The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 was shocked when my friend at school told me how amazing 'The Getaway' was. I kindly showed him its review in Edge, who gave it 6/10. He just dismissed it as a 'stupid magazine'! I then flicked through and showed him Metroid Prime's review, they gave it 9/10. He said it looked rubbish!
I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness sake! And this is Edge magazine, probably the most respect video gaming mag in Europe! The worst thing is that most people are like this, or if I rephrase it, most people who own PS2's ONLY are like this.
The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice City, but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like Final Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't touch the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are percieved as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big cheeses at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they play mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars. The future of gaming looks bleak....
I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness sake! And this is Edge magazine, probably the most respect video gaming mag in Europe! The worst thing is that most people are like this, or if I rephrase it, most people who own PS2's ONLY are like this.
The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice City, but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like Final Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't touch the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are percieved as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big cheeses at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they play mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars. The future of gaming looks bleak....
Actually, the PS2 is now "bad". People ARE going "hardcore". They think this is cool, naturally, with the hardcore gamers going in for the big powerful consoles, not consoles which they want, but which they "need". Apparently. Ok, so maybe "The Getaway" was lame, sure the advert rings in your ears like a bad night out, and sure, the PS2 IS pretty lame, but don't discount it. Come on! How does this sound... "You're such a softcore gamer! I mean haven't you even played Mario Sunshine?"
Yeah, no need to say what it sounds like. Now, I'm not saying the GC is bad, Lord knows it's a great console with great graphics and some of the greatest game makers EVER to be seen in history, but that's not to say it's hardcore. People seem to think that just because none of their friends have it, and they will rubbish it (because they don't have it), they think it's hardcore. Does hardcore mean liking the things no-one else does? Is it taking the other-other option? No... It's just enjoying yourself and not caring what anyone else thinks, no matter if they're right.
[--Sylphetic--]
Yeah, no need to say what it sounds like. Now, I'm not saying the GC is bad, Lord knows it's a great console with great graphics and some of the greatest game makers EVER to be seen in history, but that's not to say it's hardcore. People seem to think that just because none of their friends have it, and they will rubbish it (because they don't have it), they think it's hardcore. Does hardcore mean liking the things no-one else does? Is it taking the other-other option? No... It's just enjoying yourself and not caring what anyone else thinks, no matter if they're right.
[--Sylphetic--]
El Blokey wrote:
> GnomeKiller wrote:
> He said it looked crap. If a game has just been announced, and a few
> screenshots are released (ie Doom 3 before the leaked alpha), it makes
> sense to judge the book by its cover. Not to say you should totally
> ignore it based on the pics, but if you don't think a game LOOKS very
> good you then there's nothing wrong with saying so.
He was saying that the game was crap, because he thought that the screenshots looked crap, and that, in my opinion, is wrong. That's what I meant to say. It's my fault for not saying it properly, sorry about that!
> Not always. Pro Evolution Soccer 2 shifts thousands of copies despite
> the lack of hype because it is a great game.
But FIFA sells more, even though it is definately not as good, this is because of the hype it recieves, the licenses and tonnes of advertising.
> More AAA titles that get big sales and shift consoles - more money
> from Sony/MS/Nintendo.
But if they were working for their own console there would be more incentive to make the AAA titles, as if they don't they will lose money. There isn't that risk anymore.
> GnomeKiller wrote:
> He said it looked crap. If a game has just been announced, and a few
> screenshots are released (ie Doom 3 before the leaked alpha), it makes
> sense to judge the book by its cover. Not to say you should totally
> ignore it based on the pics, but if you don't think a game LOOKS very
> good you then there's nothing wrong with saying so.
He was saying that the game was crap, because he thought that the screenshots looked crap, and that, in my opinion, is wrong. That's what I meant to say. It's my fault for not saying it properly, sorry about that!
> Not always. Pro Evolution Soccer 2 shifts thousands of copies despite
> the lack of hype because it is a great game.
But FIFA sells more, even though it is definately not as good, this is because of the hype it recieves, the licenses and tonnes of advertising.
> More AAA titles that get big sales and shift consoles - more money
> from Sony/MS/Nintendo.
But if they were working for their own console there would be more incentive to make the AAA titles, as if they don't they will lose money. There isn't that risk anymore.
GnomeKiller wrote:
> You can't really judge a game by screenshots. You are only seeing what
> the game looks like, not how it sounds, or plays, you don't even get
> an insight into the story.
He said it looked crap. If a game has just been announced, and a few screenshots are released (ie Doom 3 before the leaked alpha), it makes sense to judge the book by its cover. Not to say you should totally ignore it based on the pics, but if you don't think a game LOOKS very good you then there's nothing wrong with saying so.
> I'm sure in the west FF hasn't sold nearly as well as GTA. I was going
> to use Ico as an example instead of Final Fantasy, as I had heard
> great things about it, but when I wrote this I couldn't remember it's
> name. A testament to how underated it must be.
I told you, GTA is one of the most popular games ever. FF is very popular (although not as much as GTA).
> Sony have made the market what it is today. And this is the point I
> really wanted to make. It isn't a very honest market, it's one where
> contraversial and hyped games make the money, not the truly great
> ones. Sony have made the market even more profitable for themselves.
Not always. Pro Evolution Soccer 2 shifts thousands of copies despite the lack of hype because it is a great game. But then just because building up a title makes it sell doesn't mean the market is bad - take cinema. A lot of crap out there but you can usually find at least one good film on.
> Also, yes,
> Sega are in a better financial position and are making good games, but
> they now have no real incentive to make those AAA titles that sell
> consoles.
More AAA titles that get big sales and shift consoles - more money from Sony/MS/Nintendo.
> You can't really judge a game by screenshots. You are only seeing what
> the game looks like, not how it sounds, or plays, you don't even get
> an insight into the story.
He said it looked crap. If a game has just been announced, and a few screenshots are released (ie Doom 3 before the leaked alpha), it makes sense to judge the book by its cover. Not to say you should totally ignore it based on the pics, but if you don't think a game LOOKS very good you then there's nothing wrong with saying so.
> I'm sure in the west FF hasn't sold nearly as well as GTA. I was going
> to use Ico as an example instead of Final Fantasy, as I had heard
> great things about it, but when I wrote this I couldn't remember it's
> name. A testament to how underated it must be.
I told you, GTA is one of the most popular games ever. FF is very popular (although not as much as GTA).
> Sony have made the market what it is today. And this is the point I
> really wanted to make. It isn't a very honest market, it's one where
> contraversial and hyped games make the money, not the truly great
> ones. Sony have made the market even more profitable for themselves.
Not always. Pro Evolution Soccer 2 shifts thousands of copies despite the lack of hype because it is a great game. But then just because building up a title makes it sell doesn't mean the market is bad - take cinema. A lot of crap out there but you can usually find at least one good film on.
> Also, yes,
> Sega are in a better financial position and are making good games, but
> they now have no real incentive to make those AAA titles that sell
> consoles.
More AAA titles that get big sales and shift consoles - more money from Sony/MS/Nintendo.
El Blokey wrote:
> GnomeKiller wrote:
> If you see some screenshots and don't think it looks good, why not say
> so?
You can't really judge a game by screenshots. You are only seeing what the game looks like, not how it sounds, or plays, you don't even get an insight into the story.
> 'The Getaway', may have been expensive, but that doesn't mean it's a
> good game.
>
> I never said it was good. I was saying that since Sony poured so many
> resources into it, they HAD to push it as great no matter what the
> truth was.
This is definately true.
> FF is the most popular PS2 RPG series. PS2 has the biggest userbase.
> Ergo, loads of people have FFX.
> And considering it's been number one on the charts, someone must like > it. Maybe call stuff like Ico
> ignored, but definitely not Final Fantasy. Comparing Vice City, one of
> the best games on the machine (which recieved hype because GTA3, a
> huge breakthrough for the series, sold so well and was so
> controversial) with Final Fantasy X, still not up there with the likes
> of FF7, is 'lunacy'.
I'm sure in the west FF hasn't sold nearly as well as GTA. I was going to use Ico as an example instead of Final Fantasy, as I had heard great things about it, but when I wrote this I couldn't remember it's name. A testament to how underated it must be.
> I think that could be a factor, but BEFORE Sony released the PSX,
> gaming wasn't nearly as profitable as it is now. If anything, Sony
> have made the market what it is today.
Sony have made the market what it is today. And this is the point I really wanted to make. It isn't a very honest market, it's one where contraversial and hyped games make the money, not the truly great ones. Sony have made the market even more profitable for themselves.
> The technology might be bright, but when companies like Sega pull
> out
> due to Playstation dominance the brightness of gaming seems to fade.
>
> What? Sega were horrible businessmen. Don't you prefer it that Sega
> still make games, and are now in a much better financial position to
> do stuff like colaborate with Nintendo on the new F-Zero game?
Yes, Sega were rubbish business men, but so were Nintendo. It's just Nintendo had Pokemon to keep them afloat during the N64 years. Sega bore the brunt of the run-up to the release of the PS2. Also, yes, Sega are in a better financial position and are making good games, but they now have no real incentive to make those AAA titles that sell consoles.
> It's still nothing but a bitter anti-Sony post.
Please don't get me wrong. I like a lot of games on the PS2. Such as MGS2, Tekken etc., I'll probably even get a PS2 when the PS3 comes out and the price bombs. It's just Sony's underhanded tactics, which in my view, are damaging gaming, which I don't like.
> GnomeKiller wrote:
> If you see some screenshots and don't think it looks good, why not say
> so?
You can't really judge a game by screenshots. You are only seeing what the game looks like, not how it sounds, or plays, you don't even get an insight into the story.
> 'The Getaway', may have been expensive, but that doesn't mean it's a
> good game.
>
> I never said it was good. I was saying that since Sony poured so many
> resources into it, they HAD to push it as great no matter what the
> truth was.
This is definately true.
> FF is the most popular PS2 RPG series. PS2 has the biggest userbase.
> Ergo, loads of people have FFX.
> And considering it's been number one on the charts, someone must like > it. Maybe call stuff like Ico
> ignored, but definitely not Final Fantasy. Comparing Vice City, one of
> the best games on the machine (which recieved hype because GTA3, a
> huge breakthrough for the series, sold so well and was so
> controversial) with Final Fantasy X, still not up there with the likes
> of FF7, is 'lunacy'.
I'm sure in the west FF hasn't sold nearly as well as GTA. I was going to use Ico as an example instead of Final Fantasy, as I had heard great things about it, but when I wrote this I couldn't remember it's name. A testament to how underated it must be.
> I think that could be a factor, but BEFORE Sony released the PSX,
> gaming wasn't nearly as profitable as it is now. If anything, Sony
> have made the market what it is today.
Sony have made the market what it is today. And this is the point I really wanted to make. It isn't a very honest market, it's one where contraversial and hyped games make the money, not the truly great ones. Sony have made the market even more profitable for themselves.
> The technology might be bright, but when companies like Sega pull
> out
> due to Playstation dominance the brightness of gaming seems to fade.
>
> What? Sega were horrible businessmen. Don't you prefer it that Sega
> still make games, and are now in a much better financial position to
> do stuff like colaborate with Nintendo on the new F-Zero game?
Yes, Sega were rubbish business men, but so were Nintendo. It's just Nintendo had Pokemon to keep them afloat during the N64 years. Sega bore the brunt of the run-up to the release of the PS2. Also, yes, Sega are in a better financial position and are making good games, but they now have no real incentive to make those AAA titles that sell consoles.
> It's still nothing but a bitter anti-Sony post.
Please don't get me wrong. I like a lot of games on the PS2. Such as MGS2, Tekken etc., I'll probably even get a PS2 when the PS3 comes out and the price bombs. It's just Sony's underhanded tactics, which in my view, are damaging gaming, which I don't like.
Final Fantasy is massive in Japan.
I see your post point... the only thing I'd worry about the industry is the ammount of companies going under...
Use Nintendo's fund!
I see your post point... the only thing I'd worry about the industry is the ammount of companies going under...
Use Nintendo's fund!
If you look at games in the past and then at the getaway, you will find that games have come on a lot, and not just in terms of graphics. I think the only major problem with the game, other than the control system, was that the idea for the game was too big to work all at once.
Still, sequels do one good thing for gaming, they can hopefully improve on the original and maybe we'll see a Getaway sequel that addresses the problems in the first game.
Games are like any media format, some people love Will Young, others want to smash his brains in with some large instrument and would rather listen to Foo Fighters all day. It's a matter of personal taste in most cases, though there are still some truly awful games out there on all formats (see Universal Studios on the Cube or Bmx xxx on the PS2).
Edge are ultimately critical but have a soft spot for old game history, which tends to colour their reviews, other than that they are like any other reviews mag or even games sites, the reviews are just individual opinions.
So, the future, is it bleak? Well, with all these great games coming out and each format still in competition and trying for the next big games title I think we'll see a lot more jaw-droppers in the future and innovative designs too. The future is as bright as it has ever been, and I've been there since the days of the 8-bit.
Still, sequels do one good thing for gaming, they can hopefully improve on the original and maybe we'll see a Getaway sequel that addresses the problems in the first game.
Games are like any media format, some people love Will Young, others want to smash his brains in with some large instrument and would rather listen to Foo Fighters all day. It's a matter of personal taste in most cases, though there are still some truly awful games out there on all formats (see Universal Studios on the Cube or Bmx xxx on the PS2).
Edge are ultimately critical but have a soft spot for old game history, which tends to colour their reviews, other than that they are like any other reviews mag or even games sites, the reviews are just individual opinions.
So, the future, is it bleak? Well, with all these great games coming out and each format still in competition and trying for the next big games title I think we'll see a lot more jaw-droppers in the future and innovative designs too. The future is as bright as it has ever been, and I've been there since the days of the 8-bit.
GnomeKiller wrote:
> Just for the record I wouldn't have said Half-Life was
> revolutionary.
Why not?!
> The thing was he was judging Metroid without even reading the review.
If you see some screenshots and don't think it looks good, why not say so?
> 'The Getaway', may have been expensive, but that doesn't mean it's a
> good game.
I never said it was good. I was saying that since Sony poured so many resources into it, they HAD to push it as great no matter what the truth was.
> Games like this and GTA get all the hype as they have wide appeal,
> whereas the truly great games like FF do go relatively unnoticed as
> they have limited appeal. If you looked at the percentage of PS2
> owners who have GTA Vice City and then the percentage that have FF,
> you'd see what I mean.
FF is the most popular PS2 RPG series. PS2 has the biggest userbase. Ergo, loads of people have FFX. And considering it's been number one on the charts, someone must like it. Maybe call stuff like Ico ignored, but definitely not Final Fantasy. Comparing Vice City, one of the best games on the machine (which recieved hype because GTA3, a huge breakthrough for the series, sold so well and was so controversial) with Final Fantasy X, still not up there with the likes of FF7, is 'lunacy'.
> Sony are a very large company and cover everything from mobile phones
> to CD players. Saying they aren't expanding into video gaming to make
> money is pretty nieve, actually.
I think that could be a factor, but BEFORE Sony released the PSX, gaming wasn't nearly as profitable as it is now. If anything, Sony have made the market what it is today.
> The technology might be bright, but when companies like Sega pull out
> due to Playstation dominance the brightness of gaming seems to fade.
What? Sega were horrible businessmen. Don't you prefer it that Sega still make games, and are now in a much better financial position to do stuff like colaborate with Nintendo on the new F-Zero game?
It's still nothing but a bitter anti-Sony post.
> Just for the record I wouldn't have said Half-Life was
> revolutionary.
Why not?!
> The thing was he was judging Metroid without even reading the review.
If you see some screenshots and don't think it looks good, why not say so?
> 'The Getaway', may have been expensive, but that doesn't mean it's a
> good game.
I never said it was good. I was saying that since Sony poured so many resources into it, they HAD to push it as great no matter what the truth was.
> Games like this and GTA get all the hype as they have wide appeal,
> whereas the truly great games like FF do go relatively unnoticed as
> they have limited appeal. If you looked at the percentage of PS2
> owners who have GTA Vice City and then the percentage that have FF,
> you'd see what I mean.
FF is the most popular PS2 RPG series. PS2 has the biggest userbase. Ergo, loads of people have FFX. And considering it's been number one on the charts, someone must like it. Maybe call stuff like Ico ignored, but definitely not Final Fantasy. Comparing Vice City, one of the best games on the machine (which recieved hype because GTA3, a huge breakthrough for the series, sold so well and was so controversial) with Final Fantasy X, still not up there with the likes of FF7, is 'lunacy'.
> Sony are a very large company and cover everything from mobile phones
> to CD players. Saying they aren't expanding into video gaming to make
> money is pretty nieve, actually.
I think that could be a factor, but BEFORE Sony released the PSX, gaming wasn't nearly as profitable as it is now. If anything, Sony have made the market what it is today.
> The technology might be bright, but when companies like Sega pull out
> due to Playstation dominance the brightness of gaming seems to fade.
What? Sega were horrible businessmen. Don't you prefer it that Sega still make games, and are now in a much better financial position to do stuff like colaborate with Nintendo on the new F-Zero game?
It's still nothing but a bitter anti-Sony post.
El Blokey wrote:
> GnomeKiller wrote:
> I was shocked when my friend at school told me how amazing 'The
> Getaway' was. I kindly showed him its review in Edge, who gave it
> 6/10. He just dismissed it as a 'stupid magazine'! I then flicked
> through and showed him Metroid Prime's review, they gave it 9/10. He
> said it looked rubbish!
>
> He should be shocked at you. He's saying he thinks the Getaway is
> great, whereas Edge didn't rate it. I happen to agree that the game is
> rubbish, but Edge are hardly the be all and end all, and have several
> times given weird scores (they didn't even give Half-Life a 10).
Just for the record I wouldn't have said Half-Life was revolutionary.
> I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game
> from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness
> sake!
>
> There's nothing wrong with buying a game because it looks good,
> without reading up on it.
The thing was he was judging Metroid without even reading the review. He was also judging Edge, because it gave the Getaway a bad score. There is nothing wrong with buying a game without reading up on it, I don't know what I said to make you think I did.
> The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody
> half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the
> PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice
> City,
> but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for
> the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like
> Final
> Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't
> touch
> the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are
> percieved
> as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is
> today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You haven't given a single example of
> 'the PS2' (by which you could mean Sony, the media or games outlets
> which could all have different reasons) apart from The Getaway which
> was so expensive that it HAD to be backed up by Sony, and regardless
> of quality it's sold very well. And saying Final Fantasy goes
> unnoticed is a joke.
'The Getaway', may have been expensive, but that doesn't mean it's a good game. It has sold-well, yes, but that is most likely a result of all the hype it has received. I remember being asked whether I had heard about the really expensive game that was going to be on the PS2. The fact it was so expensive to produce, and a massive advertising campaign has sold it.
Games like this and GTA get all the hype as they have wide appeal, whereas the truly great games like FF do go relatively unnoticed as they have limited appeal. If you looked at the percentage of PS2 owners who have GTA Vice City and then the percentage that have FF, you'd see what I mean.
> For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not
> interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to
> milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big
> cheeses
> at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made
> the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they
> play
> mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars.
> The future of gaming looks bleak....
>
> Basically, this whole post seems to be a bitter excuse of a rant from
> a Nintendo or Sony fan. Nintendo, as was pointed out to me recently,
> are far from falling behind as they're making a TON of money.
They may be making loads of money, but they have a very small slice of the market over here in Europe.
> Saying Sony are only in it for the money is ridiculous without having ANY
> proof, or points, and saying this and not mentioning Microsoft would
> be stupid too. In fact, you haven't mentioned Microsoft at all in
> this.
Sony are a very large company and cover everything from mobile phones to CD players. Saying they aren't expanding into video gaming to make money is pretty nieve, actually. True, I haven't mentioned Microsoft and I probably should have, but the difference between Microsoft and Sony is that Sony are succeeding.
> Or how Nintendo has crap marketing so most 'casual gamers'
> either don't know most of the new hit titles or don't care.
That again is true. Nintendo aren't the best of marketers. To be fair Nintendo have got adverts on TV now and they are starting to learn from the mistakes they made from the N64. But, it is not nearly enough. The thing about 'casual gamers' is that they won't even touch Mario or Sonic. They just son't want gamers where they control a character who looks like he's jumped out of a kid's drawing book.
> The future is brighter than ever, with photo-realistic graphics
> looking like they could easily be achievable in the next 10 years,
> exciting new avenues such as online gaming, stuff like Police 24/7 and
> the new Sony iToy, and extra peripherals as seen with Steel
> Battalion.
The technology might be bright, but when companies like Sega pull out due to Playstation dominance the brightness of gaming seems to fade.
> Stupid post.
I'll admit I didn't think it through as well as I should have, but I thought I had made a fair point.
> GnomeKiller wrote:
> I was shocked when my friend at school told me how amazing 'The
> Getaway' was. I kindly showed him its review in Edge, who gave it
> 6/10. He just dismissed it as a 'stupid magazine'! I then flicked
> through and showed him Metroid Prime's review, they gave it 9/10. He
> said it looked rubbish!
>
> He should be shocked at you. He's saying he thinks the Getaway is
> great, whereas Edge didn't rate it. I happen to agree that the game is
> rubbish, but Edge are hardly the be all and end all, and have several
> times given weird scores (they didn't even give Half-Life a 10).
Just for the record I wouldn't have said Half-Life was revolutionary.
> I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game
> from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness
> sake!
>
> There's nothing wrong with buying a game because it looks good,
> without reading up on it.
The thing was he was judging Metroid without even reading the review. He was also judging Edge, because it gave the Getaway a bad score. There is nothing wrong with buying a game without reading up on it, I don't know what I said to make you think I did.
> The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody
> half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the
> PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice
> City,
> but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for
> the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like
> Final
> Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't
> touch
> the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are
> percieved
> as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is
> today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You haven't given a single example of
> 'the PS2' (by which you could mean Sony, the media or games outlets
> which could all have different reasons) apart from The Getaway which
> was so expensive that it HAD to be backed up by Sony, and regardless
> of quality it's sold very well. And saying Final Fantasy goes
> unnoticed is a joke.
'The Getaway', may have been expensive, but that doesn't mean it's a good game. It has sold-well, yes, but that is most likely a result of all the hype it has received. I remember being asked whether I had heard about the really expensive game that was going to be on the PS2. The fact it was so expensive to produce, and a massive advertising campaign has sold it.
Games like this and GTA get all the hype as they have wide appeal, whereas the truly great games like FF do go relatively unnoticed as they have limited appeal. If you looked at the percentage of PS2 owners who have GTA Vice City and then the percentage that have FF, you'd see what I mean.
> For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not
> interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to
> milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big
> cheeses
> at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made
> the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they
> play
> mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars.
> The future of gaming looks bleak....
>
> Basically, this whole post seems to be a bitter excuse of a rant from
> a Nintendo or Sony fan. Nintendo, as was pointed out to me recently,
> are far from falling behind as they're making a TON of money.
They may be making loads of money, but they have a very small slice of the market over here in Europe.
> Saying Sony are only in it for the money is ridiculous without having ANY
> proof, or points, and saying this and not mentioning Microsoft would
> be stupid too. In fact, you haven't mentioned Microsoft at all in
> this.
Sony are a very large company and cover everything from mobile phones to CD players. Saying they aren't expanding into video gaming to make money is pretty nieve, actually. True, I haven't mentioned Microsoft and I probably should have, but the difference between Microsoft and Sony is that Sony are succeeding.
> Or how Nintendo has crap marketing so most 'casual gamers'
> either don't know most of the new hit titles or don't care.
That again is true. Nintendo aren't the best of marketers. To be fair Nintendo have got adverts on TV now and they are starting to learn from the mistakes they made from the N64. But, it is not nearly enough. The thing about 'casual gamers' is that they won't even touch Mario or Sonic. They just son't want gamers where they control a character who looks like he's jumped out of a kid's drawing book.
> The future is brighter than ever, with photo-realistic graphics
> looking like they could easily be achievable in the next 10 years,
> exciting new avenues such as online gaming, stuff like Police 24/7 and
> the new Sony iToy, and extra peripherals as seen with Steel
> Battalion.
The technology might be bright, but when companies like Sega pull out due to Playstation dominance the brightness of gaming seems to fade.
> Stupid post.
I'll admit I didn't think it through as well as I should have, but I thought I had made a fair point.
GnomeKiller wrote:
> I was shocked when my friend at school told me how amazing 'The
> Getaway' was. I kindly showed him its review in Edge, who gave it
> 6/10. He just dismissed it as a 'stupid magazine'! I then flicked
> through and showed him Metroid Prime's review, they gave it 9/10. He
> said it looked rubbish!
He should be shocked at you. He's saying he thinks the Getaway is great, whereas Edge didn't rate it. I happen to agree that the game is rubbish, but Edge are hardly the be all and end all, and have several times given weird scores (they didn't even give Half-Life a 10).
> I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game
> from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness
> sake!
There's nothing wrong with buying a game because it looks good, without reading up on it.
> The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody
> half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the
> PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice City,
> but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for
> the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like Final
> Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't touch
> the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are percieved
> as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is
> today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
You just contradicted yourself. You haven't given a single example of 'the PS2' (by which you could mean Sony, the media or games outlets which could all have different reasons) apart from The Getaway which was so expensive that it HAD to be backed up by Sony, and regardless of quality it's sold very well. And saying Final Fantasy goes unnoticed is a joke.
> For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not
> interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to
> milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big cheeses
> at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made
> the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they play
> mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars.
> The future of gaming looks bleak....
Basically, this whole post seems to be a bitter excuse of a rant from a Nintendo or Sony fan. Nintendo, as was pointed out to me recently, are far from falling behind as they're making a TON of money. Saying Sony are only in it for the money is ridiculous without having ANY proof, or points, and saying this and not mentioning Microsoft would be stupid too. In fact, you haven't mentioned Microsoft at all in this. Or how Nintendo has crap marketing so most 'casual gamers' either don't know most of the new hit titles or don't care.
The future is brighter than ever, with photo-realistic graphics looking like they could easily be achievable in the next 10 years, exciting new avenues such as online gaming, stuff like Police 24/7 and the new Sony iToy, and extra peripherals as seen with Steel Battalion.
Stupid post.
> I was shocked when my friend at school told me how amazing 'The
> Getaway' was. I kindly showed him its review in Edge, who gave it
> 6/10. He just dismissed it as a 'stupid magazine'! I then flicked
> through and showed him Metroid Prime's review, they gave it 9/10. He
> said it looked rubbish!
He should be shocked at you. He's saying he thinks the Getaway is great, whereas Edge didn't rate it. I happen to agree that the game is rubbish, but Edge are hardly the be all and end all, and have several times given weird scores (they didn't even give Half-Life a 10).
> I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game
> from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness
> sake!
There's nothing wrong with buying a game because it looks good, without reading up on it.
> The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody
> half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the
> PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice City,
> but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for
> the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like Final
> Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't touch
> the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are percieved
> as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is
> today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
You just contradicted yourself. You haven't given a single example of 'the PS2' (by which you could mean Sony, the media or games outlets which could all have different reasons) apart from The Getaway which was so expensive that it HAD to be backed up by Sony, and regardless of quality it's sold very well. And saying Final Fantasy goes unnoticed is a joke.
> For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not
> interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to
> milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big cheeses
> at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made
> the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they play
> mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars.
> The future of gaming looks bleak....
Basically, this whole post seems to be a bitter excuse of a rant from a Nintendo or Sony fan. Nintendo, as was pointed out to me recently, are far from falling behind as they're making a TON of money. Saying Sony are only in it for the money is ridiculous without having ANY proof, or points, and saying this and not mentioning Microsoft would be stupid too. In fact, you haven't mentioned Microsoft at all in this. Or how Nintendo has crap marketing so most 'casual gamers' either don't know most of the new hit titles or don't care.
The future is brighter than ever, with photo-realistic graphics looking like they could easily be achievable in the next 10 years, exciting new avenues such as online gaming, stuff like Police 24/7 and the new Sony iToy, and extra peripherals as seen with Steel Battalion.
Stupid post.
I was shocked when my friend at school told me how amazing 'The Getaway' was. I kindly showed him its review in Edge, who gave it 6/10. He just dismissed it as a 'stupid magazine'! I then flicked through and showed him Metroid Prime's review, they gave it 9/10. He said it looked rubbish!
I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness sake! And this is Edge magazine, probably the most respect video gaming mag in Europe! The worst thing is that most people are like this, or if I rephrase it, most people who own PS2's ONLY are like this.
The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice City, but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like Final Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't touch the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are percieved as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big cheeses at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they play mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars. The future of gaming looks bleak....
I just think it's awful that somehow people can't tell a good game from an average one. He didn't even read the reviews for goodness sake! And this is Edge magazine, probably the most respect video gaming mag in Europe! The worst thing is that most people are like this, or if I rephrase it, most people who own PS2's ONLY are like this.
The PS2 has lowered the standard of games, by passing off shody half-decent games, as blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, some of the PS2's most hyped games are good, Medal of Honor, GTA 3 and Vice City, but not as great as they are made out to be. This is a disaster for the gaming world, considering the truly great games on PS2, like Final Fantasy etc., go largely unnoticed. While the casual gamer won't touch the GC with a barge pole, as games like Mario and Zelda are percieved as 'kiddie'. These are the games that made the market what it is today, and they are being thrown back in the makers' faces!
For Sony it is all about the corporate side of things. They're not interested whether they make a good game or not, they just want to milk it for money. And because of this mentallity that the big cheeses at PlayStation HQ have and all the advertising they use, it has made the casual gamer shallow minded and judgemental. As long as they play mainstream gamers for suckers, they'll be ahead in the console wars. The future of gaming looks bleak....