The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Look at you. A walking advertisement. Most likely anyway. Bet you have some kind of brand name on your clothes. Brands are important in todays world especially with fashion but how important are they with games. Do you really care who slaved away and poured blood, sweat, tears and perhaps a pinch of programming genius into making your games? Doubtful. Unless of course you are one of those people who actually watches the end of game credits screens to see the names of the people who made the game.
Ok, so to a certain extent brands are important in games. Developers and publishers of all games have to build up a reputation of making top quality games in order to make us as gamers remember them. This is especially important as developers and publishers need some way of identifying with the casual gamers who just go into a shop to buy a game, any one which they see in fact. Some brands are associated with quality games, rareware, neversoft, EA big etc and some brand names are attached to many games of dog food quality, cyro and 3DO for example.
If brands are evident in games then brand loyalty must also be in place. I rarely look at the developers of a game when picking it off a shelf, I've either played a demo or read a review and thats good enough for me to judge the quality of the game in my eyes. I doubt that there are people who buy a game merely on the strength of the development team behind it. But what about the consoles, there must be brand loyalty there. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all different pictures in gamers minds. To some people who were weaned on a Nes or Snes, a Shigeru Miyamoto shrine is commonplace in their bedroom as well as a built in loathing of Sony. Well maybe not that far fetched but you get my meaning.
If all 3 next gen consoles are so similar, which they kinda are, then will it be the brands and the games and history associated to them that decides which console will become the best selling of them all. Nintendo have a great history in games and have always been very well respected and liked by the mainstream gaming audience. They have a hugely loyal fanbase and surely attract more fans by the day. Sony are sometimes a mistaken identity. You cannot be a Sony games fan, simply because they don't make games, never have and probably never will. Sure you can like the PS2, love it in fact but the fact that Sony don't make games could hurt them by the time the 3 consoles are established and all have simlilar games. Microsoft are new and have equal parts hate and hope in there X-box. Some people simply won't buy it because it is microsoft. Bad branding.
So we have the 3 consoles, McDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy, Gamecube, PS2 and X-box respectively. One more gaming brand that means a lot and carries a lot of weight is Sega. They, along with Nintendo have undoubtably made some of the best games ever seen in recent years. Ok, so at the moment they are out of contention instead settling on being the best developer in the world. But imagine if they had a console coming out in May. The tables would be turned. If Sega and Nintendo both had stunning machines with exclusive titles coming out then the PS2 and the X-box would be stopped in their tracks. People would think why limit myself to a console with less games when I can have far more exclusive titles and only have to wait 6 months for ports of X-box or PS2 games. Who cares if the Atari brand has been revived to promote some games for a weakly branded French developer, Sega coming back would really shake things up. Wonder if Al-Fayed would be willing to lend Sega a bit of cash to get it started...
Ok, so to a certain extent brands are important in games. Developers and publishers of all games have to build up a reputation of making top quality games in order to make us as gamers remember them. This is especially important as developers and publishers need some way of identifying with the casual gamers who just go into a shop to buy a game, any one which they see in fact. Some brands are associated with quality games, rareware, neversoft, EA big etc and some brand names are attached to many games of dog food quality, cyro and 3DO for example.
If brands are evident in games then brand loyalty must also be in place. I rarely look at the developers of a game when picking it off a shelf, I've either played a demo or read a review and thats good enough for me to judge the quality of the game in my eyes. I doubt that there are people who buy a game merely on the strength of the development team behind it. But what about the consoles, there must be brand loyalty there. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all different pictures in gamers minds. To some people who were weaned on a Nes or Snes, a Shigeru Miyamoto shrine is commonplace in their bedroom as well as a built in loathing of Sony. Well maybe not that far fetched but you get my meaning.
If all 3 next gen consoles are so similar, which they kinda are, then will it be the brands and the games and history associated to them that decides which console will become the best selling of them all. Nintendo have a great history in games and have always been very well respected and liked by the mainstream gaming audience. They have a hugely loyal fanbase and surely attract more fans by the day. Sony are sometimes a mistaken identity. You cannot be a Sony games fan, simply because they don't make games, never have and probably never will. Sure you can like the PS2, love it in fact but the fact that Sony don't make games could hurt them by the time the 3 consoles are established and all have simlilar games. Microsoft are new and have equal parts hate and hope in there X-box. Some people simply won't buy it because it is microsoft. Bad branding.
So we have the 3 consoles, McDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy, Gamecube, PS2 and X-box respectively. One more gaming brand that means a lot and carries a lot of weight is Sega. They, along with Nintendo have undoubtably made some of the best games ever seen in recent years. Ok, so at the moment they are out of contention instead settling on being the best developer in the world. But imagine if they had a console coming out in May. The tables would be turned. If Sega and Nintendo both had stunning machines with exclusive titles coming out then the PS2 and the X-box would be stopped in their tracks. People would think why limit myself to a console with less games when I can have far more exclusive titles and only have to wait 6 months for ports of X-box or PS2 games. Who cares if the Atari brand has been revived to promote some games for a weakly branded French developer, Sega coming back would really shake things up. Wonder if Al-Fayed would be willing to lend Sega a bit of cash to get it started...
Exactamundo, my dear Meka!
I suppose taking 'Sony' into their name does make it a more solid link.
Still, what's it matter what they are as long as they're making top games?
Still, what's it matter what they are as long as they're making top games?
Meka Dragon wrote:
> I'd say they were more second party companies, than
> first, simply because they existed in another form
> before hand.
Had they kept their own names like Rare, I'd agree. But they've been bought completely and are now part of SCE - they are in-house teams. Like the various Sega units, they are teams of talented coders, working on Sony's payroll.
So however they came to be, in my book, Sony make games!
Nearer to the Rare/2nd-party definition, I think, would be Square and (possibly) Polyphony Digital.
> I'd say they were more second party companies, than
> first, simply because they existed in another form
> before hand.
Had they kept their own names like Rare, I'd agree. But they've been bought completely and are now part of SCE - they are in-house teams. Like the various Sega units, they are teams of talented coders, working on Sony's payroll.
So however they came to be, in my book, Sony make games!
Nearer to the Rare/2nd-party definition, I think, would be Square and (possibly) Polyphony Digital.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
Okay, so care explain the existence of Sony Studio
> Liverpool (Wipeout Fusion), Sony Studio Camden (Dropship) and Sony Studio Soho
> (The Getaway)?
I'd say they were more second party companies, than first, simply because they existed in another form before hand.
Like you couldn't say that Nintendo made the games Rare came out with.
But that's just me being petty.
Wimpy had the best ads when I was a kid, then they just stopped advertising. I went in one last year, and the food was great, yet it's no where near as popular as it was.
What's that say about gaming?
Um, advertising is necessary. That's right. ;-)
Okay, so care explain the existence of Sony Studio
> Liverpool (Wipeout Fusion), Sony Studio Camden (Dropship) and Sony Studio Soho
> (The Getaway)?
I'd say they were more second party companies, than first, simply because they existed in another form before hand.
Like you couldn't say that Nintendo made the games Rare came out with.
But that's just me being petty.
Wimpy had the best ads when I was a kid, then they just stopped advertising. I went in one last year, and the food was great, yet it's no where near as popular as it was.
What's that say about gaming?
Um, advertising is necessary. That's right. ;-)
jd99 wrote:
> Sony are sometimes a mistaken identity. You cannot be a
> Sony games fan, simply because they don't make games,
> never have and probably never will.
Okay, so care explain the existence of Sony Studio Liverpool (Wipeout Fusion), Sony Studio Camden (Dropship) and Sony Studio Soho (The Getaway)?
> Sony are sometimes a mistaken identity. You cannot be a
> Sony games fan, simply because they don't make games,
> never have and probably never will.
Okay, so care explain the existence of Sony Studio Liverpool (Wipeout Fusion), Sony Studio Camden (Dropship) and Sony Studio Soho (The Getaway)?
Yeah that McDonalds bit was just typed in because I was hungry. Probably didn't make much sense. I am undecided on a gamecube and want to play the games before buying even though it is cheap at £150ish compared to what I paid for my PS2.
Have to agree there with Triple_H. PS2 is definitly the top dog at the moment. With X-box second and Gamecube 3rd. Although that may be more down to the order they are released in.
Although this doesnt matter, as your purcashe should be swayed by which consoles games you enjoy playing most. Personally I will be getting a Gamecube to add to my PS2 and possibly an X-box depending upon my budget.
Although this doesnt matter, as your purcashe should be swayed by which consoles games you enjoy playing most. Personally I will be getting a Gamecube to add to my PS2 and possibly an X-box depending upon my budget.
jd99 wrote:
So we have the 3 consoles, McDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy, Gamecube, PS2 and X-box respectively
Dont you think that it is kinda ambitious calling Gamecube the McDonalds of consoles right now.. Despite the fact I am biased towards Sony, I am sure many will agree with me that PS2 would represent McDonalds, X-Box a Burger King and a Gamecube would be a Wimpy equivalent..But to be honest it doesnt really matter...
So we have the 3 consoles, McDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy, Gamecube, PS2 and X-box respectively
Dont you think that it is kinda ambitious calling Gamecube the McDonalds of consoles right now.. Despite the fact I am biased towards Sony, I am sure many will agree with me that PS2 would represent McDonalds, X-Box a Burger King and a Gamecube would be a Wimpy equivalent..But to be honest it doesnt really matter...
That was a fresh angle, i agree there will be people who follow a specific brand, the zealots.
Look at you. A walking advertisement. Most likely anyway. Bet you have some kind of brand name on your clothes. Brands are important in todays world especially with fashion but how important are they with games. Do you really care who slaved away and poured blood, sweat, tears and perhaps a pinch of programming genius into making your games? Doubtful. Unless of course you are one of those people who actually watches the end of game credits screens to see the names of the people who made the game.
Ok, so to a certain extent brands are important in games. Developers and publishers of all games have to build up a reputation of making top quality games in order to make us as gamers remember them. This is especially important as developers and publishers need some way of identifying with the casual gamers who just go into a shop to buy a game, any one which they see in fact. Some brands are associated with quality games, rareware, neversoft, EA big etc and some brand names are attached to many games of dog food quality, cyro and 3DO for example.
If brands are evident in games then brand loyalty must also be in place. I rarely look at the developers of a game when picking it off a shelf, I've either played a demo or read a review and thats good enough for me to judge the quality of the game in my eyes. I doubt that there are people who buy a game merely on the strength of the development team behind it. But what about the consoles, there must be brand loyalty there. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all different pictures in gamers minds. To some people who were weaned on a Nes or Snes, a Shigeru Miyamoto shrine is commonplace in their bedroom as well as a built in loathing of Sony. Well maybe not that far fetched but you get my meaning.
If all 3 next gen consoles are so similar, which they kinda are, then will it be the brands and the games and history associated to them that decides which console will become the best selling of them all. Nintendo have a great history in games and have always been very well respected and liked by the mainstream gaming audience. They have a hugely loyal fanbase and surely attract more fans by the day. Sony are sometimes a mistaken identity. You cannot be a Sony games fan, simply because they don't make games, never have and probably never will. Sure you can like the PS2, love it in fact but the fact that Sony don't make games could hurt them by the time the 3 consoles are established and all have simlilar games. Microsoft are new and have equal parts hate and hope in there X-box. Some people simply won't buy it because it is microsoft. Bad branding.
So we have the 3 consoles, McDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy, Gamecube, PS2 and X-box respectively. One more gaming brand that means a lot and carries a lot of weight is Sega. They, along with Nintendo have undoubtably made some of the best games ever seen in recent years. Ok, so at the moment they are out of contention instead settling on being the best developer in the world. But imagine if they had a console coming out in May. The tables would be turned. If Sega and Nintendo both had stunning machines with exclusive titles coming out then the PS2 and the X-box would be stopped in their tracks. People would think why limit myself to a console with less games when I can have far more exclusive titles and only have to wait 6 months for ports of X-box or PS2 games. Who cares if the Atari brand has been revived to promote some games for a weakly branded French developer, Sega coming back would really shake things up. Wonder if Al-Fayed would be willing to lend Sega a bit of cash to get it started...
Ok, so to a certain extent brands are important in games. Developers and publishers of all games have to build up a reputation of making top quality games in order to make us as gamers remember them. This is especially important as developers and publishers need some way of identifying with the casual gamers who just go into a shop to buy a game, any one which they see in fact. Some brands are associated with quality games, rareware, neversoft, EA big etc and some brand names are attached to many games of dog food quality, cyro and 3DO for example.
If brands are evident in games then brand loyalty must also be in place. I rarely look at the developers of a game when picking it off a shelf, I've either played a demo or read a review and thats good enough for me to judge the quality of the game in my eyes. I doubt that there are people who buy a game merely on the strength of the development team behind it. But what about the consoles, there must be brand loyalty there. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all different pictures in gamers minds. To some people who were weaned on a Nes or Snes, a Shigeru Miyamoto shrine is commonplace in their bedroom as well as a built in loathing of Sony. Well maybe not that far fetched but you get my meaning.
If all 3 next gen consoles are so similar, which they kinda are, then will it be the brands and the games and history associated to them that decides which console will become the best selling of them all. Nintendo have a great history in games and have always been very well respected and liked by the mainstream gaming audience. They have a hugely loyal fanbase and surely attract more fans by the day. Sony are sometimes a mistaken identity. You cannot be a Sony games fan, simply because they don't make games, never have and probably never will. Sure you can like the PS2, love it in fact but the fact that Sony don't make games could hurt them by the time the 3 consoles are established and all have simlilar games. Microsoft are new and have equal parts hate and hope in there X-box. Some people simply won't buy it because it is microsoft. Bad branding.
So we have the 3 consoles, McDonalds, Burger King and Wimpy, Gamecube, PS2 and X-box respectively. One more gaming brand that means a lot and carries a lot of weight is Sega. They, along with Nintendo have undoubtably made some of the best games ever seen in recent years. Ok, so at the moment they are out of contention instead settling on being the best developer in the world. But imagine if they had a console coming out in May. The tables would be turned. If Sega and Nintendo both had stunning machines with exclusive titles coming out then the PS2 and the X-box would be stopped in their tracks. People would think why limit myself to a console with less games when I can have far more exclusive titles and only have to wait 6 months for ports of X-box or PS2 games. Who cares if the Atari brand has been revived to promote some games for a weakly branded French developer, Sega coming back would really shake things up. Wonder if Al-Fayed would be willing to lend Sega a bit of cash to get it started...