The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Games developed. Launches prepared. The bickering begins...
A new set of consoles, a new set of biased "my console is the best" topics appear. Things will never change!
But leaving aside the nonsensical, subjective questions of which console will "win" the war, what does the new crop of consoles actually mean for the gamer? Personally, I think the new generation of consoles can only lead to good things...
For the last 5 years, gaming has been almost totally encompassed by one company- Sony. Although Nintendo were standing by their N64 all the way, it never really got the sales- Sony dominated.
Although the Playstation was undoubtedly a good console, a one console market is never good. No longer did developers have to make games that were good enough to sell consoles, emulating the days of the Mega Drive and SNES. Instead developers could become complacent in making unoriginal sequals and licenced games.
Smaller developers couldn't show their skills in a crowded Playstation market, and many have had to sell out to bigger publishers- further fueling the list of unoriginal games.
Now things are changing. With the three consoles on the market each has to pull out big name games to draw competition. Microsoft have been forced to pump millions into the development of games like Halo, while Nintendo have been hard at work on their first party titles. This kind of competition is great for gamers- each console will be forced to host great games to get a share in the market: more originality, more innovation, more money in development.
Small developers have space to express their ideas- manufacturers are funding them in an attempt to commit them to their console and realise their dreams. In a one console market the dominant manufacturer doesn't need to do this, and smaller manufacturers don't have the money.
Ir reaminds me of the good old days of the SNES and Mega Drive. With Nintendo owning a massive proportion of the market, Sega had to come out with something big... Sonic was born. This was followed with a host of brilliant rnage of original arcadey games from Sega that gained them a slice of the market. In retaliation Nintendo had to produce more original Mario and Zelda games, with more advertising and more game development money. Certainly one of the Golden Ages of Gaming.
Perhaps we're approaching another?
Sonic
A new set of consoles, a new set of biased "my console is the best" topics appear. Things will never change!
But leaving aside the nonsensical, subjective questions of which console will "win" the war, what does the new crop of consoles actually mean for the gamer? Personally, I think the new generation of consoles can only lead to good things...
For the last 5 years, gaming has been almost totally encompassed by one company- Sony. Although Nintendo were standing by their N64 all the way, it never really got the sales- Sony dominated.
Although the Playstation was undoubtedly a good console, a one console market is never good. No longer did developers have to make games that were good enough to sell consoles, emulating the days of the Mega Drive and SNES. Instead developers could become complacent in making unoriginal sequals and licenced games.
Smaller developers couldn't show their skills in a crowded Playstation market, and many have had to sell out to bigger publishers- further fueling the list of unoriginal games.
Now things are changing. With the three consoles on the market each has to pull out big name games to draw competition. Microsoft have been forced to pump millions into the development of games like Halo, while Nintendo have been hard at work on their first party titles. This kind of competition is great for gamers- each console will be forced to host great games to get a share in the market: more originality, more innovation, more money in development.
Small developers have space to express their ideas- manufacturers are funding them in an attempt to commit them to their console and realise their dreams. In a one console market the dominant manufacturer doesn't need to do this, and smaller manufacturers don't have the money.
Ir reaminds me of the good old days of the SNES and Mega Drive. With Nintendo owning a massive proportion of the market, Sega had to come out with something big... Sonic was born. This was followed with a host of brilliant rnage of original arcadey games from Sega that gained them a slice of the market. In retaliation Nintendo had to produce more original Mario and Zelda games, with more advertising and more game development money. Certainly one of the Golden Ages of Gaming.
Perhaps we're approaching another?
Sonic
Well, I think one console would be a disaster for one reason.
At the moment, every manufacturer (except Ninty who have already done so) is buying small developers, and funding their games. Thanks to this we have Bungie pretty much free to make great games, as well as many more developers.
With a one console system, manufacturers will not do this... losing much of the talent in the industry today
Sonic
At the moment, every manufacturer (except Ninty who have already done so) is buying small developers, and funding their games. Thanks to this we have Bungie pretty much free to make great games, as well as many more developers.
With a one console system, manufacturers will not do this... losing much of the talent in the industry today
Sonic
the pros of one console are obvious. The cons are still there though. Just becasue they're less obvious soesn't make them any less a threat...
Ye, Newbie system has only been around for a year tops. I was never a newbie either.
Would it be possible for a single console to come out? Would it really be so bad?
Do Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony even make much money on the actual console?
The Gamer would win with a single console, and I'm sure we would still get quality games becasue there sooooo many developers around these days. They would have to produce quality stuff to compete with each other.
Would it be possible for a single console to come out? Would it really be so bad?
Do Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony even make much money on the actual console?
The Gamer would win with a single console, and I'm sure we would still get quality games becasue there sooooo many developers around these days. They would have to produce quality stuff to compete with each other.
RM18 wrote:
> AfroJoe wrote:
> If you were a newbie, I'd yawn.....
Thats not really the
> attitude to take, is it? We were all newbies at one point
Actually, I think you'll find that I was never a newbie! I predate the newbie system ;)
> AfroJoe wrote:
> If you were a newbie, I'd yawn.....
Thats not really the
> attitude to take, is it? We were all newbies at one point
Actually, I think you'll find that I was never a newbie! I predate the newbie system ;)
this pretty much sums up my argument a while ago when people were saying why not just have one console, and when people were saying what was so bad if Rare did go multiformat.
Because the more companies go multiformat, the more people will only want one console, so most people would just go for one console and other companies would be forced out of the market (like Sega were) and then there will again be little competition, so games will become stale...
anyways, well done Sonic. And stop knocking these decent topics out day by day. Give the rest of us a shot at GAD!
;-)
Maybe I'll have to write a story with you starring eh?
:D
Because the more companies go multiformat, the more people will only want one console, so most people would just go for one console and other companies would be forced out of the market (like Sega were) and then there will again be little competition, so games will become stale...
anyways, well done Sonic. And stop knocking these decent topics out day by day. Give the rest of us a shot at GAD!
;-)
Maybe I'll have to write a story with you starring eh?
:D
AfroJoe wrote:
> If you were a newbie, I'd yawn.....
Thats not really the attitude to take, is it? We were all newbies at one point
> If you were a newbie, I'd yawn.....
Thats not really the attitude to take, is it? We were all newbies at one point
Yes, the first party titles such as Mario and Zelda should definitely be much more original. They have to be really, with the future looking to be multi-platformed the first party titles will have to be extra special to make the console stand out from the competition...
If you were a newbie, I'd yawn.....
But you're not, and I read that and found it to be a very interesting and correct post.
Good one.
But you're not, and I read that and found it to be a very interesting and correct post.
Good one.
Games developed. Launches prepared. The bickering begins...
A new set of consoles, a new set of biased "my console is the best" topics appear. Things will never change!
But leaving aside the nonsensical, subjective questions of which console will "win" the war, what does the new crop of consoles actually mean for the gamer? Personally, I think the new generation of consoles can only lead to good things...
For the last 5 years, gaming has been almost totally encompassed by one company- Sony. Although Nintendo were standing by their N64 all the way, it never really got the sales- Sony dominated.
Although the Playstation was undoubtedly a good console, a one console market is never good. No longer did developers have to make games that were good enough to sell consoles, emulating the days of the Mega Drive and SNES. Instead developers could become complacent in making unoriginal sequals and licenced games.
Smaller developers couldn't show their skills in a crowded Playstation market, and many have had to sell out to bigger publishers- further fueling the list of unoriginal games.
Now things are changing. With the three consoles on the market each has to pull out big name games to draw competition. Microsoft have been forced to pump millions into the development of games like Halo, while Nintendo have been hard at work on their first party titles. This kind of competition is great for gamers- each console will be forced to host great games to get a share in the market: more originality, more innovation, more money in development.
Small developers have space to express their ideas- manufacturers are funding them in an attempt to commit them to their console and realise their dreams. In a one console market the dominant manufacturer doesn't need to do this, and smaller manufacturers don't have the money.
Ir reaminds me of the good old days of the SNES and Mega Drive. With Nintendo owning a massive proportion of the market, Sega had to come out with something big... Sonic was born. This was followed with a host of brilliant rnage of original arcadey games from Sega that gained them a slice of the market. In retaliation Nintendo had to produce more original Mario and Zelda games, with more advertising and more game development money. Certainly one of the Golden Ages of Gaming.
Perhaps we're approaching another?
Sonic
A new set of consoles, a new set of biased "my console is the best" topics appear. Things will never change!
But leaving aside the nonsensical, subjective questions of which console will "win" the war, what does the new crop of consoles actually mean for the gamer? Personally, I think the new generation of consoles can only lead to good things...
For the last 5 years, gaming has been almost totally encompassed by one company- Sony. Although Nintendo were standing by their N64 all the way, it never really got the sales- Sony dominated.
Although the Playstation was undoubtedly a good console, a one console market is never good. No longer did developers have to make games that were good enough to sell consoles, emulating the days of the Mega Drive and SNES. Instead developers could become complacent in making unoriginal sequals and licenced games.
Smaller developers couldn't show their skills in a crowded Playstation market, and many have had to sell out to bigger publishers- further fueling the list of unoriginal games.
Now things are changing. With the three consoles on the market each has to pull out big name games to draw competition. Microsoft have been forced to pump millions into the development of games like Halo, while Nintendo have been hard at work on their first party titles. This kind of competition is great for gamers- each console will be forced to host great games to get a share in the market: more originality, more innovation, more money in development.
Small developers have space to express their ideas- manufacturers are funding them in an attempt to commit them to their console and realise their dreams. In a one console market the dominant manufacturer doesn't need to do this, and smaller manufacturers don't have the money.
Ir reaminds me of the good old days of the SNES and Mega Drive. With Nintendo owning a massive proportion of the market, Sega had to come out with something big... Sonic was born. This was followed with a host of brilliant rnage of original arcadey games from Sega that gained them a slice of the market. In retaliation Nintendo had to produce more original Mario and Zelda games, with more advertising and more game development money. Certainly one of the Golden Ages of Gaming.
Perhaps we're approaching another?
Sonic