The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why is it that companies like Rare and Codemasters are of a select few that make truly great games? Surely the gap between developers' skills is not that big.
I think it is a lot to do with varying standards in publisher management. Companies like Titus and Cryo do not seem to be bothered that every game they release has major flaws, and I think that they just release games to catch out the innocent, inexperienced buyer. It does make you wonder if they actually do any play-testing at all, because a lot of flaws are easily ironed out.
It is a shame because these companies have some good ideas (usually) but they can't seem to do anything worthwhile with them.
There is a logical theory to say that these companies will decrease in number as games get more popular:
As games get more popular, more and more entertainment magazines will start regular, in-depth reviews of games. And as this happens, more memebrs of the public will know which games are good and which are not. Therefore less people will buy these stodgy games, and the companies behind these will earn less and less money, eventually going out of business.
Does this mean that bad games are a thing of the past? Not likely. In fact, as games get more popular, more people will want to develop games, and thus there will be more 'bad' developers. I can only see the problem getting worse as we move into the next generation of console, but what do you think?
I think it is a lot to do with varying standards in publisher management. Companies like Titus and Cryo do not seem to be bothered that every game they release has major flaws, and I think that they just release games to catch out the innocent, inexperienced buyer. It does make you wonder if they actually do any play-testing at all, because a lot of flaws are easily ironed out.
It is a shame because these companies have some good ideas (usually) but they can't seem to do anything worthwhile with them.
There is a logical theory to say that these companies will decrease in number as games get more popular:
As games get more popular, more and more entertainment magazines will start regular, in-depth reviews of games. And as this happens, more memebrs of the public will know which games are good and which are not. Therefore less people will buy these stodgy games, and the companies behind these will earn less and less money, eventually going out of business.
Does this mean that bad games are a thing of the past? Not likely. In fact, as games get more popular, more people will want to develop games, and thus there will be more 'bad' developers. I can only see the problem getting worse as we move into the next generation of console, but what do you think?
Dev kits are a large software kit, please correct me if I am wrong, and have a large manual. The PS2's manual is very thick. This does not mean there is more things you can do with it. Apparently, the Gamecubes one will be thinner, this means everything will be easier to do.
Another thing is, the PS2 has "bottlenecks" in the system. I.E. Lack of ram, or low graphics CPU. The Gamecube has ironed out all of these bottlenecks, apparently, and is the easier machine to develop for.
Please correct me if I am wrong anyone.
Another thing is, the PS2 has "bottlenecks" in the system. I.E. Lack of ram, or low graphics CPU. The Gamecube has ironed out all of these bottlenecks, apparently, and is the easier machine to develop for.
Please correct me if I am wrong anyone.
Back to Grix's point...
Surely the only way to make a console hard to develop for is to make game development expensive? This is why the N64 is difficult to develop games for: to make a cartridge game in mass production requires a lot of money, so mistakes in N64 games are too costly to make.
But if all games were expensive to make, it would mean that Electronic Arts would pupmp out their usual half-baked licenced rubbish, and upcoming young and talented developers will not have enough money to make the great games they can.
I think consoles should be easy to make games for, because, although you get a lot more bad games, you also get a few more good games, and whereas bad games are not a concern if you know better than to buy them, more good games will be better for everyone - knowledgable or not.
Surely the only way to make a console hard to develop for is to make game development expensive? This is why the N64 is difficult to develop games for: to make a cartridge game in mass production requires a lot of money, so mistakes in N64 games are too costly to make.
But if all games were expensive to make, it would mean that Electronic Arts would pupmp out their usual half-baked licenced rubbish, and upcoming young and talented developers will not have enough money to make the great games they can.
I think consoles should be easy to make games for, because, although you get a lot more bad games, you also get a few more good games, and whereas bad games are not a concern if you know better than to buy them, more good games will be better for everyone - knowledgable or not.
> Sony, well, Sony try their best. (OOH! A firework simulator! How
> strange!)
:-)
Strange indeed - but you have to admit, it's fairly original!
I think the gap between certain developers can be pretty huge. It was claimed shortly after PS2's announcement that only the top 5 companies would be able to get the best from the machine.
Maybe the figure of 5 was a little smaller than it has actually turned out, but you can see the gaps clearly.
Compare shots of games like MGS2, The Getaway, SSX, Madden 2001 etc. to others such as Midnight Racer, Smugglers run etc., and there is a very clear difference.
I think even the smaller companies will pick up once they have experience of the machine, as long as they don't go running for the cover of an 'easier' machine when things get a bit difficult. (Hello, Oddworld Inhabitants! Or rather, goodbye!)
When you see some of the fantastic games appearing, it rather makes a mockery of the difficulties, in my opinion. I'm not saying that there are no problems, I'm just saying that they can be overcome - if you can be bothered.
> strange!)
:-)
Strange indeed - but you have to admit, it's fairly original!
I think the gap between certain developers can be pretty huge. It was claimed shortly after PS2's announcement that only the top 5 companies would be able to get the best from the machine.
Maybe the figure of 5 was a little smaller than it has actually turned out, but you can see the gaps clearly.
Compare shots of games like MGS2, The Getaway, SSX, Madden 2001 etc. to others such as Midnight Racer, Smugglers run etc., and there is a very clear difference.
I think even the smaller companies will pick up once they have experience of the machine, as long as they don't go running for the cover of an 'easier' machine when things get a bit difficult. (Hello, Oddworld Inhabitants! Or rather, goodbye!)
When you see some of the fantastic games appearing, it rather makes a mockery of the difficulties, in my opinion. I'm not saying that there are no problems, I'm just saying that they can be overcome - if you can be bothered.
Yes, I think I wrote something about this a while back.
If consoles are easy to develop for, a load of crap will be forced on it.
If consoles are hard to develop for, only dedicated programmers will work solidly hard on making games.
I stand by this truly, as we saw Oddworld blokes scuffling off to Microsoft a few days back.
And the N64 didn't have nearly as many truly awful games as the Playstation.
N64 - hard.
PS - easy.
So the PS2 may have the edge on good games over Gamecube after all. But Nintendo and Rare will always make good games, while Sony, well, Sony try their best. (OOH! A firework simulator! How strange!)
If consoles are easy to develop for, a load of crap will be forced on it.
If consoles are hard to develop for, only dedicated programmers will work solidly hard on making games.
I stand by this truly, as we saw Oddworld blokes scuffling off to Microsoft a few days back.
And the N64 didn't have nearly as many truly awful games as the Playstation.
N64 - hard.
PS - easy.
So the PS2 may have the edge on good games over Gamecube after all. But Nintendo and Rare will always make good games, while Sony, well, Sony try their best. (OOH! A firework simulator! How strange!)
That is the only review, in my opinion, that PCgamer really did wrong. Oh, and Quake 3, not as good as Unreal Tourny.
I myself have only bought one game that was not worth it and that was 'Braveheart'. I look at PCgamer for their reviews (thats not an advert).
Why is it that companies like Rare and Codemasters are of a select few that make truly great games? Surely the gap between developers' skills is not that big.
I think it is a lot to do with varying standards in publisher management. Companies like Titus and Cryo do not seem to be bothered that every game they release has major flaws, and I think that they just release games to catch out the innocent, inexperienced buyer. It does make you wonder if they actually do any play-testing at all, because a lot of flaws are easily ironed out.
It is a shame because these companies have some good ideas (usually) but they can't seem to do anything worthwhile with them.
There is a logical theory to say that these companies will decrease in number as games get more popular:
As games get more popular, more and more entertainment magazines will start regular, in-depth reviews of games. And as this happens, more memebrs of the public will know which games are good and which are not. Therefore less people will buy these stodgy games, and the companies behind these will earn less and less money, eventually going out of business.
Does this mean that bad games are a thing of the past? Not likely. In fact, as games get more popular, more people will want to develop games, and thus there will be more 'bad' developers. I can only see the problem getting worse as we move into the next generation of console, but what do you think?
I think it is a lot to do with varying standards in publisher management. Companies like Titus and Cryo do not seem to be bothered that every game they release has major flaws, and I think that they just release games to catch out the innocent, inexperienced buyer. It does make you wonder if they actually do any play-testing at all, because a lot of flaws are easily ironed out.
It is a shame because these companies have some good ideas (usually) but they can't seem to do anything worthwhile with them.
There is a logical theory to say that these companies will decrease in number as games get more popular:
As games get more popular, more and more entertainment magazines will start regular, in-depth reviews of games. And as this happens, more memebrs of the public will know which games are good and which are not. Therefore less people will buy these stodgy games, and the companies behind these will earn less and less money, eventually going out of business.
Does this mean that bad games are a thing of the past? Not likely. In fact, as games get more popular, more people will want to develop games, and thus there will be more 'bad' developers. I can only see the problem getting worse as we move into the next generation of console, but what do you think?