The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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?
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?
Shadow Knight wrote:
> boring!!
Says a boring person.
> boring!!
Says a boring person.
boring!!
Unbeliever wrote:
> Controversial headline eh?
Not really, this type of post pops up every other month.
>
> 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.
There were, and I remember, many really bad games out there and a fair amount of good games. I had both consoles and I've played a fair few games on both.
> 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".
Well, not quite. Famously, one games company was constantly taking reviewers out to lunch during the 8bit and 16bit days and, although the sales weren't half as big as they are now, companies like Ocean, Edge, Codemasters and even Mastertronic were concerned with their sales figures and impact through advertising. Sega themselves were big fans of advertising back in the early days.
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
There were sooooo many adverts in some games magazines, all the way back to the 8-bit days. All promised more than the game could give as well. Having worked for a magazine for a short time around this period, advertising was pretty important and a great source of revenue.
> BUT (and this is a big but)
> there were far less below average, sub-standard rushed releases.
There were many more sneaked out games, games that didn't really pass any quality checks, less beta testers, less game testers and plenty of nasty bugged releases.
> People stuck with either Sega or Nintendo and didn't trust any other
> games company do to the industry justice.
Remember back then it was different, you didn't just have consoles, Amiga, Atari were major games platforms, sharing just as much shelf space. Besides, there were as many third party companies as there are now, but because of cartridges for the consoles, the games had to go through Sega and Nintendo first. Nintendo were said to have quality control to get through, but this does not explain some really dire releases on the Snes.
platforms were not cheaper to develop for either, but marketing was less. Games companies would be able to do what they wanted because of the reduced market and many companies release quite a few substandard games. People bought these on the basis of 'paid-lunch' reviews and felt cheated. Far from releasing better games, some companies kept releasing crap.
>
> We also saw a new age in re-invention and originality. There was a game to satisfy everyone's tastes.
We still see that, we saw that with the 8bits and we will be seeing that in the future.
> Marketing sold more Playstations than anything
> else ...
Or was it, in part, word of mouth and quality of games.
>Parents played their son's/daughter's consoles
Always had.
>
> So, what gives? Why the "ill-informed pompous" rant against
> the company that allegedly "kick started the games
> industry"?
>
> (James Bond, anyone?)
View to a kill - Spectrum and C64, ET, Atari VCS, Smurfs Atari VCS, Total Recall/Terminator/Robocop - 8bit and 16bit, WWF 16bit.....
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.
>
Sorry? That doesn't really change, many games companies continue to release bad games with full backing, in fact they make a business out of it through cheap dodgy games. Two Towers has fairly good reviews, would have been considered fantastic even 2 years ago and personally I love the game.
> The hype associated with games and consoles was too much - Sega's
> Dreamcast breathed its' last... Sony forced Sega out of the market
The Dreamcast actually sold quite well, but as with all other games consoles, the consoles are sold at a loss, it was partly Sega's lack of advertising (and advertising, remember, sold many a Megadrive) and partly their lack of good games and late games while the PS2 was launched. Until then it was doing well.
The Getaway was a flawed concept that couldn't live up to the hype it generated.
As were many Dreamcast games.
>Developers release sub-standard games that are hurriedly rushed into >development for the host platforms.
Like Quake III on DC? Like Frontier: Elite II on 16bit, or like many other games in the past.
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.
As did many 16bit games companies for console and computers.
> 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?
It seems that you are either forgetting more good games or not playing enough. Have you thought that standards have gone up as well, so gamers are wanting better and bigger things?
> So who ruined the games industry? Sony. By selling so many consoles
> with their debut console, they shot themselves in the foot.
So Sony should have had an un-successful product? Sega, on the other hand were good because they sold so few Dreamcasts? Hm. Even the Megadrive and SNES were selling loads against each other and I'm sure both Sega and Nitendo would have jumped at the chance to sell more, they just didn't have the right approach or timing.
> 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?
Suffering? You said they were doing too well! I can't even begin to count the good games out there for each system (bar, perhaps, the Xbox). Standards go up each year and classics are produced all the time. Show a game now to someone 5 years ago or 8 years ago and they wouldn't believe how much effort and time goes into it and how much is in a game these days, as opposed to those games that were not as deep, not as detailed or even not as involving as they are now.
> Controversial headline eh?
Not really, this type of post pops up every other month.
>
> 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.
There were, and I remember, many really bad games out there and a fair amount of good games. I had both consoles and I've played a fair few games on both.
> 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".
Well, not quite. Famously, one games company was constantly taking reviewers out to lunch during the 8bit and 16bit days and, although the sales weren't half as big as they are now, companies like Ocean, Edge, Codemasters and even Mastertronic were concerned with their sales figures and impact through advertising. Sega themselves were big fans of advertising back in the early days.
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
There were sooooo many adverts in some games magazines, all the way back to the 8-bit days. All promised more than the game could give as well. Having worked for a magazine for a short time around this period, advertising was pretty important and a great source of revenue.
> BUT (and this is a big but)
> there were far less below average, sub-standard rushed releases.
There were many more sneaked out games, games that didn't really pass any quality checks, less beta testers, less game testers and plenty of nasty bugged releases.
> People stuck with either Sega or Nintendo and didn't trust any other
> games company do to the industry justice.
Remember back then it was different, you didn't just have consoles, Amiga, Atari were major games platforms, sharing just as much shelf space. Besides, there were as many third party companies as there are now, but because of cartridges for the consoles, the games had to go through Sega and Nintendo first. Nintendo were said to have quality control to get through, but this does not explain some really dire releases on the Snes.
platforms were not cheaper to develop for either, but marketing was less. Games companies would be able to do what they wanted because of the reduced market and many companies release quite a few substandard games. People bought these on the basis of 'paid-lunch' reviews and felt cheated. Far from releasing better games, some companies kept releasing crap.
>
> We also saw a new age in re-invention and originality. There was a game to satisfy everyone's tastes.
We still see that, we saw that with the 8bits and we will be seeing that in the future.
> Marketing sold more Playstations than anything
> else ...
Or was it, in part, word of mouth and quality of games.
>Parents played their son's/daughter's consoles
Always had.
>
> So, what gives? Why the "ill-informed pompous" rant against
> the company that allegedly "kick started the games
> industry"?
>
> (James Bond, anyone?)
View to a kill - Spectrum and C64, ET, Atari VCS, Smurfs Atari VCS, Total Recall/Terminator/Robocop - 8bit and 16bit, WWF 16bit.....
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.
>
Sorry? That doesn't really change, many games companies continue to release bad games with full backing, in fact they make a business out of it through cheap dodgy games. Two Towers has fairly good reviews, would have been considered fantastic even 2 years ago and personally I love the game.
> The hype associated with games and consoles was too much - Sega's
> Dreamcast breathed its' last... Sony forced Sega out of the market
The Dreamcast actually sold quite well, but as with all other games consoles, the consoles are sold at a loss, it was partly Sega's lack of advertising (and advertising, remember, sold many a Megadrive) and partly their lack of good games and late games while the PS2 was launched. Until then it was doing well.
The Getaway was a flawed concept that couldn't live up to the hype it generated.
As were many Dreamcast games.
>Developers release sub-standard games that are hurriedly rushed into >development for the host platforms.
Like Quake III on DC? Like Frontier: Elite II on 16bit, or like many other games in the past.
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.
As did many 16bit games companies for console and computers.
> 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?
It seems that you are either forgetting more good games or not playing enough. Have you thought that standards have gone up as well, so gamers are wanting better and bigger things?
> So who ruined the games industry? Sony. By selling so many consoles
> with their debut console, they shot themselves in the foot.
So Sony should have had an un-successful product? Sega, on the other hand were good because they sold so few Dreamcasts? Hm. Even the Megadrive and SNES were selling loads against each other and I'm sure both Sega and Nitendo would have jumped at the chance to sell more, they just didn't have the right approach or timing.
> 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?
Suffering? You said they were doing too well! I can't even begin to count the good games out there for each system (bar, perhaps, the Xbox). Standards go up each year and classics are produced all the time. Show a game now to someone 5 years ago or 8 years ago and they wouldn't believe how much effort and time goes into it and how much is in a game these days, as opposed to those games that were not as deep, not as detailed or even not as involving as they are now.
Obviously a biased opinion coming from a Ninty, but still a good rant.
I'm still clinging on to my PS2 at the mo, but I have to say when it comes to choice, there haven't been an awful lot of half-decent titles to choose from. I'm just waiting for Sony to go online, but until then I shall keep on whining.
*whines and whines and whines...*
I'm still clinging on to my PS2 at the mo, but I have to say when it comes to choice, there haven't been an awful lot of half-decent titles to choose from. I'm just waiting for Sony to go online, but until then I shall keep on whining.
*whines and whines and whines...*
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?
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?