The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
How far can we go? To what lengths can we stretch before the gaming industry becomes so flooded that even though people like consumer choice it get's too much? Many factors are gradually filling the market up with games and consoles that people are beginning to think 'Is this not just the same as that other game but in different packaging?' Well..
Firstly, the ridiculous number of sequels which are out which are either the same as the previous game, give or take some stats, or worse that the original. Prime examples include many sports games, and in particular, the Fifa series, which seems to have gone downhill in it's quality from about 1999. And it's not just sport games either. Turok on the N64 was and still is a great game, but it's sequels really went wrong (here's hoping the GC Turok is better) If a developer is insisting on making a sequel to a great game, shouldn't they plan out more? Although, not all sequels are bad, such as the FF and Spyro games, which seem to get better each time, and even not all sports 'sequels' or what I'd call updates-at-full-price's are a complete waste, take Tony Hawks for instance. It's just the games that don't need a sequel (but get one) that flood the market, making the choice difficult and the schedule for the developer to pump out games just silly.
And then the age-old enemy of the gaming industry, the thing that, if anything, will bring down the entire network. That is piracy. The bain of both a developer and a producer's life. With it really kicking off with the Playstation, so many millions of pounds are lost yearly simply because the disc's can be copyed and sold on very cheaply. Thankfully, due to the PS' declining popularity because of the nex-gen consoles, and to the fact nex-gen consoles have disc's which are hard to copy, and consoles which are hard to chip, piracy should, theoretically, reduce. But with chips already designed for the PS2, and with GC and Xbox chips more than likely going to be invented, this period of nex-gen piracy = 0 will probably end soon. Many, though, will not want to invalidate the warranty of their console, or even touch it's insides whatsoever, due to it's value. But some will persist, and other will wait, waiting for the *shudders* USB chip. Piracy is another factor into flooding the market.
Consoles aren't helping, too. With more consoles, there are obviously more games, and even if their were fewer consoles, games are still going multiformat, or multiformat, but different versions of the game. Perhaps having Sega not make anymore consoles was almost a good thing, simply because less consoles = less flooding. But Sega, though, still make games (and good ones too) so it really shouldn't be them having to pull out of the console industry. Is it possible that this flooding could have been a small part to the Dreamcast downfall, with Sega pumping out fewer, in comparison to others, but much better quality, in comparison to others, games even though quality should overule quality? Perhaps, but thankfully, the Dreamcast downfall wasn't also the Sega downfall, and Sonic, Super Monkey's shape shifting computery folk still live on in their great, addictive games.
Maybe it's schedules and demands from managers, producers and even the console companies themselves to the developers to make more games that encourages all the flooding. It would appear, in this instance, that quantity is overuling quality again.
Whether having all these consoles and all these games and all the choice is a golden era in your eyes or the boom of boom and bust, it really doesn't matter, as developers will still pump out more games to keep up with other developers, causing a race of sorts. I personally believe that not now, maybe not even soon, but in the future, if this 'race' continues, a lot more people will believe choice isn't necessarily great if all the choices are rubbish. Maybe only having a select few GREAT games from developers would be better than hundreds of rubbish ones. And with Sigeru Miyamoto now indicating he intends to make shorter, easier games rather than Zelda and Final Fantasy style games, it would appear even the gaming champs are thinking more games is better than few greats. I have no real views either way, and saying that Miyamoto will now make rubbish games since they're short is COMPLETELY untrue. They'll just be short, great games...
So what do you think? Should we have lots of games available too us, but only a few being great, or have fewer gaming pumped out, but all of them AT LEAST being good, if not better? Thankfully, neither of these situations have occured yet, and probably won't do for some time. But if they do, and you had a choice, what would you pick?
Thanks for reading.
Firstly, the ridiculous number of sequels which are out which are either the same as the previous game, give or take some stats, or worse that the original. Prime examples include many sports games, and in particular, the Fifa series, which seems to have gone downhill in it's quality from about 1999. And it's not just sport games either. Turok on the N64 was and still is a great game, but it's sequels really went wrong (here's hoping the GC Turok is better) If a developer is insisting on making a sequel to a great game, shouldn't they plan out more? Although, not all sequels are bad, such as the FF and Spyro games, which seem to get better each time, and even not all sports 'sequels' or what I'd call updates-at-full-price's are a complete waste, take Tony Hawks for instance. It's just the games that don't need a sequel (but get one) that flood the market, making the choice difficult and the schedule for the developer to pump out games just silly.
And then the age-old enemy of the gaming industry, the thing that, if anything, will bring down the entire network. That is piracy. The bain of both a developer and a producer's life. With it really kicking off with the Playstation, so many millions of pounds are lost yearly simply because the disc's can be copyed and sold on very cheaply. Thankfully, due to the PS' declining popularity because of the nex-gen consoles, and to the fact nex-gen consoles have disc's which are hard to copy, and consoles which are hard to chip, piracy should, theoretically, reduce. But with chips already designed for the PS2, and with GC and Xbox chips more than likely going to be invented, this period of nex-gen piracy = 0 will probably end soon. Many, though, will not want to invalidate the warranty of their console, or even touch it's insides whatsoever, due to it's value. But some will persist, and other will wait, waiting for the *shudders* USB chip. Piracy is another factor into flooding the market.
Consoles aren't helping, too. With more consoles, there are obviously more games, and even if their were fewer consoles, games are still going multiformat, or multiformat, but different versions of the game. Perhaps having Sega not make anymore consoles was almost a good thing, simply because less consoles = less flooding. But Sega, though, still make games (and good ones too) so it really shouldn't be them having to pull out of the console industry. Is it possible that this flooding could have been a small part to the Dreamcast downfall, with Sega pumping out fewer, in comparison to others, but much better quality, in comparison to others, games even though quality should overule quality? Perhaps, but thankfully, the Dreamcast downfall wasn't also the Sega downfall, and Sonic, Super Monkey's shape shifting computery folk still live on in their great, addictive games.
Maybe it's schedules and demands from managers, producers and even the console companies themselves to the developers to make more games that encourages all the flooding. It would appear, in this instance, that quantity is overuling quality again.
Whether having all these consoles and all these games and all the choice is a golden era in your eyes or the boom of boom and bust, it really doesn't matter, as developers will still pump out more games to keep up with other developers, causing a race of sorts. I personally believe that not now, maybe not even soon, but in the future, if this 'race' continues, a lot more people will believe choice isn't necessarily great if all the choices are rubbish. Maybe only having a select few GREAT games from developers would be better than hundreds of rubbish ones. And with Sigeru Miyamoto now indicating he intends to make shorter, easier games rather than Zelda and Final Fantasy style games, it would appear even the gaming champs are thinking more games is better than few greats. I have no real views either way, and saying that Miyamoto will now make rubbish games since they're short is COMPLETELY untrue. They'll just be short, great games...
So what do you think? Should we have lots of games available too us, but only a few being great, or have fewer gaming pumped out, but all of them AT LEAST being good, if not better? Thankfully, neither of these situations have occured yet, and probably won't do for some time. But if they do, and you had a choice, what would you pick?
Thanks for reading.
I've long been saying that publishers should stop their developers creating poor games at the outset. This would create confidence in the industry and possibly reduce piracy.
But it's not going to happen! 2000 games are release a year. 50 break even. 25 make a profit. (or something like that). BUT the ones that do make a profit make masses of money! So despite how bad Simpsons Wrestling was, it was Number 1 in the charts and made loads of money.
That said, the industry will never be flooded. It there's too much supply and not enough demand then publishers'll have to cut back.
But it's not going to happen! 2000 games are release a year. 50 break even. 25 make a profit. (or something like that). BUT the ones that do make a profit make masses of money! So despite how bad Simpsons Wrestling was, it was Number 1 in the charts and made loads of money.
That said, the industry will never be flooded. It there's too much supply and not enough demand then publishers'll have to cut back.
How far can we go? To what lengths can we stretch before the gaming industry becomes so flooded that even though people like consumer choice it get's too much? Many factors are gradually filling the market up with games and consoles that people are beginning to think 'Is this not just the same as that other game but in different packaging?' Well..
Firstly, the ridiculous number of sequels which are out which are either the same as the previous game, give or take some stats, or worse that the original. Prime examples include many sports games, and in particular, the Fifa series, which seems to have gone downhill in it's quality from about 1999. And it's not just sport games either. Turok on the N64 was and still is a great game, but it's sequels really went wrong (here's hoping the GC Turok is better) If a developer is insisting on making a sequel to a great game, shouldn't they plan out more? Although, not all sequels are bad, such as the FF and Spyro games, which seem to get better each time, and even not all sports 'sequels' or what I'd call updates-at-full-price's are a complete waste, take Tony Hawks for instance. It's just the games that don't need a sequel (but get one) that flood the market, making the choice difficult and the schedule for the developer to pump out games just silly.
And then the age-old enemy of the gaming industry, the thing that, if anything, will bring down the entire network. That is piracy. The bain of both a developer and a producer's life. With it really kicking off with the Playstation, so many millions of pounds are lost yearly simply because the disc's can be copyed and sold on very cheaply. Thankfully, due to the PS' declining popularity because of the nex-gen consoles, and to the fact nex-gen consoles have disc's which are hard to copy, and consoles which are hard to chip, piracy should, theoretically, reduce. But with chips already designed for the PS2, and with GC and Xbox chips more than likely going to be invented, this period of nex-gen piracy = 0 will probably end soon. Many, though, will not want to invalidate the warranty of their console, or even touch it's insides whatsoever, due to it's value. But some will persist, and other will wait, waiting for the *shudders* USB chip. Piracy is another factor into flooding the market.
Consoles aren't helping, too. With more consoles, there are obviously more games, and even if their were fewer consoles, games are still going multiformat, or multiformat, but different versions of the game. Perhaps having Sega not make anymore consoles was almost a good thing, simply because less consoles = less flooding. But Sega, though, still make games (and good ones too) so it really shouldn't be them having to pull out of the console industry. Is it possible that this flooding could have been a small part to the Dreamcast downfall, with Sega pumping out fewer, in comparison to others, but much better quality, in comparison to others, games even though quality should overule quality? Perhaps, but thankfully, the Dreamcast downfall wasn't also the Sega downfall, and Sonic, Super Monkey's shape shifting computery folk still live on in their great, addictive games.
Maybe it's schedules and demands from managers, producers and even the console companies themselves to the developers to make more games that encourages all the flooding. It would appear, in this instance, that quantity is overuling quality again.
Whether having all these consoles and all these games and all the choice is a golden era in your eyes or the boom of boom and bust, it really doesn't matter, as developers will still pump out more games to keep up with other developers, causing a race of sorts. I personally believe that not now, maybe not even soon, but in the future, if this 'race' continues, a lot more people will believe choice isn't necessarily great if all the choices are rubbish. Maybe only having a select few GREAT games from developers would be better than hundreds of rubbish ones. And with Sigeru Miyamoto now indicating he intends to make shorter, easier games rather than Zelda and Final Fantasy style games, it would appear even the gaming champs are thinking more games is better than few greats. I have no real views either way, and saying that Miyamoto will now make rubbish games since they're short is COMPLETELY untrue. They'll just be short, great games...
So what do you think? Should we have lots of games available too us, but only a few being great, or have fewer gaming pumped out, but all of them AT LEAST being good, if not better? Thankfully, neither of these situations have occured yet, and probably won't do for some time. But if they do, and you had a choice, what would you pick?
Thanks for reading.
Firstly, the ridiculous number of sequels which are out which are either the same as the previous game, give or take some stats, or worse that the original. Prime examples include many sports games, and in particular, the Fifa series, which seems to have gone downhill in it's quality from about 1999. And it's not just sport games either. Turok on the N64 was and still is a great game, but it's sequels really went wrong (here's hoping the GC Turok is better) If a developer is insisting on making a sequel to a great game, shouldn't they plan out more? Although, not all sequels are bad, such as the FF and Spyro games, which seem to get better each time, and even not all sports 'sequels' or what I'd call updates-at-full-price's are a complete waste, take Tony Hawks for instance. It's just the games that don't need a sequel (but get one) that flood the market, making the choice difficult and the schedule for the developer to pump out games just silly.
And then the age-old enemy of the gaming industry, the thing that, if anything, will bring down the entire network. That is piracy. The bain of both a developer and a producer's life. With it really kicking off with the Playstation, so many millions of pounds are lost yearly simply because the disc's can be copyed and sold on very cheaply. Thankfully, due to the PS' declining popularity because of the nex-gen consoles, and to the fact nex-gen consoles have disc's which are hard to copy, and consoles which are hard to chip, piracy should, theoretically, reduce. But with chips already designed for the PS2, and with GC and Xbox chips more than likely going to be invented, this period of nex-gen piracy = 0 will probably end soon. Many, though, will not want to invalidate the warranty of their console, or even touch it's insides whatsoever, due to it's value. But some will persist, and other will wait, waiting for the *shudders* USB chip. Piracy is another factor into flooding the market.
Consoles aren't helping, too. With more consoles, there are obviously more games, and even if their were fewer consoles, games are still going multiformat, or multiformat, but different versions of the game. Perhaps having Sega not make anymore consoles was almost a good thing, simply because less consoles = less flooding. But Sega, though, still make games (and good ones too) so it really shouldn't be them having to pull out of the console industry. Is it possible that this flooding could have been a small part to the Dreamcast downfall, with Sega pumping out fewer, in comparison to others, but much better quality, in comparison to others, games even though quality should overule quality? Perhaps, but thankfully, the Dreamcast downfall wasn't also the Sega downfall, and Sonic, Super Monkey's shape shifting computery folk still live on in their great, addictive games.
Maybe it's schedules and demands from managers, producers and even the console companies themselves to the developers to make more games that encourages all the flooding. It would appear, in this instance, that quantity is overuling quality again.
Whether having all these consoles and all these games and all the choice is a golden era in your eyes or the boom of boom and bust, it really doesn't matter, as developers will still pump out more games to keep up with other developers, causing a race of sorts. I personally believe that not now, maybe not even soon, but in the future, if this 'race' continues, a lot more people will believe choice isn't necessarily great if all the choices are rubbish. Maybe only having a select few GREAT games from developers would be better than hundreds of rubbish ones. And with Sigeru Miyamoto now indicating he intends to make shorter, easier games rather than Zelda and Final Fantasy style games, it would appear even the gaming champs are thinking more games is better than few greats. I have no real views either way, and saying that Miyamoto will now make rubbish games since they're short is COMPLETELY untrue. They'll just be short, great games...
So what do you think? Should we have lots of games available too us, but only a few being great, or have fewer gaming pumped out, but all of them AT LEAST being good, if not better? Thankfully, neither of these situations have occured yet, and probably won't do for some time. But if they do, and you had a choice, what would you pick?
Thanks for reading.