The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The games industry has hit a bit of a dead end recently, nothing inspriingly new and original has hit our screens for far too long, so what happens next? Where do we turn where do we go? There are a few open avenues, and the major console manufacturers are touting differnt routes as their main selling points, so for the first time in a long while, the perceptions of a console will truely shaoe the experience you get from a system.
Nintendo are going along the road they have always chosen. They want a maximum of four people playing their games, and they want them all in the same room, or in the same street at least. This is basically a Nintendo philosophy, and has been for quite sometime. They revel in simplistic means, look at any Nintendo game ever invented, and they can all be broken down and looked at with ease. Nintendo go for mini-game style. Little puzzles which, when combined together make one huge game. Look at Mario down the years, culminating in what was the masterpiece of Mario 64. Each level can be taken from the game and played seperately, there is no linearity to the game, and there is no story to pull levels into and out of context. Zelda is the same, the game has dungeons which can be taken out of the game and played without any linearity or context. Zelda does have a central story which acts as a hub to these dungeons though, and that hub is becoming more complex and much more story oriented in recent games.
So it's that simple, if you want puzzles, with little in the way of a story to get in your way then, Nintendo is really the way you should go. Simple methods and simple ideas lead to truely innovative challenges and some truely brilliant multi-player games, just don;t expect much in the way of online exploits on a massive scale.
Microsoft are taking a different route, they are going more for the Sega approach to the indusrtry. Arcade simplicity. This is seen really by the extent of the sports games hitting the console, the Xbox will be an American Jocks dream. Look at American history, and more specifically, recent American cars. They are big, they are brash, they are load and they scream look at me from every angle. They don't have the technical brilliance of the Japanese motors, or the ellegence of the European market, the Xbox follows this philosophy. It is without a doubt a graphical powerhouse, and will not be beaten for graphical ability by any of the new systems. There are plans for online ability in the pipeline, and the games are beginning to appear, but for anyone looking at the system, if you want a true americanised gaming experience, then the Xbox will be the system to go for.
Sony on the other hand have gone for a different route for their strategy. The games are still the main factor, but they are backing up the games side with a total entertainment package. A PS2 instantly provides a user with a system which will play DVD movies and music CDs. With the introduction of a hard drive and broadband capabilities, MP3, internet animation and much more will instantly be available for anyone and everyone. All that will be required is for you to turn on your PS2. For many these facilities are already a reality. Broadband internet already allows PS2 owners the benefits that the PS2 seeks, but it doesn't do it as a set top box. PCs are still very much seen as a work platform, a powerful word processor. As for the games Sony has coming to the PS2, there is no defining genre or style, the PS2 isn't moulded or shaped to suit any particular audience. In basic terms, Sony will allow anyone to make any type of game for the PS2, kiddy games, puzzle games, strategy games, RPGs, adventures, sports the list goes on. No one will/has been restricetd in any way by the PS2 other than with the technicak side of development.
In that way the PS2 is an all rounder that will corner a "casual" side of the market whereas the GC and the Xbox may see a more dedicated follower. But what can be seen is that all the companies are pushing the market in different directions, and it will be a few years before we see what happens next. The industry is diverging and seperating into different styles and tastes, and for those who have best of all worlds now and want to keep it that way on the future, they may find themselves having to fork out on more than one console.
Nintendo are going along the road they have always chosen. They want a maximum of four people playing their games, and they want them all in the same room, or in the same street at least. This is basically a Nintendo philosophy, and has been for quite sometime. They revel in simplistic means, look at any Nintendo game ever invented, and they can all be broken down and looked at with ease. Nintendo go for mini-game style. Little puzzles which, when combined together make one huge game. Look at Mario down the years, culminating in what was the masterpiece of Mario 64. Each level can be taken from the game and played seperately, there is no linearity to the game, and there is no story to pull levels into and out of context. Zelda is the same, the game has dungeons which can be taken out of the game and played without any linearity or context. Zelda does have a central story which acts as a hub to these dungeons though, and that hub is becoming more complex and much more story oriented in recent games.
So it's that simple, if you want puzzles, with little in the way of a story to get in your way then, Nintendo is really the way you should go. Simple methods and simple ideas lead to truely innovative challenges and some truely brilliant multi-player games, just don;t expect much in the way of online exploits on a massive scale.
Microsoft are taking a different route, they are going more for the Sega approach to the indusrtry. Arcade simplicity. This is seen really by the extent of the sports games hitting the console, the Xbox will be an American Jocks dream. Look at American history, and more specifically, recent American cars. They are big, they are brash, they are load and they scream look at me from every angle. They don't have the technical brilliance of the Japanese motors, or the ellegence of the European market, the Xbox follows this philosophy. It is without a doubt a graphical powerhouse, and will not be beaten for graphical ability by any of the new systems. There are plans for online ability in the pipeline, and the games are beginning to appear, but for anyone looking at the system, if you want a true americanised gaming experience, then the Xbox will be the system to go for.
Sony on the other hand have gone for a different route for their strategy. The games are still the main factor, but they are backing up the games side with a total entertainment package. A PS2 instantly provides a user with a system which will play DVD movies and music CDs. With the introduction of a hard drive and broadband capabilities, MP3, internet animation and much more will instantly be available for anyone and everyone. All that will be required is for you to turn on your PS2. For many these facilities are already a reality. Broadband internet already allows PS2 owners the benefits that the PS2 seeks, but it doesn't do it as a set top box. PCs are still very much seen as a work platform, a powerful word processor. As for the games Sony has coming to the PS2, there is no defining genre or style, the PS2 isn't moulded or shaped to suit any particular audience. In basic terms, Sony will allow anyone to make any type of game for the PS2, kiddy games, puzzle games, strategy games, RPGs, adventures, sports the list goes on. No one will/has been restricetd in any way by the PS2 other than with the technicak side of development.
In that way the PS2 is an all rounder that will corner a "casual" side of the market whereas the GC and the Xbox may see a more dedicated follower. But what can be seen is that all the companies are pushing the market in different directions, and it will be a few years before we see what happens next. The industry is diverging and seperating into different styles and tastes, and for those who have best of all worlds now and want to keep it that way on the future, they may find themselves having to fork out on more than one console.
Page:
*Ahem*
This post looked at the first party plans for their consoles, it didn't take into account second, third, fourth and one millionth party developers, because any decent game will reach every platform. The big games, your Metal Gear Solids, your Final Fantasy, your Tekken, should be on every console.
For third party developers, many of them don't have much choice in who they develop for, they must develop for a system they can afford. Most third party developers are very small, and can only rely on funding from their publishers to make games. Only companies who can fund and publish their own games will ever be multi-format. Konami, Square, EA, Eidos and Infrogrames being some of the big few. For the rest of the games developers, what they get out of the industry, and in the end what we get as an end product, directly relates to what the games industry gives them. Business is fickle, and things change, it wouldn't be unheard of for games companies to buy their way to success. Much has been made of the aquirements made by Microsoft over the years, but nothing has been made of the aquirements made by Sony or Nintendo in their attempt to corner a market share of the games industry.
So this post wasn't to do with what games come for the systems, it was all to do with the long term aspirations and expectations of the consoles. It is true that Nintendo make games which can be seperated into little challenges, that's all it was meant to be read as. I didn't drag the games heading for the PS2 into this, and I didn't drag the games heading to the Xbox into this, because in the end, people will buy a console on perceptions and to fulfill a need, and to be sure you are buying the proper system, you need to know what it is you are investing in, and most people overlook the basic aspirations and direction the companies are headed in.
This post looked at the first party plans for their consoles, it didn't take into account second, third, fourth and one millionth party developers, because any decent game will reach every platform. The big games, your Metal Gear Solids, your Final Fantasy, your Tekken, should be on every console.
For third party developers, many of them don't have much choice in who they develop for, they must develop for a system they can afford. Most third party developers are very small, and can only rely on funding from their publishers to make games. Only companies who can fund and publish their own games will ever be multi-format. Konami, Square, EA, Eidos and Infrogrames being some of the big few. For the rest of the games developers, what they get out of the industry, and in the end what we get as an end product, directly relates to what the games industry gives them. Business is fickle, and things change, it wouldn't be unheard of for games companies to buy their way to success. Much has been made of the aquirements made by Microsoft over the years, but nothing has been made of the aquirements made by Sony or Nintendo in their attempt to corner a market share of the games industry.
So this post wasn't to do with what games come for the systems, it was all to do with the long term aspirations and expectations of the consoles. It is true that Nintendo make games which can be seperated into little challenges, that's all it was meant to be read as. I didn't drag the games heading for the PS2 into this, and I didn't drag the games heading to the Xbox into this, because in the end, people will buy a console on perceptions and to fulfill a need, and to be sure you are buying the proper system, you need to know what it is you are investing in, and most people overlook the basic aspirations and direction the companies are headed in.
Turbonutter wrote:
> ...or 12 player GT3 and GodKnowsHowManyPlayers link-up UT. However, isn't
> Nintendo's idea just to get you playing over the net with people that live
> locally, preferably not over the net at all? Just precisely what is the point?!
The local thing was RADnet (I think) an experimental thing in Japan for the 64DD.
> ...or 12 player GT3 and GodKnowsHowManyPlayers link-up UT. However, isn't
> Nintendo's idea just to get you playing over the net with people that live
> locally, preferably not over the net at all? Just precisely what is the point?!
The local thing was RADnet (I think) an experimental thing in Japan for the 64DD.
Turbonutter wrote:
> ...or 12 player GT3 and GodKnowsHowManyPlayers link-up UT. However, isn't
> Nintendo's idea just to get you playing over the net with people that live
> locally, preferably not over the net at all? Just precisely what is the point?!
I thought Ninty's main philosophy is multiplayer gaming in your own house with your own friends...
Like most huge leaps in trchnology, Ninty are a bit unsure as to whether they should embrace the net just yet... but I'm sure that when they do it'll take off rather well ;)
That said, Sonic Team are already to put PSO on the GC- indicating Sega know something about the GC's online capabilities that we don't. After all, it's rumoured that Ninty's online network will be run on the back of Sega's.
Sonic
> ...or 12 player GT3 and GodKnowsHowManyPlayers link-up UT. However, isn't
> Nintendo's idea just to get you playing over the net with people that live
> locally, preferably not over the net at all? Just precisely what is the point?!
I thought Ninty's main philosophy is multiplayer gaming in your own house with your own friends...
Like most huge leaps in trchnology, Ninty are a bit unsure as to whether they should embrace the net just yet... but I'm sure that when they do it'll take off rather well ;)
That said, Sonic Team are already to put PSO on the GC- indicating Sega know something about the GC's online capabilities that we don't. After all, it's rumoured that Ninty's online network will be run on the back of Sega's.
Sonic
...or 12 player GT3 and GodKnowsHowManyPlayers link-up UT. However, isn't Nintendo's idea just to get you playing over the net with people that live locally, preferably not over the net at all? Just precisely what is the point?!
Ahhhh... you talk about having 4 players on the cube...
What about 16 players on the Xbox! Halo supports having 4 xboxs linked up and playing 16 players at once! How cool is that!!!!
Sonic
What about 16 players on the Xbox! Halo supports having 4 xboxs linked up and playing 16 players at once! How cool is that!!!!
Sonic
Such was the case with Super Mario 64... where earning 70 stars let you face bowser for the last time... although getting all 120 stars let you go and visit Yoshi.
This hint was bought to you by Flint's Hints... the best place to cheat without really cheating.
This hint was bought to you by Flint's Hints... the best place to cheat without really cheating.
What they were saying is that Nintendo games will have easy shorter routes to complete the game, but for the Hardcore ninties there will still be the option to complete the game taking a longer harder route.
Okay, here's the deal.
EAD are making shorter games. Rare, Retro, Silicon Knights aren't.
Why on earth you're saying that 'if people want shorter games they should go to Nintendo' I don't know!?!
Have you seen StarFox... it's bloody huge! Kameo is probably just as big. That's Rare.
Silicon are doing err... Eternal Darkness... that's not made up of puzzles, as such. Too Human aswell doesn't look that way.
Then there's Retro with Metroid and that can't be much shorter than Goldeneye... if at all.
That's 2nd parties.
Then there's all the 3rd parties. Most of whjom are only giving ports, but you do have Sega and their games. (Not short) EA, Midway, Konami, Capcom and all that... Namco, Kemco, Nestle, I mean errr Enix... maybe.
The whole "Nintendo are releasing short games" statement is crap... because only EAD and the other 1st parties will do that. Granted they do own the biggest of Nintendo's franchises, but it doesn't mean most of the game will be short.
Nintendo GameCube games will be just as long as the PS2 and XBOX games.
Trust Me - I'm a good guesser.
EAD are making shorter games. Rare, Retro, Silicon Knights aren't.
Why on earth you're saying that 'if people want shorter games they should go to Nintendo' I don't know!?!
Have you seen StarFox... it's bloody huge! Kameo is probably just as big. That's Rare.
Silicon are doing err... Eternal Darkness... that's not made up of puzzles, as such. Too Human aswell doesn't look that way.
Then there's Retro with Metroid and that can't be much shorter than Goldeneye... if at all.
That's 2nd parties.
Then there's all the 3rd parties. Most of whjom are only giving ports, but you do have Sega and their games. (Not short) EA, Midway, Konami, Capcom and all that... Namco, Kemco, Nestle, I mean errr Enix... maybe.
The whole "Nintendo are releasing short games" statement is crap... because only EAD and the other 1st parties will do that. Granted they do own the biggest of Nintendo's franchises, but it doesn't mean most of the game will be short.
Nintendo GameCube games will be just as long as the PS2 and XBOX games.
Trust Me - I'm a good guesser.
I did a single format post the other day, it's about here somewhere...........
Bonus wrote:
> Hm, but that's the point I was trying to make in the first place, the devlopers
> don't want a single format, and neither do the customers, so you need to chose
> what you want from your console.
You know, I think everyone does want a single format. Just not on a single platform. A standard DVD runs on all standard DVD players. Would be great if the same were true of console games. It is true that people don't want one company to dominate the market though.
> Hm, but that's the point I was trying to make in the first place, the devlopers
> don't want a single format, and neither do the customers, so you need to chose
> what you want from your console.
You know, I think everyone does want a single format. Just not on a single platform. A standard DVD runs on all standard DVD players. Would be great if the same were true of console games. It is true that people don't want one company to dominate the market though.
Page: