The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 wonder how many other people have noticed that there has been a gap in the computer games market that has gone surprisingly unnoticed? While consoles have steadily produced new generations of videogames machines, the microcomputer suddenly disappeared from the market in the early 90s and has never come back.
Among other things, what defines a micro from a games console is it's built-in keyboard, or in a wider sense, it's creative potential and flexibility. They also tend to have cheaper software medium, and the ability to write to that medium as well as read from it. Generally speaking, in most cases, a micro lacks the speed and graphical capability of it's equivalent games console, but has a far wider range of practical uses. For example, back then, your Amiga or Atari ST wasn't capable of the kind of fast scrolling and graphical trickery of the Megadrive or SNES, in much the same way your Spectrum or Amstrad couldn't match the games of the Master System and NES. But as good as these consoles were at what they do, they really couldn't do a lot else, where as on a micro you could do all sorts of tasks like word processing, databases, crude internet accessing and development - something a console has never achieved thus far - can you write a Playstation game with your Playstation? No, but you can write a Commodore 64 game on your Commodore 64!
All that said, it could raise the point that the micro, rather than disappearing into a void, has been replaced by the Windows PC. It's true to say, every advantage the micro had over the console is represented in the PC, but does that really mean that the IBM compatible is the modern day equivalent of the micro? Personally, I don't think so. The PC is a different sort of machine altogether - it's far more expensive for a start. It's also a bit of a Frankenstein device - a collection 'body parts' from various different manufacturers bolted together, sometimes disproportionately. This means that the IBM PC doesn't have a defined set of hardware specifications, and each differs from the next. Micros, on the other hand, although they were expandable, had clearly defined and invariable specifications, much like consoles, and you could be sure that software, for example, marked C64, would be compatible with your Commodore. So you could see micros as being a halfway house between PCs and consoles.
So, what are the arguments for a new generation of microcomputers? Well, to be honest, they are self evident. Consoles these days are trying to become more and more like micros. The Dreamcast and Playstation 2 both offer internet access, and yet are lacking devices as basic as a keyboard and mouse. In their unexpanded form they offer no serious permanent storage facilities either.
However, a 2002-made micro would be on top of all these problems. It would have an inbuilt keyboard, meaning no more ridiculous joypad driven typing dialogues. In addition to modern read-only software media like CDs and DVDs, it could contain a hard disk drive and an up-to-date floppy drive, and with the extra interfaces and sockets associated with micros, you could easily plug in all manner of other devices like printers, scanners and special game controllers.
Micros traditionally cost more than even consoles that are more capable than themselves, but in these days of mass computer hardware production the cost and power difference between making a console and a micro would be minimal. So as well as playing all the same great games as you would get on rival consoles, you would also be able to conveniently access the internet, do word processing and even program. And lets face it, how often in a console game do you wish you had a keyboard as well as a joypad?
Who could make this new micro? You can rule out any of the major console developers - Nintendo would never stretch to it, Sony think the PS2 is perfectly adequate for any task (Pft) and Sega sadly lost the will to produce hardware after being unfairly beaten out of the market by Sony. The number one candidates for this job would be former hardware giants Atari, who currently seem to be getting back on their feet, or Apple, who also have a great deal of experience with the micro business. Commodore could give it a try, although it's brand name was probably weakened by the length of time it clung to the sinking Amiga ship. Although it's unlikely Sir Clive will get behind the name again, Sinclair Research, makers of the ZX Spectrum, would have great brand name credit if they were to return to the market.
Well, that's what I think, anything to add to that? For example, other benefits a modern day micro would have over a console, possible disadvantages, other ideas etc. Have your say and maybe someone will sit up and listen.
[email protected]
Among other things, what defines a micro from a games console is it's built-in keyboard, or in a wider sense, it's creative potential and flexibility. They also tend to have cheaper software medium, and the ability to write to that medium as well as read from it. Generally speaking, in most cases, a micro lacks the speed and graphical capability of it's equivalent games console, but has a far wider range of practical uses. For example, back then, your Amiga or Atari ST wasn't capable of the kind of fast scrolling and graphical trickery of the Megadrive or SNES, in much the same way your Spectrum or Amstrad couldn't match the games of the Master System and NES. But as good as these consoles were at what they do, they really couldn't do a lot else, where as on a micro you could do all sorts of tasks like word processing, databases, crude internet accessing and development - something a console has never achieved thus far - can you write a Playstation game with your Playstation? No, but you can write a Commodore 64 game on your Commodore 64!
All that said, it could raise the point that the micro, rather than disappearing into a void, has been replaced by the Windows PC. It's true to say, every advantage the micro had over the console is represented in the PC, but does that really mean that the IBM compatible is the modern day equivalent of the micro? Personally, I don't think so. The PC is a different sort of machine altogether - it's far more expensive for a start. It's also a bit of a Frankenstein device - a collection 'body parts' from various different manufacturers bolted together, sometimes disproportionately. This means that the IBM PC doesn't have a defined set of hardware specifications, and each differs from the next. Micros, on the other hand, although they were expandable, had clearly defined and invariable specifications, much like consoles, and you could be sure that software, for example, marked C64, would be compatible with your Commodore. So you could see micros as being a halfway house between PCs and consoles.
So, what are the arguments for a new generation of microcomputers? Well, to be honest, they are self evident. Consoles these days are trying to become more and more like micros. The Dreamcast and Playstation 2 both offer internet access, and yet are lacking devices as basic as a keyboard and mouse. In their unexpanded form they offer no serious permanent storage facilities either.
However, a 2002-made micro would be on top of all these problems. It would have an inbuilt keyboard, meaning no more ridiculous joypad driven typing dialogues. In addition to modern read-only software media like CDs and DVDs, it could contain a hard disk drive and an up-to-date floppy drive, and with the extra interfaces and sockets associated with micros, you could easily plug in all manner of other devices like printers, scanners and special game controllers.
Micros traditionally cost more than even consoles that are more capable than themselves, but in these days of mass computer hardware production the cost and power difference between making a console and a micro would be minimal. So as well as playing all the same great games as you would get on rival consoles, you would also be able to conveniently access the internet, do word processing and even program. And lets face it, how often in a console game do you wish you had a keyboard as well as a joypad?
Who could make this new micro? You can rule out any of the major console developers - Nintendo would never stretch to it, Sony think the PS2 is perfectly adequate for any task (Pft) and Sega sadly lost the will to produce hardware after being unfairly beaten out of the market by Sony. The number one candidates for this job would be former hardware giants Atari, who currently seem to be getting back on their feet, or Apple, who also have a great deal of experience with the micro business. Commodore could give it a try, although it's brand name was probably weakened by the length of time it clung to the sinking Amiga ship. Although it's unlikely Sir Clive will get behind the name again, Sinclair Research, makers of the ZX Spectrum, would have great brand name credit if they were to return to the market.
Well, that's what I think, anything to add to that? For example, other benefits a modern day micro would have over a console, possible disadvantages, other ideas etc. Have your say and maybe someone will sit up and listen.
[email protected]
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
I wonder how many other people have noticed that there has been a gap in the computer games market that has gone surprisingly unnoticed? While consoles have steadily produced new generations of videogames machines, the microcomputer suddenly disappeared from the market in the early 90s and has never come back.
Among other things, what defines a micro from a games console is it's built-in keyboard, or in a wider sense, it's creative potential and flexibility. They also tend to have cheaper software medium, and the ability to write to that medium as well as read from it. Generally speaking, in most cases, a micro lacks the speed and graphical capability of it's equivalent games console, but has a far wider range of practical uses. For example, back then, your Amiga or Atari ST wasn't capable of the kind of fast scrolling and graphical trickery of the Megadrive or SNES, in much the same way your Spectrum or Amstrad couldn't match the games of the Master System and NES. But as good as these consoles were at what they do, they really couldn't do a lot else, where as on a micro you could do all sorts of tasks like word processing, databases, crude internet accessing and development - something a console has never achieved thus far - can you write a Playstation game with your Playstation? No, but you can write a Commodore 64 game on your Commodore 64!
All that said, it could raise the point that the micro, rather than disappearing into a void, has been replaced by the Windows PC. It's true to say, every advantage the micro had over the console is represented in the PC, but does that really mean that the IBM compatible is the modern day equivalent of the micro? Personally, I don't think so. The PC is a different sort of machine altogether - it's far more expensive for a start. It's also a bit of a Frankenstein device - a collection 'body parts' from various different manufacturers bolted together, sometimes disproportionately. This means that the IBM PC doesn't have a defined set of hardware specifications, and each differs from the next. Micros, on the other hand, although they were expandable, had clearly defined and invariable specifications, much like consoles, and you could be sure that software, for example, marked C64, would be compatible with your Commodore. So you could see micros as being a halfway house between PCs and consoles.
So, what are the arguments for a new generation of microcomputers? Well, to be honest, they are self evident. Consoles these days are trying to become more and more like micros. The Dreamcast and Playstation 2 both offer internet access, and yet are lacking devices as basic as a keyboard and mouse. In their unexpanded form they offer no serious permanent storage facilities either.
However, a 2002-made micro would be on top of all these problems. It would have an inbuilt keyboard, meaning no more ridiculous joypad driven typing dialogues. In addition to modern read-only software media like CDs and DVDs, it could contain a hard disk drive and an up-to-date floppy drive, and with the extra interfaces and sockets associated with micros, you could easily plug in all manner of other devices like printers, scanners and special game controllers.
Micros traditionally cost more than even consoles that are more capable than themselves, but in these days of mass computer hardware production the cost and power difference between making a console and a micro would be minimal. So as well as playing all the same great games as you would get on rival consoles, you would also be able to conveniently access the internet, do word processing and even program. And lets face it, how often in a console game do you wish you had a keyboard as well as a joypad?
Who could make this new micro? You can rule out any of the major console developers - Nintendo would never stretch to it, Sony think the PS2 is perfectly adequate for any task (Pft) and Sega sadly lost the will to produce hardware after being unfairly beaten out of the market by Sony. The number one candidates for this job would be former hardware giants Atari, who currently seem to be getting back on their feet, or Apple, who also have a great deal of experience with the micro business. Commodore could give it a try, although it's brand name was probably weakened by the length of time it clung to the sinking Amiga ship. Although it's unlikely Sir Clive will get behind the name again, Sinclair Research, makers of the ZX Spectrum, would have great brand name credit if they were to return to the market.
Well, that's what I think, anything to add to that? For example, other benefits a modern day micro would have over a console, possible disadvantages, other ideas etc. Have your say and maybe someone will sit up and listen.
[email protected]
Among other things, what defines a micro from a games console is it's built-in keyboard, or in a wider sense, it's creative potential and flexibility. They also tend to have cheaper software medium, and the ability to write to that medium as well as read from it. Generally speaking, in most cases, a micro lacks the speed and graphical capability of it's equivalent games console, but has a far wider range of practical uses. For example, back then, your Amiga or Atari ST wasn't capable of the kind of fast scrolling and graphical trickery of the Megadrive or SNES, in much the same way your Spectrum or Amstrad couldn't match the games of the Master System and NES. But as good as these consoles were at what they do, they really couldn't do a lot else, where as on a micro you could do all sorts of tasks like word processing, databases, crude internet accessing and development - something a console has never achieved thus far - can you write a Playstation game with your Playstation? No, but you can write a Commodore 64 game on your Commodore 64!
All that said, it could raise the point that the micro, rather than disappearing into a void, has been replaced by the Windows PC. It's true to say, every advantage the micro had over the console is represented in the PC, but does that really mean that the IBM compatible is the modern day equivalent of the micro? Personally, I don't think so. The PC is a different sort of machine altogether - it's far more expensive for a start. It's also a bit of a Frankenstein device - a collection 'body parts' from various different manufacturers bolted together, sometimes disproportionately. This means that the IBM PC doesn't have a defined set of hardware specifications, and each differs from the next. Micros, on the other hand, although they were expandable, had clearly defined and invariable specifications, much like consoles, and you could be sure that software, for example, marked C64, would be compatible with your Commodore. So you could see micros as being a halfway house between PCs and consoles.
So, what are the arguments for a new generation of microcomputers? Well, to be honest, they are self evident. Consoles these days are trying to become more and more like micros. The Dreamcast and Playstation 2 both offer internet access, and yet are lacking devices as basic as a keyboard and mouse. In their unexpanded form they offer no serious permanent storage facilities either.
However, a 2002-made micro would be on top of all these problems. It would have an inbuilt keyboard, meaning no more ridiculous joypad driven typing dialogues. In addition to modern read-only software media like CDs and DVDs, it could contain a hard disk drive and an up-to-date floppy drive, and with the extra interfaces and sockets associated with micros, you could easily plug in all manner of other devices like printers, scanners and special game controllers.
Micros traditionally cost more than even consoles that are more capable than themselves, but in these days of mass computer hardware production the cost and power difference between making a console and a micro would be minimal. So as well as playing all the same great games as you would get on rival consoles, you would also be able to conveniently access the internet, do word processing and even program. And lets face it, how often in a console game do you wish you had a keyboard as well as a joypad?
Who could make this new micro? You can rule out any of the major console developers - Nintendo would never stretch to it, Sony think the PS2 is perfectly adequate for any task (Pft) and Sega sadly lost the will to produce hardware after being unfairly beaten out of the market by Sony. The number one candidates for this job would be former hardware giants Atari, who currently seem to be getting back on their feet, or Apple, who also have a great deal of experience with the micro business. Commodore could give it a try, although it's brand name was probably weakened by the length of time it clung to the sinking Amiga ship. Although it's unlikely Sir Clive will get behind the name again, Sinclair Research, makers of the ZX Spectrum, would have great brand name credit if they were to return to the market.
Well, that's what I think, anything to add to that? For example, other benefits a modern day micro would have over a console, possible disadvantages, other ideas etc. Have your say and maybe someone will sit up and listen.
[email protected]