I gonna pick this to shreds.
> If anyone "MADE" the games
> industry then it was Nintendo, right from the early 80's Nintendo has
> gone from strength to strength as a games company, produced numerous
> consoles each successfull in their own right, redifined the meaning of
> inovation, took many risks and pulled them off resulting in some of
> the finest games ever made and they practically invented the console
> that you speak so "highly" of, The Playstation.
Nintendo created the games industry, along with the other founding fathers. They're doing well for themselves this generation. Sony made the industry what it is TODAY.
> Sony then broke their contract with Nintendo, plaugerised the idea,
> made it into a console and slapped the Sony Playstation brand on it,
> their sucess from there on in was only down to a mass wave of casual
> gamers who lapped up every single sub-standard game that came on the
> market mainly because they were so mentally incapacitated to know
> better in the first place, the only other contributing factor was Sony
> being the marketing wh0re of a company that it is advertising their
> beloved "Playstation" left, right, center and up the back
> passage.
Nobody knows the truth about that contract - for a long time it was believed Nintendo did, and a few months ago there was a titter that Sony did. Who cares. Nintendo had the chance to go with CDs as a media, and failed due to its uptight attitude towards piracy. Think of the games the PSOne had to sell the machine early on - Wipeout, Tekken, Metal Gear Solid. All of which either invented or reinvigorated a genre. Sony actually advertised cleverly. You NEED to expose a new product. And it got noticed by lots of people. Rightfully. The N64 was a marketing disaster.
> As for cool pfff puhlease, cool in a casual gamers view is just a
> brand that is popular in their brainwashed group of imbiciles. And as
> for the xbox, dont even get me started on that one.
Xbox has brought us Halo, the best FPS ever. I'd like to see you try rip apart a console based just on the fact you like Nintendo.
> and NO I will NOT be silenced by this mass wave of casual gamers who
> would'nt be able to tell what a game is if it even slapped them black
> and blue in the face and eyes.,
Sorry, but do casual gamers have different rights to you? Are you better than them because you're "in the know"? ALL the consoles have AAA games on them, Gamecube with arguably the least.
> ffs i could go on and on about my hatred for Sony for turning an
> industry of innovation and promise into a money hungry race for
> supremacy
They turned it into an attractive market which brought with it more customers for EVERYBODY (yes, including Nintendo).
> but i wont, i will stop here but I will make myself known
> to have absolutley no respect for companys like Sony and Microsoft
Not even the fact that Microsoft is the reason you're accessing this internet page?
> and
> will allways admire Nintendo for all that THEY have done, and how THEY
> have shaped the industry from the day it was born and Nintendo will
> allwqays have their hardcore following of True gamers that will be
> with them untill their demise and thats something that neither Sony or
> Microsoft can lay claim to.
Nintendo don't shape anything anymore apart from the handheld market. Stop being such a zealot. You're arguing for the sake of it because I'm sticking up for Sony.
Unbeliever wrote:
> El Blokey wrote:
> And also, with regards to the post - that's absolute rubbish. The
> market isn't saturated with crap. Sure, there's a lot of tosh (just
> like with films or music) but there's lots of great games coming out
> all the time (just like films or music).
>
> Yes it is. the PS2 has about 350-400 games out for it, I reckon. And
> of those, about three quarters of them are poor.
Yes it is?
Anyway, think of all the books published, films made. Does it matter if there's bad stuff out there? Don't buy it, buy the good stuff.
> El Blokey wrote:
> And also, with regards to the post - that's absolute rubbish. The
> market isn't saturated with crap. Sure, there's a lot of tosh (just
> like with films or music) but there's lots of great games coming out
> all the time (just like films or music).
>
> Yes it is. the PS2 has about 350-400 games out for it, I reckon. And
> of those, about three quarters of them are poor.
Yes it is?
Anyway, think of all the books published, films made. Does it matter if there's bad stuff out there? Don't buy it, buy the good stuff.
Its your opinion that there are loads of crap games out for the PS2. Same could be said about the gamecube and Xbox - all just comes down to personal opinion.
What you have to see here is that in the early days games were always made in the same way so the standard of all games was of a similar level.
There were no huge developers with 100's of people working on a single game.
There was a few programmers and designers and that was it.
These days the technology, size of developers means there is so much more you can do. Just means that there is so much more that can go wrong and so much more options.
This is what has lead to a lot of crap games being around.
Not Sony.
What you have to see here is that in the early days games were always made in the same way so the standard of all games was of a similar level.
There were no huge developers with 100's of people working on a single game.
There was a few programmers and designers and that was it.
These days the technology, size of developers means there is so much more you can do. Just means that there is so much more that can go wrong and so much more options.
This is what has lead to a lot of crap games being around.
Not Sony.
Page: