The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yes, the Dreamcast was probably one of the best consoles, given its time, the PS2 wasn't really that much more of a technical improvement to be honest, though Sony have certainly given the platform a wider choice of games.
Sales and charts don't mean anything as far as quality is concerned, after all, the Army Men games got to the top of the charts and have sold loads. The Dreamcast's hardware and the games were undeniably great, part of the problem was that a lot of the games were either arcade ports (great for me, not so good for other people, it seems) or new concepts and the general pig-headed consumer doesn't like change unless it's well hyped.
Sales and charts don't mean anything as far as quality is concerned, after all, the Army Men games got to the top of the charts and have sold loads. The Dreamcast's hardware and the games were undeniably great, part of the problem was that a lot of the games were either arcade ports (great for me, not so good for other people, it seems) or new concepts and the general pig-headed consumer doesn't like change unless it's well hyped.
Hope know really thinks the likes of Jet Set radio, and Crazy Taxi are better than NFS and Burnout on PS2.
Miserableman wrote:
> like it's some kind of bargain bin trash - have you even seen it in
> motion?
Yes I have the word that comes to mind is pants which also happens to be the prefect description of your posts.
> like it's some kind of bargain bin trash - have you even seen it in
> motion?
Yes I have the word that comes to mind is pants which also happens to be the prefect description of your posts.
Top score wrote:
> Firstly you mean I have never played Crazy taxi and Virtua Fighter
> then, what a stupid statement.
>
> Secondly anyone that says the quality of the controller doesn't matter
> obviously doesn't play games much its like saying you have a sportscar
> with vague steering. The controller is the single most important
> aspect of videogame machine.
What I said was "The pad was slightly iffy, but I don't mind it so much". For the hard of thinking, this means "I agree with the common accusations that the Dreamcast pad was not as well designed as some of it's competitors, although I don't mind the design too much myself". I should know, I have 4 of them, and they get daily. The Dreamcast is the primary console in my house.
I made the comment about you not playing Sega games because you slate Sega with little or no knowledge of what they have acheived in this industry. No-one who expects to be taken seriously in a debate would question Sega's ability to crank out classics. You slate Jet Set Radio like it's some kind of bargain bin trash - have you even seen it in motion?
> Firstly you mean I have never played Crazy taxi and Virtua Fighter
> then, what a stupid statement.
>
> Secondly anyone that says the quality of the controller doesn't matter
> obviously doesn't play games much its like saying you have a sportscar
> with vague steering. The controller is the single most important
> aspect of videogame machine.
What I said was "The pad was slightly iffy, but I don't mind it so much". For the hard of thinking, this means "I agree with the common accusations that the Dreamcast pad was not as well designed as some of it's competitors, although I don't mind the design too much myself". I should know, I have 4 of them, and they get daily. The Dreamcast is the primary console in my house.
I made the comment about you not playing Sega games because you slate Sega with little or no knowledge of what they have acheived in this industry. No-one who expects to be taken seriously in a debate would question Sega's ability to crank out classics. You slate Jet Set Radio like it's some kind of bargain bin trash - have you even seen it in motion?
Miserableman wrote:
> Seeing as you've never even played any Sega software, let alone on a
> Dreamcast, I will take my opinion over yours any day.
>
> Come to think of it, I'd take anyone's opinion over yours any day.
Firstly you mean I have never played Crazy taxi and Virtua Fighter then, what a stupid statement.
Secondly anyone that says the quality of the controller doesn't matter obviously doesn't play games much its like saying you have a sportscar with vague steering. The controller is the single most important aspect of videogame machine.
> Seeing as you've never even played any Sega software, let alone on a
> Dreamcast, I will take my opinion over yours any day.
>
> Come to think of it, I'd take anyone's opinion over yours any day.
Firstly you mean I have never played Crazy taxi and Virtua Fighter then, what a stupid statement.
Secondly anyone that says the quality of the controller doesn't matter obviously doesn't play games much its like saying you have a sportscar with vague steering. The controller is the single most important aspect of videogame machine.
Update2.01 wrote:
> Another thing. Until recently, there were shops still trying to get
> rid of DC's - probably still is a few out there now. Then I notice on
> the GAME tv channel, they are giving away a DC bundle. Point is, they
> stopped making it a long time ago, so for there to be so many still
> unsold, there must have been a significant surplus of units. If it was
> so good, why didn't the last one's get bought up really quick?
You don't seem to know that the Dreamcast was a good console, yet you regularly post your opinions on a Gaming forum. I'm not trying to belittle you, just saying that if you don't know, then by extension the average moron on the street won't know either.
The ignorant consumer will see the Dreamcast as dead. They are right, but its corpse is carrying a staggering amount of jewellery..
> Another thing. Until recently, there were shops still trying to get
> rid of DC's - probably still is a few out there now. Then I notice on
> the GAME tv channel, they are giving away a DC bundle. Point is, they
> stopped making it a long time ago, so for there to be so many still
> unsold, there must have been a significant surplus of units. If it was
> so good, why didn't the last one's get bought up really quick?
You don't seem to know that the Dreamcast was a good console, yet you regularly post your opinions on a Gaming forum. I'm not trying to belittle you, just saying that if you don't know, then by extension the average moron on the street won't know either.
The ignorant consumer will see the Dreamcast as dead. They are right, but its corpse is carrying a staggering amount of jewellery..
Top score wrote:
> As for the Sega software being superior obviously your are alone in
> that comment Sega is still losing money hand over fist because no-one
> wants there software, Jet set radio future flopped, Sega GT 2002 is
> hardly selling the Xbox by the bucket load. Where are the mighty Sega
> when it comes to the All formats chart nowhere is the answer, could it
> be the games were the problem all along.
Seeing as you've never even played any Sega software, let alone on a Dreamcast, I will take my opinion over yours any day.
Come to think of it, I'd take anyone's opinion over yours any day.
> As for the Sega software being superior obviously your are alone in
> that comment Sega is still losing money hand over fist because no-one
> wants there software, Jet set radio future flopped, Sega GT 2002 is
> hardly selling the Xbox by the bucket load. Where are the mighty Sega
> when it comes to the All formats chart nowhere is the answer, could it
> be the games were the problem all along.
Seeing as you've never even played any Sega software, let alone on a Dreamcast, I will take my opinion over yours any day.
Come to think of it, I'd take anyone's opinion over yours any day.
Update2.01 wrote:
> If it was so good, why did we end up with PS2, GC, and XBox? If it was
> so good, we should all be using DC's right now.
The Dreamcast was good but no one bought it.
Why?
Because people remembered how the PSOne was better than the Saturn.
And Sony said that the PS2 would blow away the Dreamcast, backing this up with FMV footage and claiming that the PS2 would produce games that good (these FMV sequences had better graphics than even the Xbox has given us).
Hence, all these people rushed and bought a PS2 at launch, even though the launch games were average at best and the Dreamcast was producing much better. The PS2 trashed it due to hype and the DC had to go out of production because Sega ran out of money to support it.
> Another thing. Until recently, there were shops still trying to get
> rid of DC's - probably still is a few out there now. Then I notice on
> the GAME tv channel, they are giving away a DC bundle. Point is, they
> stopped making it a long time ago, so for there to be so many still
> unsold, there must have been a significant surplus of units. If it was
> so good, why didn't the last one's get bought up really quick?
Hype etc...
You get the point.
> If it was so good, why did we end up with PS2, GC, and XBox? If it was
> so good, we should all be using DC's right now.
The Dreamcast was good but no one bought it.
Why?
Because people remembered how the PSOne was better than the Saturn.
And Sony said that the PS2 would blow away the Dreamcast, backing this up with FMV footage and claiming that the PS2 would produce games that good (these FMV sequences had better graphics than even the Xbox has given us).
Hence, all these people rushed and bought a PS2 at launch, even though the launch games were average at best and the Dreamcast was producing much better. The PS2 trashed it due to hype and the DC had to go out of production because Sega ran out of money to support it.
> Another thing. Until recently, there were shops still trying to get
> rid of DC's - probably still is a few out there now. Then I notice on
> the GAME tv channel, they are giving away a DC bundle. Point is, they
> stopped making it a long time ago, so for there to be so many still
> unsold, there must have been a significant surplus of units. If it was
> so good, why didn't the last one's get bought up really quick?
Hype etc...
You get the point.
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Really? Depends on your idea of how many you people you actually get
> in a term like "many people". More than one or 2 then, 3?
>
> I would say a good 99% of people who want to run both Linux and
> Windows on their system...
So, 99% of 3 users. And then only some of the time (these are dual boot users - so they still use Windows as well).
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Really? Depends on your idea of how many you people you actually get
> in a term like "many people". More than one or 2 then, 3?
>
> I would say a good 99% of people who want to run both Linux and
> Windows on their system...
So, 99% of 3 users. And then only some of the time (these are dual boot users - so they still use Windows as well).
Update2.01 wrote:
> Really? Depends on your idea of how many you people you actually get
> in a term like "many people". More than one or 2 then, 3?
I would say a good 99% of people who want to run both Linux and Windows on their system...
> Really? Depends on your idea of how many you people you actually get
> in a term like "many people". More than one or 2 then, 3?
I would say a good 99% of people who want to run both Linux and Windows on their system...
Page: