The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What's all the crap I hear about Microsoft trying to monopolise the gaming market. They're "buying all the other companies" and "using their money to get what they want"... aparantly. I beg to differ.
To begin with, let's have a look at the above quotes.
Contrary to popular belief, MS have not bought any big games companies. They bought Bungie- who are so small the MS relocated every single person in the company- and more recently Rare- the tiny midlands developer. No sign of any big publishers yet. And what have they done with these companies? Microsoft allowed Bungie so many resources that Halo has been nominated for "Game of the Year" awards numerous times. Is this a bad thing?
At the same time, MS are throwing money at other publishers for exclusives. Which is exactly what Sony did with the PS1. In both situations the companies gave wods of cash, development tools and premade libraries to third party developers to produce exclusive games. This is how Sony wooed Konami, Square and Namco away from Nintendo.
And this all adds up towards a great thing for gamers. If the Xbox's successor gets nearer to Sony's sales figures then we will once more find ourselves in a console wars where it is the games that determine the outcome, and not company branding. Let's face it, the PS2 had no competition when it came out, and the quality of games was nowhere near as paramount as it had been in, say, the SNES vs Mega Drive days.
So, to those who curse the Xbox, think before you speak. MS have not bought out many companies, made any more third party deals than any other manufacturer (including Sega!), and are certainly not dominating the market. Competition is good.
Sonic
To begin with, let's have a look at the above quotes.
Contrary to popular belief, MS have not bought any big games companies. They bought Bungie- who are so small the MS relocated every single person in the company- and more recently Rare- the tiny midlands developer. No sign of any big publishers yet. And what have they done with these companies? Microsoft allowed Bungie so many resources that Halo has been nominated for "Game of the Year" awards numerous times. Is this a bad thing?
At the same time, MS are throwing money at other publishers for exclusives. Which is exactly what Sony did with the PS1. In both situations the companies gave wods of cash, development tools and premade libraries to third party developers to produce exclusive games. This is how Sony wooed Konami, Square and Namco away from Nintendo.
And this all adds up towards a great thing for gamers. If the Xbox's successor gets nearer to Sony's sales figures then we will once more find ourselves in a console wars where it is the games that determine the outcome, and not company branding. Let's face it, the PS2 had no competition when it came out, and the quality of games was nowhere near as paramount as it had been in, say, the SNES vs Mega Drive days.
So, to those who curse the Xbox, think before you speak. MS have not bought out many companies, made any more third party deals than any other manufacturer (including Sega!), and are certainly not dominating the market. Competition is good.
Sonic
Page:
Don't be so naive to think that history isn't important. In the games industry, as in life, history is highly important and the Dreamcast, while not having the massive sales of the Sony consoles, has been responsible for gaming innovations and has spawned new styles of games as well.
The DC sold a lot of units in its lifetime, the PS2 sold more, but then it had a DVD and Sony's marketing was incredible. At the time when both were active consoles, the DC had more top quality games than the PS2, you can tell by the grades they got in magazines such as C&VG. After the DC first stopped production, Sega realised that there was a demand for more and new DCs were created, hence more being in production after the 'official end' of the console's life.
A console's actual life differs from household to household, depending on how much it is played. I have all the major consoles and to be fair, while some of the games' graphics are looking a little dated now, there are still titles that can match the PS2 graphics. The point about games being old hat? Well, since the PS2 is getting a defender game, it's a laughable point. The VF series still stands as the best fighting series alongside (not after) Tekken 4, see magazine reviews for evidence of this, crazy taxi was so popular that it was PORTED (not re-written) for the other console platforms and Virtua Tennis is still the best tennis game to date.
As I mentioned, I have all the consoles, so I can’t be accused of being jealous of other systems, but I wouldn’t get rid of my Dreamcast because I can’t get the games on another platform. Project Gotham may have better graphics, but MSR is better built (and different in every way to GT3, so comparisons are as void as comparing GT3 with the driving sections of GTA3). Shenmue is beautiful, and while fairly linear in the storyline, it is more of an experience than merely a game (a bit like MGS2).
There are plenty of other games, which I won’t list as it would be too boring for you, but the DC was a fantastic console for its time, only being overshadowed in marketing and the DVD capability of the PS2. The games are still very playable today, I mean who’s to say that the PS2 won’t be played by many people when the PS3 comes out? Games are games, just because graphics improve doesn’t mean that the gameplay will, which has been proven time and time again. After all, it looks like many coders, including Rockstar, take their ideas from older games, even 8-bit ones.
The DC sold a lot of units in its lifetime, the PS2 sold more, but then it had a DVD and Sony's marketing was incredible. At the time when both were active consoles, the DC had more top quality games than the PS2, you can tell by the grades they got in magazines such as C&VG. After the DC first stopped production, Sega realised that there was a demand for more and new DCs were created, hence more being in production after the 'official end' of the console's life.
A console's actual life differs from household to household, depending on how much it is played. I have all the major consoles and to be fair, while some of the games' graphics are looking a little dated now, there are still titles that can match the PS2 graphics. The point about games being old hat? Well, since the PS2 is getting a defender game, it's a laughable point. The VF series still stands as the best fighting series alongside (not after) Tekken 4, see magazine reviews for evidence of this, crazy taxi was so popular that it was PORTED (not re-written) for the other console platforms and Virtua Tennis is still the best tennis game to date.
As I mentioned, I have all the consoles, so I can’t be accused of being jealous of other systems, but I wouldn’t get rid of my Dreamcast because I can’t get the games on another platform. Project Gotham may have better graphics, but MSR is better built (and different in every way to GT3, so comparisons are as void as comparing GT3 with the driving sections of GTA3). Shenmue is beautiful, and while fairly linear in the storyline, it is more of an experience than merely a game (a bit like MGS2).
There are plenty of other games, which I won’t list as it would be too boring for you, but the DC was a fantastic console for its time, only being overshadowed in marketing and the DVD capability of the PS2. The games are still very playable today, I mean who’s to say that the PS2 won’t be played by many people when the PS3 comes out? Games are games, just because graphics improve doesn’t mean that the gameplay will, which has been proven time and time again. After all, it looks like many coders, including Rockstar, take their ideas from older games, even 8-bit ones.
Top score wrote:
> Miserableman
>
> Very apt for person that is too tight to fork out for today's gaming
> the reason DC games are so cheap is that they are old hat and I
> personally wouldn't give more than £4.99 for most of them
> anyway.
>
> As this forum say's this is The Future of Gaming chat so do us all a
> favour and stick to the vintage games forum if there is one.
So having never played on a Dreamcast, and without really much of a clue as to what games were released on it or what they were like, you are willing to make sweeping statements about the quality of the console and ALL of its games? You ignorant newbie.
In many ways, the Dreamcast is the model of the future - I'd rather play cheap, decent games on my Gamecube 2 and Playstation 3 than todays prices, that's for sure.
> Miserableman
>
> Very apt for person that is too tight to fork out for today's gaming
> the reason DC games are so cheap is that they are old hat and I
> personally wouldn't give more than £4.99 for most of them
> anyway.
>
> As this forum say's this is The Future of Gaming chat so do us all a
> favour and stick to the vintage games forum if there is one.
So having never played on a Dreamcast, and without really much of a clue as to what games were released on it or what they were like, you are willing to make sweeping statements about the quality of the console and ALL of its games? You ignorant newbie.
In many ways, the Dreamcast is the model of the future - I'd rather play cheap, decent games on my Gamecube 2 and Playstation 3 than todays prices, that's for sure.
Miserableman
Very apt for person that is too tight to fork out for today's gaming the reason DC games are so cheap is that they are old hat and I personally wouldn't give more than £4.99 for most of them anyway.
As this forum say's this is The Future of Gaming chat so do us all a favour and stick to the vintage games forum if there is one.
Very apt for person that is too tight to fork out for today's gaming the reason DC games are so cheap is that they are old hat and I personally wouldn't give more than £4.99 for most of them anyway.
As this forum say's this is The Future of Gaming chat so do us all a favour and stick to the vintage games forum if there is one.
Update2.01 wrote:
> I think u forgot Crazy Taxi. Personaly, I dont find any of the games u
> listed that compelling. MSR? I almost forgot what that was! Anyway,
> GT3 is much better. HeadHunter is on PS2, but it's just another game,
> little reason to buy it. Virtua Fighter. Thats PS2 as well, but T4 is
> better. Ready2Rumble - try Knockout Kings 02, or any number of other
> similar stuff on PS2. Never did like the Sonic thing, done to death.
> Sega Rally, V-Rally is much much better, even the dirt tracks in GT3
> are better than Sega Rally.
Buckerfuggles, I wrote a great big reply to this which was lost to a page error >:O/ To paraphrase - you are entitled to your opinion on those games, as I am entitled to mine - I will return to at least some of them before I move on, and I didn't pay more than £15 for any of those games I listed. I did forget Crazy Taxi - I'm not that fussed, but my gf wants me to get it :O)
I've not seen a Dreamcast deal, but it would cost you £50ish to buy a DC plus another pad, and you could get 8-10 fantastic games with the other £150.
> I think u forgot Crazy Taxi. Personaly, I dont find any of the games u
> listed that compelling. MSR? I almost forgot what that was! Anyway,
> GT3 is much better. HeadHunter is on PS2, but it's just another game,
> little reason to buy it. Virtua Fighter. Thats PS2 as well, but T4 is
> better. Ready2Rumble - try Knockout Kings 02, or any number of other
> similar stuff on PS2. Never did like the Sonic thing, done to death.
> Sega Rally, V-Rally is much much better, even the dirt tracks in GT3
> are better than Sega Rally.
Buckerfuggles, I wrote a great big reply to this which was lost to a page error >:O/ To paraphrase - you are entitled to your opinion on those games, as I am entitled to mine - I will return to at least some of them before I move on, and I didn't pay more than £15 for any of those games I listed. I did forget Crazy Taxi - I'm not that fussed, but my gf wants me to get it :O)
I've not seen a Dreamcast deal, but it would cost you £50ish to buy a DC plus another pad, and you could get 8-10 fantastic games with the other £150.
Top score wrote:
> You poor deluded person, you need to get onto Watchdog and expose the
> firm that wanted to charge you £200 for a DC and 8 games.
> Personally I wouldn't have paid them £20, the Sega DC is a
> defuncked machine with a pitiful games line up that is so yesterday.
> Project Gotham is MSR 2, JSR Future is JSR 2, Virtua Fighter 4 is a
> Sega title how can you say you are only concerned with the games you
> play when all the sequels are on superior current machines.
>
> Sounds to me your a bit of a tightwadd and won't pay anymore than
> £4.99 for a game which is why you own a defunked machine. If I
> were you I woulndn't be singing the praises of the DC rather slagging
> Sega off for ditching it so soon after its release.
I'd much prefer to buy Virtua Fighter 3 for £4.99 than Virtua Fighter 4 for £39.99, do you not agree? I don't have a problem playing yesterdays games, particularly when they look almost as good, play better and cost one third the price of todays games. You're right, I am a bit of a tightwad - I've become so used to paying a maximum of £20 for top quality games that shelling out double that for some half-****** "Next Generation" shoot-em-up with no soul or pedigree to speak of is something I baulk at doing. Like I said before, my Dreamcast is hardly "defunked" (sic), it is the console of choice in my house - it seems to me that the only reason that you don't like is that it's not in fashion - do you wear yours or something? I play games on my consoles, I very much enjoy the games I play on my consoles, and if you choose which console(s) you buy based on whether they're 'today' or 'yesterday', then you are nothing but one of the moron, faceless consumers Sony and the record industry so much rely on.
> You poor deluded person, you need to get onto Watchdog and expose the
> firm that wanted to charge you £200 for a DC and 8 games.
> Personally I wouldn't have paid them £20, the Sega DC is a
> defuncked machine with a pitiful games line up that is so yesterday.
> Project Gotham is MSR 2, JSR Future is JSR 2, Virtua Fighter 4 is a
> Sega title how can you say you are only concerned with the games you
> play when all the sequels are on superior current machines.
>
> Sounds to me your a bit of a tightwadd and won't pay anymore than
> £4.99 for a game which is why you own a defunked machine. If I
> were you I woulndn't be singing the praises of the DC rather slagging
> Sega off for ditching it so soon after its release.
I'd much prefer to buy Virtua Fighter 3 for £4.99 than Virtua Fighter 4 for £39.99, do you not agree? I don't have a problem playing yesterdays games, particularly when they look almost as good, play better and cost one third the price of todays games. You're right, I am a bit of a tightwad - I've become so used to paying a maximum of £20 for top quality games that shelling out double that for some half-****** "Next Generation" shoot-em-up with no soul or pedigree to speak of is something I baulk at doing. Like I said before, my Dreamcast is hardly "defunked" (sic), it is the console of choice in my house - it seems to me that the only reason that you don't like
I am amazed that some one spent £200 on a DC bundle recently.
Update2.01 wrote:
> MSR? I almost forgot what that was! Anyway, GT3 is much better.
I disagree.
MSR was and still is a fantastic title full of innovation, but GT3 is a shameless cash in that's nothing more than GT1 & 2 in fancy new clothes.
> MSR? I almost forgot what that was! Anyway, GT3 is much better.
I disagree.
MSR was and still is a fantastic title full of innovation, but GT3 is a shameless cash in that's nothing more than GT1 & 2 in fancy new clothes.
Miserableman wrote:
> Top score wrote:
> Are you enjoying playing Virtua fighter 4 and Jet Set radio future
> on
> your dreamcast. It must be hard playing the same games over and
> over
> such a limited selection still if you look at a dc top ten chart it
> hasn't changed since its launch, they must be good games then.
>
>
>
>
> Your ignorance astounds me. Neither of the games you quote are
> Dreamcast games. As it happens I have about 15 very playable Dreamcast
> games - Virtua Tennis 2 (which is btw greatly superior in graphics and
> gameplay to the PS2 version) is a daily hoot, and at the moment we're
> just rediscovering how infuriatingly addictive Mr Driller is. No doubt
> one day I'll go back to MSR and finish off the 20 or so campaigns I
> haven't looked at yet, and maybe one day I'll even finish Shenmue.
> That's not to mention Sonic Adventure, Sega Rally, Marvel vs Capcom 2,
> Ready 2 Rumble Boxing, Soul Calibur and Rez (amoung others), all of
> which I've only paid a fraction of the required attention to. If I
> ever get bored of those, there's always Headhunter and Grandia in the
> local shop which are supposed to be fantastic. Plus I WILL track down
> Skies of Arcadia one day.
>
> You see, I'm not concerned with console wars like you are, I'm
> concerned with the games I play. You, right now, can go into a shop
> and buy a Dreamcast, a second controller and 8 amazing games for
> £200. The equivalent gameplay from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo would
> cost you close to £500.
>
> Read what I said to Update about the undeniable ignorance of the
> British consumer. The Dreamcast is a red-hot deal, staring them in the
> face, yet they won't budge because no-one makes games for it any more.
> A crying shame for them, but not for me - the shops are still bulging
> with ultra-cheap classics like Ferrari 355, Headhunter and Virtua
> Fighter 3, waiting for me to buy them. So please, stick to your
> Playstation 2, pay £40 for your new games, I hope they give you
> hours of entertainment, I really do.
I think u forgot Crazy Taxi. Personaly, I dont find any of the games u listed that compelling. MSR? I almost forgot what that was! Anyway, GT3 is much better. HeadHunter is on PS2, but it's just another game, little reason to buy it. Virtua Fighter. Thats PS2 as well, but T4 is better. Ready2Rumble - try Knockout Kings 02, or any number of other similar stuff on PS2. Never did like the Sonic thing, done to death. Sega Rally, V-Rally is much much better, even the dirt tracks in GT3 are better than Sega Rally.
> Top score wrote:
> Are you enjoying playing Virtua fighter 4 and Jet Set radio future
> on
> your dreamcast. It must be hard playing the same games over and
> over
> such a limited selection still if you look at a dc top ten chart it
> hasn't changed since its launch, they must be good games then.
>
>
>
>
> Your ignorance astounds me. Neither of the games you quote are
> Dreamcast games. As it happens I have about 15 very playable Dreamcast
> games - Virtua Tennis 2 (which is btw greatly superior in graphics and
> gameplay to the PS2 version) is a daily hoot, and at the moment we're
> just rediscovering how infuriatingly addictive Mr Driller is. No doubt
> one day I'll go back to MSR and finish off the 20 or so campaigns I
> haven't looked at yet, and maybe one day I'll even finish Shenmue.
> That's not to mention Sonic Adventure, Sega Rally, Marvel vs Capcom 2,
> Ready 2 Rumble Boxing, Soul Calibur and Rez (amoung others), all of
> which I've only paid a fraction of the required attention to. If I
> ever get bored of those, there's always Headhunter and Grandia in the
> local shop which are supposed to be fantastic. Plus I WILL track down
> Skies of Arcadia one day.
>
> You see, I'm not concerned with console wars like you are, I'm
> concerned with the games I play. You, right now, can go into a shop
> and buy a Dreamcast, a second controller and 8 amazing games for
> £200. The equivalent gameplay from Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo would
> cost you close to £500.
>
> Read what I said to Update about the undeniable ignorance of the
> British consumer. The Dreamcast is a red-hot deal, staring them in the
> face, yet they won't budge because no-one makes games for it any more.
> A crying shame for them, but not for me - the shops are still bulging
> with ultra-cheap classics like Ferrari 355, Headhunter and Virtua
> Fighter 3, waiting for me to buy them. So please, stick to your
> Playstation 2, pay £40 for your new games, I hope they give you
> hours of entertainment, I really do.
I think u forgot Crazy Taxi. Personaly, I dont find any of the games u listed that compelling. MSR? I almost forgot what that was! Anyway, GT3 is much better. HeadHunter is on PS2, but it's just another game, little reason to buy it. Virtua Fighter. Thats PS2 as well, but T4 is better. Ready2Rumble - try Knockout Kings 02, or any number of other similar stuff on PS2. Never did like the Sonic thing, done to death. Sega Rally, V-Rally is much much better, even the dirt tracks in GT3 are better than Sega Rally.
Update2.01 wrote:
> No, I would not go a buy a copy of JSR if it was on PS2 - I don't buy
> games just because they are on my console. There are PS2 games out
> there (lots) that don't do anything for me. BTW, I have seen what JSR
> is like.
I'll forgive you (just this once, mind) for having your own opinion then - I'm a Nintendo fanboy by tradition, who never liked GoldenEye :O(( Most people I introduce JSR to find it fascinating, and can't put it down.
> No, I would not go a buy a copy of JSR if it was on PS2 - I don't buy
> games just because they are on my console. There are PS2 games out
> there (lots) that don't do anything for me. BTW, I have seen what JSR
> is like.
I'll forgive you (just this once, mind) for having your own opinion then - I'm a Nintendo fanboy by tradition, who never liked GoldenEye :O(( Most people I introduce JSR to find it fascinating, and can't put it down.
Actually, I thought the DreamCast was a good machine, it just lacked the proper support to make it into a market force.
Page: