The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gaming analogies. I'm seeing them everywhere. I'm seeing the videogame industry, the fastest growing industry in the world, being compared to hither and thither for all sorts of reasons. The FairPlay campaign, for example. Their main argument is that there shouldn't be such heavy licensing fees on the GameCube, Xbox and PS2. Guess what their comparison is. 'If DVDs cost £20 to make, so should games'. It wouldn't be totally illogical of me to scream 'WRONG!', and while they're right in that game prices should be lowered, the gaming industry is nothing like the film industry, or indeed the music industry.
No no, videogames are their own industry. And what makes them so unique? Well, for starters, you don't play DVDs. You might play primitive 'interactive games' on the Harry Potter DVD, but you don't play DVDs. Nor do you play music in the sense of playing a CD as a game, although you can play a musical instrument and play a CD in a player. But that's confusing thanks to the English meaning of 'play'. Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that videogames are interactive. Music, and movies are not.
And that's not the only difference either. Videogames are made by people sitting in front of computers typing on their keyboards just like I am now. They don't film endless variations on what could happen in a game, with a man dressed up in a polygonal suit, and then play back the video in correspondence to how you input things into the pad. No, it's interactive, and made by a man or woman sat in front of scrawls of dialogue. Nothing like playing a guitar, or acting in front of a camera.
Videogames as physical objects are different to movies and music. That's given. They cost twice as much and the majority of them give ten times as much enjoyment. But there is a difference between an arcade and a multiplex say; watching is free, playing isn't. You can't go into a cinema screen for five minutes and say you're 'trialling' a film, because that's a load of crap. Likewise, there's no such thing as videogame concerts; you can't see a real life Mario jumping about on a stage, nor can you make an exhibition out of middle aged men sweating away at a computer. Another difference between the industries - in their demonstrative form.
So when people say things like 'videogames are just like the film industry', they're wrong. They aren't. They appeal in different ways, they're used in different ways and they're liked by different people. They cost more, but give more entertainment. They are made differently, sold differently, and have given way to a huge amount of different spin-off merchandising and mini-industries in themselves. There are probably more gaming magazines than there are music or film, and more online content thanks to gaming's online nature.
So the Nintendo Difference? It applies to Microsoft and Sony too. The difference is that games are unique, they've never been done before. They aren't the new music or film industries. They generate more revenue and income than music and film, and are a different format. So, the Nintendo difference is more of a difference than you'd have thought. Games are different, games are unique. But more than music and films, games are fun.
No no, videogames are their own industry. And what makes them so unique? Well, for starters, you don't play DVDs. You might play primitive 'interactive games' on the Harry Potter DVD, but you don't play DVDs. Nor do you play music in the sense of playing a CD as a game, although you can play a musical instrument and play a CD in a player. But that's confusing thanks to the English meaning of 'play'. Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that videogames are interactive. Music, and movies are not.
And that's not the only difference either. Videogames are made by people sitting in front of computers typing on their keyboards just like I am now. They don't film endless variations on what could happen in a game, with a man dressed up in a polygonal suit, and then play back the video in correspondence to how you input things into the pad. No, it's interactive, and made by a man or woman sat in front of scrawls of dialogue. Nothing like playing a guitar, or acting in front of a camera.
Videogames as physical objects are different to movies and music. That's given. They cost twice as much and the majority of them give ten times as much enjoyment. But there is a difference between an arcade and a multiplex say; watching is free, playing isn't. You can't go into a cinema screen for five minutes and say you're 'trialling' a film, because that's a load of crap. Likewise, there's no such thing as videogame concerts; you can't see a real life Mario jumping about on a stage, nor can you make an exhibition out of middle aged men sweating away at a computer. Another difference between the industries - in their demonstrative form.
So when people say things like 'videogames are just like the film industry', they're wrong. They aren't. They appeal in different ways, they're used in different ways and they're liked by different people. They cost more, but give more entertainment. They are made differently, sold differently, and have given way to a huge amount of different spin-off merchandising and mini-industries in themselves. There are probably more gaming magazines than there are music or film, and more online content thanks to gaming's online nature.
So the Nintendo Difference? It applies to Microsoft and Sony too. The difference is that games are unique, they've never been done before. They aren't the new music or film industries. They generate more revenue and income than music and film, and are a different format. So, the Nintendo difference is more of a difference than you'd have thought. Games are different, games are unique. But more than music and films, games are fun.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Gaming analogies. I'm seeing them everywhere. I'm seeing the videogame industry, the fastest growing industry in the world, being compared to hither and thither for all sorts of reasons. The FairPlay campaign, for example. Their main argument is that there shouldn't be such heavy licensing fees on the GameCube, Xbox and PS2. Guess what their comparison is. 'If DVDs cost £20 to make, so should games'. It wouldn't be totally illogical of me to scream 'WRONG!', and while they're right in that game prices should be lowered, the gaming industry is nothing like the film industry, or indeed the music industry.
No no, videogames are their own industry. And what makes them so unique? Well, for starters, you don't play DVDs. You might play primitive 'interactive games' on the Harry Potter DVD, but you don't play DVDs. Nor do you play music in the sense of playing a CD as a game, although you can play a musical instrument and play a CD in a player. But that's confusing thanks to the English meaning of 'play'. Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that videogames are interactive. Music, and movies are not.
And that's not the only difference either. Videogames are made by people sitting in front of computers typing on their keyboards just like I am now. They don't film endless variations on what could happen in a game, with a man dressed up in a polygonal suit, and then play back the video in correspondence to how you input things into the pad. No, it's interactive, and made by a man or woman sat in front of scrawls of dialogue. Nothing like playing a guitar, or acting in front of a camera.
Videogames as physical objects are different to movies and music. That's given. They cost twice as much and the majority of them give ten times as much enjoyment. But there is a difference between an arcade and a multiplex say; watching is free, playing isn't. You can't go into a cinema screen for five minutes and say you're 'trialling' a film, because that's a load of crap. Likewise, there's no such thing as videogame concerts; you can't see a real life Mario jumping about on a stage, nor can you make an exhibition out of middle aged men sweating away at a computer. Another difference between the industries - in their demonstrative form.
So when people say things like 'videogames are just like the film industry', they're wrong. They aren't. They appeal in different ways, they're used in different ways and they're liked by different people. They cost more, but give more entertainment. They are made differently, sold differently, and have given way to a huge amount of different spin-off merchandising and mini-industries in themselves. There are probably more gaming magazines than there are music or film, and more online content thanks to gaming's online nature.
So the Nintendo Difference? It applies to Microsoft and Sony too. The difference is that games are unique, they've never been done before. They aren't the new music or film industries. They generate more revenue and income than music and film, and are a different format. So, the Nintendo difference is more of a difference than you'd have thought. Games are different, games are unique. But more than music and films, games are fun.
No no, videogames are their own industry. And what makes them so unique? Well, for starters, you don't play DVDs. You might play primitive 'interactive games' on the Harry Potter DVD, but you don't play DVDs. Nor do you play music in the sense of playing a CD as a game, although you can play a musical instrument and play a CD in a player. But that's confusing thanks to the English meaning of 'play'. Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that videogames are interactive. Music, and movies are not.
And that's not the only difference either. Videogames are made by people sitting in front of computers typing on their keyboards just like I am now. They don't film endless variations on what could happen in a game, with a man dressed up in a polygonal suit, and then play back the video in correspondence to how you input things into the pad. No, it's interactive, and made by a man or woman sat in front of scrawls of dialogue. Nothing like playing a guitar, or acting in front of a camera.
Videogames as physical objects are different to movies and music. That's given. They cost twice as much and the majority of them give ten times as much enjoyment. But there is a difference between an arcade and a multiplex say; watching is free, playing isn't. You can't go into a cinema screen for five minutes and say you're 'trialling' a film, because that's a load of crap. Likewise, there's no such thing as videogame concerts; you can't see a real life Mario jumping about on a stage, nor can you make an exhibition out of middle aged men sweating away at a computer. Another difference between the industries - in their demonstrative form.
So when people say things like 'videogames are just like the film industry', they're wrong. They aren't. They appeal in different ways, they're used in different ways and they're liked by different people. They cost more, but give more entertainment. They are made differently, sold differently, and have given way to a huge amount of different spin-off merchandising and mini-industries in themselves. There are probably more gaming magazines than there are music or film, and more online content thanks to gaming's online nature.
So the Nintendo Difference? It applies to Microsoft and Sony too. The difference is that games are unique, they've never been done before. They aren't the new music or film industries. They generate more revenue and income than music and film, and are a different format. So, the Nintendo difference is more of a difference than you'd have thought. Games are different, games are unique. But more than music and films, games are fun.