The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Most of us on these forums go on about how much we like such and such a game and why. This is a good thing, being able to explain why you like a game, but explaining why you don't like a game is quite difficult, and explaining why you don't like a developer is even harder, especially in the time we currently live in where there are a lot of talented developers. There have been so many games that have caught so many people by surprise, showing Sony's true dominance in the market, but countering this are the bad games that seem somehow rushed and below average.
Take Fifa for example, a regular member of the Playstation's games listings. This is a game that can be argued both ways, but in my view it is pretty much below average. Sony's latest incarnation of Fifa titles (not including World Cup 2002), Fifa 2002, is a very poor game and another good example of when sequels fail to improve on prequels. It's proven evident to us gamers that the Fifa team are having a hard time trying to keep up with the likes of the team at Konami, but Fifa 2002 really tops it all off for them. The whole game itself just doesn't feel special, not just because of Fifa's poor rep, but because when playing the game it just feels like Fifa have tried too hard on this occassion. The player's response isn't up to scratch and the passing is just too complex for all audiences to attempt. You could just be running down the wing and all of a sudden a dotted yellow line pops out of nowhere telling you when to make a through pass. This seems like a terrible feature. Look at Pro Evolution Soccer and you'll realise that knowing when to play your own throughballs is much better and it increases you ability in the game. Fifa 2002 doesn't allow much freedom as the passing and shooting styles are quite limited, whereas Pro Evolution Soccer has a range of totally different passing and shooting techniques depending on the buttons pressed.
Sony have still kept their contract with Fifa and they're still making annual sequels. There's no real problem with that, but if they keep producing poor quality football games, Sony's good reputation may start to disintegrate like Sega's did.
With the Sony Playstation 2, there seems to have been a lot of high anticipation before it was launched; much more than the GameCube and X-box launches. However, compared to both of these consoles, Sony produced a poor amount of quality launch titles. This left pre-orderers with a limited choice of games, which may have looked impressive at the time, but didn't really surprise Sony fans as much as it could. It wasn't until a year later that the Playstation 2 really started to perform, allowing for broadband capabilities and very impressive games, which at the end of the day was gamer's first priority. That's why it's still surprising now to think that Sony can allow their contract developers to produce such poor games like FreakOut and such pointless and bizarre games like SOE. (the sound of rioting soon gets annoying!)
Look at Sony's stats and you'll see that they're one of the best technologically advanced businesses around with products like Digital Sound Tvs, Mini Disc players, DVD players and so on, being made by them. They even attached a screen to the newer PSOne versions. That is why I was pretty annoyed that they didn't add more little advanced touches to the PS2, like being able to play your own choice of music during a game like GT3. X-box made this possible in PGR, showing their strength in the console wars. Nintendo's GameCube has also outsmarted the PS2 as it has cracked down on piracy as well as reducing loading times even though it uses Midi-Disc Technology. Why didn't Sony think of this? Are they leaving this room for a far more superior console like say, THE PS3! I damn well hope so, but why didn't they just make the PS2 far mor advanced than it quietly is now?
The one thing about Sony that's so annoying to Sony extremists is that their quality in their games is never constant. A great game will be made, then the next game they make ends up being absolutely rubbish, or simply average. It's hard to expect quality games from developers all the time, but Sony's rep demands this! One thing I've noticed about Playstation and Playstation 2 games is that they're either re-runs from the PC or are re-ran onto the PC. There's no problem with their games being re-run on the PC for Sony fans ( maybe for PC fans), but games being re-run onto the PS2 takes the whole element of surprise away because most PS2 fans have a Pc and play games on it anyway. PC re-runs only work if they're an improvement to its counterpart otherwise there's really no point ot them other than giving console fans who don't have a PC a chance to play a certain game. Sony is well known for its games being re-made for the PC, but it seems like more games are coming over from the PC onto the PS2. Everyone knows that the PC so far is the dominant form of gaming, so what's the point?
Sony produce top quality games most of the time, but in comparison to the likes of Microsoft and Nintendo they don't seem to look that revolutionary anymore. One thing that keeps me reassured about Sony and the Playstation 2 is that it always produces something new. Never mind poor developments like the Fifa series or other poor titles, Sony always impresses people all over the world with games like GTA3 and Medal of Honour: frontline, and with sequels coming out later this years for both titles, fans don't really have an excuse to dismiss Sony.
To Sony's future
PK
Take Fifa for example, a regular member of the Playstation's games listings. This is a game that can be argued both ways, but in my view it is pretty much below average. Sony's latest incarnation of Fifa titles (not including World Cup 2002), Fifa 2002, is a very poor game and another good example of when sequels fail to improve on prequels. It's proven evident to us gamers that the Fifa team are having a hard time trying to keep up with the likes of the team at Konami, but Fifa 2002 really tops it all off for them. The whole game itself just doesn't feel special, not just because of Fifa's poor rep, but because when playing the game it just feels like Fifa have tried too hard on this occassion. The player's response isn't up to scratch and the passing is just too complex for all audiences to attempt. You could just be running down the wing and all of a sudden a dotted yellow line pops out of nowhere telling you when to make a through pass. This seems like a terrible feature. Look at Pro Evolution Soccer and you'll realise that knowing when to play your own throughballs is much better and it increases you ability in the game. Fifa 2002 doesn't allow much freedom as the passing and shooting styles are quite limited, whereas Pro Evolution Soccer has a range of totally different passing and shooting techniques depending on the buttons pressed.
Sony have still kept their contract with Fifa and they're still making annual sequels. There's no real problem with that, but if they keep producing poor quality football games, Sony's good reputation may start to disintegrate like Sega's did.
With the Sony Playstation 2, there seems to have been a lot of high anticipation before it was launched; much more than the GameCube and X-box launches. However, compared to both of these consoles, Sony produced a poor amount of quality launch titles. This left pre-orderers with a limited choice of games, which may have looked impressive at the time, but didn't really surprise Sony fans as much as it could. It wasn't until a year later that the Playstation 2 really started to perform, allowing for broadband capabilities and very impressive games, which at the end of the day was gamer's first priority. That's why it's still surprising now to think that Sony can allow their contract developers to produce such poor games like FreakOut and such pointless and bizarre games like SOE. (the sound of rioting soon gets annoying!)
Look at Sony's stats and you'll see that they're one of the best technologically advanced businesses around with products like Digital Sound Tvs, Mini Disc players, DVD players and so on, being made by them. They even attached a screen to the newer PSOne versions. That is why I was pretty annoyed that they didn't add more little advanced touches to the PS2, like being able to play your own choice of music during a game like GT3. X-box made this possible in PGR, showing their strength in the console wars. Nintendo's GameCube has also outsmarted the PS2 as it has cracked down on piracy as well as reducing loading times even though it uses Midi-Disc Technology. Why didn't Sony think of this? Are they leaving this room for a far more superior console like say, THE PS3! I damn well hope so, but why didn't they just make the PS2 far mor advanced than it quietly is now?
The one thing about Sony that's so annoying to Sony extremists is that their quality in their games is never constant. A great game will be made, then the next game they make ends up being absolutely rubbish, or simply average. It's hard to expect quality games from developers all the time, but Sony's rep demands this! One thing I've noticed about Playstation and Playstation 2 games is that they're either re-runs from the PC or are re-ran onto the PC. There's no problem with their games being re-run on the PC for Sony fans ( maybe for PC fans), but games being re-run onto the PS2 takes the whole element of surprise away because most PS2 fans have a Pc and play games on it anyway. PC re-runs only work if they're an improvement to its counterpart otherwise there's really no point ot them other than giving console fans who don't have a PC a chance to play a certain game. Sony is well known for its games being re-made for the PC, but it seems like more games are coming over from the PC onto the PS2. Everyone knows that the PC so far is the dominant form of gaming, so what's the point?
Sony produce top quality games most of the time, but in comparison to the likes of Microsoft and Nintendo they don't seem to look that revolutionary anymore. One thing that keeps me reassured about Sony and the Playstation 2 is that it always produces something new. Never mind poor developments like the Fifa series or other poor titles, Sony always impresses people all over the world with games like GTA3 and Medal of Honour: frontline, and with sequels coming out later this years for both titles, fans don't really have an excuse to dismiss Sony.
To Sony's future
PK
Page:
Sibs wrote:
> Don't mention it.
But I still disagree with you!
;-)
> Don't mention it.
But I still disagree with you!
;-)
Don't mention it.
Thanks for that Sibs!
:-)
:-)
Posh Kid wrote:
> Sony rely on developers like Fifa to make good games, not just games
> to sell their console.
Well maybe they should make some console selling titles themselves...
Fifa games are average, and some below average
> and to keep Sony's good status, they musn't be.
Why will people associate an EA game with Soony? It's out on all next gen platforms... No-one's gonna go, 'Oh, Fifa 2002 is crap, that means PS2 is crap because Fifa 2002 is on PS2' are they?
Fair enough, they do
> sell, but that's just wrong. Only good games should really sell, and
> bad games shouldn't.
It's all a matter of opinion anyway... someone may actually prefer Fifa to ISS or Pro Evo, and even if Fifa games don't deserve to sell, people see it's the 'official' footie game and figure it must be the best. There are much harsher injustices in life than a bad game outselling a good :-)
> And no, I'm not being harsh, I'm drunk!
Well, that's okay then :D
> :-)
*grins back, eerily mirroring every smiley the Posh Kid makes...*
> Sony rely on developers like Fifa to make good games, not just games
> to sell their console.
Well maybe they should make some console selling titles themselves...
Fifa games are average, and some below average
> and to keep Sony's good status, they musn't be.
Why will people associate an EA game with Soony? It's out on all next gen platforms... No-one's gonna go, 'Oh, Fifa 2002 is crap, that means PS2 is crap because Fifa 2002 is on PS2' are they?
Fair enough, they do
> sell, but that's just wrong. Only good games should really sell, and
> bad games shouldn't.
It's all a matter of opinion anyway... someone may actually prefer Fifa to ISS or Pro Evo, and even if Fifa games don't deserve to sell, people see it's the 'official' footie game and figure it must be the best. There are much harsher injustices in life than a bad game outselling a good :-)
> And no, I'm not being harsh, I'm drunk!
Well, that's okay then :D
> :-)
*grins back, eerily mirroring every smiley the Posh Kid makes...*
Sony rely on developers like Fifa to make good games, not just games to sell their console. Fifa games are average, and some below average and to keep Sony's good status, they musn't be. Fair enough, they do sell, but that's just wrong. Only good games should really sell, and bad games shouldn't.
SonicRav, you've totally taken my post the wrong way, and I suggest you read it properly before you disagree with it!
And no, I'm not being harsh, I'm drunk!
:-)
SonicRav, you've totally taken my post the wrong way, and I suggest you read it properly before you disagree with it!
And no, I'm not being harsh, I'm drunk!
:-)
Posh kid, I have to completely disagree with your topic.
To begin with, how did Sony, a hifi maker, make it big in the gaming industry? The answer is that, in addition to providing excellent hardware and support for developers, they bought out and invested in small, talented developers, and made sure that ground breaking games like Tekken (and yes, Tekken was massive leap in console gaming), were PS exclusive.
It is true that there are very many poor games on the console. But that is simply because the most popular console attracts most developers, not all of which make good games.
Meanwhile, Nintendo only let select developers make games for the console at first (and this didn't include people like Square or Namco!), and as a result the console had a massive games drought- only 4 games 3months after release in Japan!
Now, in your post, you blame Sony for the Fifa series. Sony don't make it! It's made by EA who are the largest Western games publisher on the planet! Do you think that Sony whould say that they can't release the game on their console because it's below par? To do so would mean that EA would take all of their EA sports games to other consoles. The reson EA are the biggest is because people buy games like Fifa, which sells consoles. Oh, and it's not as bad as you make out. Certainly below the likes of ISS, but the fact is that its game buyers who put it on top of the charts- not Sony!
Sonic
To begin with, how did Sony, a hifi maker, make it big in the gaming industry? The answer is that, in addition to providing excellent hardware and support for developers, they bought out and invested in small, talented developers, and made sure that ground breaking games like Tekken (and yes, Tekken was massive leap in console gaming), were PS exclusive.
It is true that there are very many poor games on the console. But that is simply because the most popular console attracts most developers, not all of which make good games.
Meanwhile, Nintendo only let select developers make games for the console at first (and this didn't include people like Square or Namco!), and as a result the console had a massive games drought- only 4 games 3months after release in Japan!
Now, in your post, you blame Sony for the Fifa series. Sony don't make it! It's made by EA who are the largest Western games publisher on the planet! Do you think that Sony whould say that they can't release the game on their console because it's below par? To do so would mean that EA would take all of their EA sports games to other consoles. The reson EA are the biggest is because people buy games like Fifa, which sells consoles. Oh, and it's not as bad as you make out. Certainly below the likes of ISS, but the fact is that its game buyers who put it on top of the charts- not Sony!
Sonic
Sorry to burst the bubble here, but now Ninty really aren't as bothered about who makes games on GC as they were, and they've never been bothered who does on Game Boy. On N64 Ninty had this idea about a 'dream team' of developers and everyone else not being able to develop on N64. The way they did this however was far from ideal. Ninty decided that to ensure people only made quality on the N64 they'd put a high royalty on making N64 games. Ie. you can only put this game out if you pay us a lot of money. Although all consoles have a charge (I think...?) for developing on them, Ninty had a much higher charge, and carts were hardly the cheapest medium as it was. This led to many developors being put off, even if they were good developers in favour of using the PSX which was low risk and high profit.
Now though, Ninty aren't too bothered. They need third party support, the thing they lacked so much with the N64. They seem to have a lot now though, and are getting a lot of big names on their side.
Anyway, in the end, people aren't going to say 'oh, I don't want that console, it has too many crap games on it' they're gonna say 'oh, I want that console cos it has more of the best games on it'. So what does it matter?
Now though, Ninty aren't too bothered. They need third party support, the thing they lacked so much with the N64. They seem to have a lot now though, and are getting a lot of big names on their side.
Anyway, in the end, people aren't going to say 'oh, I don't want that console, it has too many crap games on it' they're gonna say 'oh, I want that console cos it has more of the best games on it'. So what does it matter?
Posh Kid wrote:
> These
> poor games haven't helped Sony with their sales and they do influence
> the sales of Sony's good quality games.
Yes. Sony don't appear to have any quality control. They let anyone and everyone release a game on the PS, hence the phrase "500 games, 50 decent ones" which surrounded the PSOne. Where as Nintendo will tell a developer to sod off if their games is REALLY bad. Still, it doesn't matter, it just means that when PS2 owners are browsing through the games section, it takes them a bit longer to find something as they have to weed out the crap ones.
> These
> poor games haven't helped Sony with their sales and they do influence
> the sales of Sony's good quality games.
Yes. Sony don't appear to have any quality control. They let anyone and everyone release a game on the PS, hence the phrase "500 games, 50 decent ones" which surrounded the PSOne. Where as Nintendo will tell a developer to sod off if their games is REALLY bad. Still, it doesn't matter, it just means that when PS2 owners are browsing through the games section, it takes them a bit longer to find something as they have to weed out the crap ones.
Strafex wrote:
>
> Very few WORTH TALKING ABOUT! ;-P
Sony is worth talking about actually!
Sony gives creators the opportunity to create a decent game because their console is very powerful. Sure, their first priority is to sell the game, but how are they going to do that if it's of poor quality? Not everyone is so naiive!
Fifa have received a lot of fans since it started because it was one of the best football games around. Now games like Pro Evolution are showing the public how average Fifa titles are, and soon they too will see Fifa for what most people in these forums see it for...crap!
It's not just Fifa though, there are other games in the PS2 line-up that are of really shocking quality, and the fact that they've been released on Sony's PS2 may affect what people think of Sony. These poor games haven't helped Sony with their sales and they do influence the sales of Sony's good quality games.
>
> Very few WORTH TALKING ABOUT! ;-P
Sony is worth talking about actually!
Sony gives creators the opportunity to create a decent game because their console is very powerful. Sure, their first priority is to sell the game, but how are they going to do that if it's of poor quality? Not everyone is so naiive!
Fifa have received a lot of fans since it started because it was one of the best football games around. Now games like Pro Evolution are showing the public how average Fifa titles are, and soon they too will see Fifa for what most people in these forums see it for...crap!
It's not just Fifa though, there are other games in the PS2 line-up that are of really shocking quality, and the fact that they've been released on Sony's PS2 may affect what people think of Sony. These poor games haven't helped Sony with their sales and they do influence the sales of Sony's good quality games.
Posh Kid wrote:
> I thought they made the PS2 easier to work with because it was more
> compatible with more advanced games, which developers find easier to
> make.
The PS2 has hardware which can be very powerful, but you have to be a very good developer to get the most of the PS2 architecture... mainly due to the Use of things called Vector Units (I think...?) which basically the developer has to 'unlock' to get the PS2 potential to full... GC doesn't have these so is more developer friendly but GC will be stretched to its limits earlier on in its lifespan... Dunno if Xbox uses vector units or not though...
> What I mean is that the PS2 is a very capable console that can take on
> the good graphics as well as fast gameplay. This makes it an easier
> job for developers. But still, the developers CAN be blamed for what
> they make of their games. When Sony relies on people like Rockstar or
> Konami, it doesn't rely on them to make poor games, it relies on them
> to make decent games so more Sony games can sell.
Nah, Sony rely on them to make games that sell their console. Whether the game is good or not is pretty much immaterial. If all Fifa titles were only available on PS2, that's probably shift a few units with the footie fans, so Sony really wouldn't care how good the Fifa games actually are, they're selling the console so Sony really don't mind.
> Fifa does sell a lot, but with games like Pro Evo knocking it off the
> topspot for sales, it's only a matter of time before people stop
> buying their Fifa games.
Fifa games smell.
> I thought they made the PS2 easier to work with because it was more
> compatible with more advanced games, which developers find easier to
> make.
The PS2 has hardware which can be very powerful, but you have to be a very good developer to get the most of the PS2 architecture... mainly due to the Use of things called Vector Units (I think...?) which basically the developer has to 'unlock' to get the PS2 potential to full... GC doesn't have these so is more developer friendly but GC will be stretched to its limits earlier on in its lifespan... Dunno if Xbox uses vector units or not though...
> What I mean is that the PS2 is a very capable console that can take on
> the good graphics as well as fast gameplay. This makes it an easier
> job for developers. But still, the developers CAN be blamed for what
> they make of their games. When Sony relies on people like Rockstar or
> Konami, it doesn't rely on them to make poor games, it relies on them
> to make decent games so more Sony games can sell.
Nah, Sony rely on them to make games that sell their console. Whether the game is good or not is pretty much immaterial. If all Fifa titles were only available on PS2, that's probably shift a few units with the footie fans, so Sony really wouldn't care how good the Fifa games actually are, they're selling the console so Sony really don't mind.
> Fifa does sell a lot, but with games like Pro Evo knocking it off the
> topspot for sales, it's only a matter of time before people stop
> buying their Fifa games.
Fifa games smell.
Page: