The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I've noticed this recently about the games industry. There is an absolute trend set in the advertising and marketing slant of games. The average person will be hooked and will undoubtedly splash the cash on game after game, until one day they realise that all they are doing is proving publisher security, and developers laziness, to be correct.
Why should companies such as Electronic Arts, Eidos, or indeed Microsoft bother fuelling their massive projects with the same amount of cash that they use to develop them. As most know, Microsoft have a massive budget set aside for the Xbox, unfortunately, rather than spend most of this cash to develop a truely unique gaming experience enabled by such an easy and transparent development platform, they would rather add to their own woe, by advertising the substandard and average games that fundamentaly support the platform.
Stunning 3d graphics engine, realt time lighting, anti-aliasing, plug & play, broadband connectivity. You will see these being shunted around by all of the major games developers, and their console producing friends, but at the end of the day, the content of the games is being much overlooked to provide enough eye-candy for trailers and teasers of games to hope that this alone can shift a couple of hundred thousand copies.
The truely revolutionary games of today's consoles have been quite astonishingly over-looked. You have the massive sequels, the likes of your MGS2's and you Final Fantasy X's. There will be doubtless roll-outs of all the old Nintendo stalwarts, and the Xbox will have Dreamcast and PC convertions. The latter isn;t necesarily a bad thing for PC lovers who wouldn';t mind being allowed out of their endless upgrade cycle.
But at the end of the day, we are al being short changed. The games on the shelves are not worth the money we are asked to pay for them, with each sequel come already tried and tested code, algorithms, maketing techniques, staff and gameplay. These things sell because consumers are happy with what they know, publishers are happy with what sells in massive amounts, and developers need to make money to stay in business.
At least Sony themselves have a current of originality running through their company. Games such as Ico and Frequency were a fresh and much needed boost to a console becoming increasingly known as the sequelstation, now that batton has been handed to the Gamecube, let's just see if Nintendo hve what it takes to turn themselves around.
E3 was stagnant, and ECTS looks bleak, life is a gamer is looking gloomy, to say the least. But hey, at least we can look at the brilliant particle effects in FIFA 2002, it mut have taken a massive amount of money to produce such life like and physically realistic confetti for the players to run out onto the pitch.
Why should companies such as Electronic Arts, Eidos, or indeed Microsoft bother fuelling their massive projects with the same amount of cash that they use to develop them. As most know, Microsoft have a massive budget set aside for the Xbox, unfortunately, rather than spend most of this cash to develop a truely unique gaming experience enabled by such an easy and transparent development platform, they would rather add to their own woe, by advertising the substandard and average games that fundamentaly support the platform.
Stunning 3d graphics engine, realt time lighting, anti-aliasing, plug & play, broadband connectivity. You will see these being shunted around by all of the major games developers, and their console producing friends, but at the end of the day, the content of the games is being much overlooked to provide enough eye-candy for trailers and teasers of games to hope that this alone can shift a couple of hundred thousand copies.
The truely revolutionary games of today's consoles have been quite astonishingly over-looked. You have the massive sequels, the likes of your MGS2's and you Final Fantasy X's. There will be doubtless roll-outs of all the old Nintendo stalwarts, and the Xbox will have Dreamcast and PC convertions. The latter isn;t necesarily a bad thing for PC lovers who wouldn';t mind being allowed out of their endless upgrade cycle.
But at the end of the day, we are al being short changed. The games on the shelves are not worth the money we are asked to pay for them, with each sequel come already tried and tested code, algorithms, maketing techniques, staff and gameplay. These things sell because consumers are happy with what they know, publishers are happy with what sells in massive amounts, and developers need to make money to stay in business.
At least Sony themselves have a current of originality running through their company. Games such as Ico and Frequency were a fresh and much needed boost to a console becoming increasingly known as the sequelstation, now that batton has been handed to the Gamecube, let's just see if Nintendo hve what it takes to turn themselves around.
E3 was stagnant, and ECTS looks bleak, life is a gamer is looking gloomy, to say the least. But hey, at least we can look at the brilliant particle effects in FIFA 2002, it mut have taken a massive amount of money to produce such life like and physically realistic confetti for the players to run out onto the pitch.
By the way, Bonus, that stuff about Nintendo possibly sticking to the Gamecube for at least another 10 years or so is a necessary contribution, due to the fact that it is relevant to the particular statement in your topic:
"But at the end of the day, we are all being short changed. The games on the shelves are not worth the money we are asked to pay for them, with each sequel come already tried and tested code, algorithms, maketing techniques, staff and gameplay. These things sell because consumers are happy with what they know, publishers are happy with what sells in massive amounts, and developers need to make money to stay in business", and "E3 was stagnant, and ECTS looks bleak, life is a gamer is looking gloomy, to say the least.".
It's relevant because you've made a point that games are increasingly similar and that there is a sudden lack of originality, and that life as a gamer is gloomy, or will be. But the possibility of Nintendo sticking with the Gamecube to focus on that which is relatively scarce at the mo' (originality and fun, new games) should, or could, change all that.
If Nintendo were to stick with the GC for another 8 years or so, it would be interesting to see how it would compete against the inevitably over-whelmingly powerful likes of the PS3 and Xbox2. It would, hopefully, be a battle of originality & gameplay Vs incredible, mind-blowing graphics and jaw-dropping special effects.
On Nintendo's side you'd games you've never seen the likes of before with totally different aspects towards gameplay and wild new gming concepts, but still with the present, impressive power of the GC. On the other side, you'd see games, like you said Bonus, that have been constantly re-hashed, refurbished, and 'done up' all too many times before that they would barely be worth the money you'd usually worked so tirelessly to earn.
So who would win?
I'd stick with Nintendo for a while, until somehow, some genius comes along and develops a revolutionary game for the PS3 or something and I take a closer inspection. But think how hard and tiresome it would be to programme and develop a game for such a console that's so complicatedly designed, making it near impossible to use the machines whole potential.
Personally, I'm not sure what'll happen, but Nintendo would have to be a brave bunch to go against the way of play in the industry and NOT build a better console, like Sony and Microsoft will no doubt do. I'm still all for the PS3, what with it's power supposedly being 10 times that of the PS2 - just think of what games could be like, if only developers had brains along the sames lines as those in the Nintendo headquarters!
Although you say being a gamer will be a gloomy time right now, I reckon the industry will be a lot more interesting in the future.
"But at the end of the day, we are all being short changed. The games on the shelves are not worth the money we are asked to pay for them, with each sequel come already tried and tested code, algorithms, maketing techniques, staff and gameplay. These things sell because consumers are happy with what they know, publishers are happy with what sells in massive amounts, and developers need to make money to stay in business", and "E3 was stagnant, and ECTS looks bleak, life is a gamer is looking gloomy, to say the least.".
It's relevant because you've made a point that games are increasingly similar and that there is a sudden lack of originality, and that life as a gamer is gloomy, or will be. But the possibility of Nintendo sticking with the Gamecube to focus on that which is relatively scarce at the mo' (originality and fun, new games) should, or could, change all that.
If Nintendo were to stick with the GC for another 8 years or so, it would be interesting to see how it would compete against the inevitably over-whelmingly powerful likes of the PS3 and Xbox2. It would, hopefully, be a battle of originality & gameplay Vs incredible, mind-blowing graphics and jaw-dropping special effects.
On Nintendo's side you'd games you've never seen the likes of before with totally different aspects towards gameplay and wild new gming concepts, but still with the present, impressive power of the GC. On the other side, you'd see games, like you said Bonus, that have been constantly re-hashed, refurbished, and 'done up' all too many times before that they would barely be worth the money you'd usually worked so tirelessly to earn.
So who would win?
I'd stick with Nintendo for a while, until somehow, some genius comes along and develops a revolutionary game for the PS3 or something and I take a closer inspection. But think how hard and tiresome it would be to programme and develop a game for such a console that's so complicatedly designed, making it near impossible to use the machines whole potential.
Personally, I'm not sure what'll happen, but Nintendo would have to be a brave bunch to go against the way of play in the industry and NOT build a better console, like Sony and Microsoft will no doubt do. I'm still all for the PS3, what with it's power supposedly being 10 times that of the PS2 - just think of what games could be like, if only developers had brains along the sames lines as those in the Nintendo headquarters!
Although you say being a gamer will be a gloomy time right now, I reckon the industry will be a lot more interesting in the future.
So, Dringo, what do you think of the GC being Nintendo's possible last console?
They say (Nintendo), that the power of consoles in their current state (GC) are good enough now to produce many wonderful games without unnecessarily increasing the power of technology.
Basically, what that means is, if we needed new and original games, which the industry clearly does, then the GC's power is by far powerful enough to withstand the invention - so why make a another console that's more powerful, when you've got a perfectly capable one already?
Or have you already got a topic like this in the pipeline, eh?
They say (Nintendo), that the power of consoles in their current state (GC) are good enough now to produce many wonderful games without unnecessarily increasing the power of technology.
Basically, what that means is, if we needed new and original games, which the industry clearly does, then the GC's power is by far powerful enough to withstand the invention - so why make a another console that's more powerful, when you've got a perfectly capable one already?
Or have you already got a topic like this in the pipeline, eh?
Luigi's Mansion - First ghostbusting game
Pikmin - Original RTS
Super Mario Sunshine - Familiar platformer with new gameplay element of water.
The Legend of Zelda - Familiar Adventure with brand new cartoon animation and worlds.
Eternal Darkness - First Pschological horror
Animal Crossing - Real life game
Doshin the Giant - Be good or bad, a game that sounds like black and white but isn't, incredibly original.
Donkey Kong Racing - Train your racer in a brand new racing game.
Metroid Prime - First Person exploration game
Giftpa - some weird gift game
Donkey Kong (+)
Kept Nintendo's side of things.
Pikmin - Original RTS
Super Mario Sunshine - Familiar platformer with new gameplay element of water.
The Legend of Zelda - Familiar Adventure with brand new cartoon animation and worlds.
Eternal Darkness - First Pschological horror
Animal Crossing - Real life game
Doshin the Giant - Be good or bad, a game that sounds like black and white but isn't, incredibly original.
Donkey Kong Racing - Train your racer in a brand new racing game.
Metroid Prime - First Person exploration game
Giftpa - some weird gift game
Donkey Kong (+)
Kept Nintendo's side of things.
I've noticed this recently about the games industry. There is an absolute trend set in the advertising and marketing slant of games. The average person will be hooked and will undoubtedly splash the cash on game after game, until one day they realise that all they are doing is proving publisher security, and developers laziness, to be correct.
Why should companies such as Electronic Arts, Eidos, or indeed Microsoft bother fuelling their massive projects with the same amount of cash that they use to develop them. As most know, Microsoft have a massive budget set aside for the Xbox, unfortunately, rather than spend most of this cash to develop a truely unique gaming experience enabled by such an easy and transparent development platform, they would rather add to their own woe, by advertising the substandard and average games that fundamentaly support the platform.
Stunning 3d graphics engine, realt time lighting, anti-aliasing, plug & play, broadband connectivity. You will see these being shunted around by all of the major games developers, and their console producing friends, but at the end of the day, the content of the games is being much overlooked to provide enough eye-candy for trailers and teasers of games to hope that this alone can shift a couple of hundred thousand copies.
The truely revolutionary games of today's consoles have been quite astonishingly over-looked. You have the massive sequels, the likes of your MGS2's and you Final Fantasy X's. There will be doubtless roll-outs of all the old Nintendo stalwarts, and the Xbox will have Dreamcast and PC convertions. The latter isn;t necesarily a bad thing for PC lovers who wouldn';t mind being allowed out of their endless upgrade cycle.
But at the end of the day, we are al being short changed. The games on the shelves are not worth the money we are asked to pay for them, with each sequel come already tried and tested code, algorithms, maketing techniques, staff and gameplay. These things sell because consumers are happy with what they know, publishers are happy with what sells in massive amounts, and developers need to make money to stay in business.
At least Sony themselves have a current of originality running through their company. Games such as Ico and Frequency were a fresh and much needed boost to a console becoming increasingly known as the sequelstation, now that batton has been handed to the Gamecube, let's just see if Nintendo hve what it takes to turn themselves around.
E3 was stagnant, and ECTS looks bleak, life is a gamer is looking gloomy, to say the least. But hey, at least we can look at the brilliant particle effects in FIFA 2002, it mut have taken a massive amount of money to produce such life like and physically realistic confetti for the players to run out onto the pitch.
Why should companies such as Electronic Arts, Eidos, or indeed Microsoft bother fuelling their massive projects with the same amount of cash that they use to develop them. As most know, Microsoft have a massive budget set aside for the Xbox, unfortunately, rather than spend most of this cash to develop a truely unique gaming experience enabled by such an easy and transparent development platform, they would rather add to their own woe, by advertising the substandard and average games that fundamentaly support the platform.
Stunning 3d graphics engine, realt time lighting, anti-aliasing, plug & play, broadband connectivity. You will see these being shunted around by all of the major games developers, and their console producing friends, but at the end of the day, the content of the games is being much overlooked to provide enough eye-candy for trailers and teasers of games to hope that this alone can shift a couple of hundred thousand copies.
The truely revolutionary games of today's consoles have been quite astonishingly over-looked. You have the massive sequels, the likes of your MGS2's and you Final Fantasy X's. There will be doubtless roll-outs of all the old Nintendo stalwarts, and the Xbox will have Dreamcast and PC convertions. The latter isn;t necesarily a bad thing for PC lovers who wouldn';t mind being allowed out of their endless upgrade cycle.
But at the end of the day, we are al being short changed. The games on the shelves are not worth the money we are asked to pay for them, with each sequel come already tried and tested code, algorithms, maketing techniques, staff and gameplay. These things sell because consumers are happy with what they know, publishers are happy with what sells in massive amounts, and developers need to make money to stay in business.
At least Sony themselves have a current of originality running through their company. Games such as Ico and Frequency were a fresh and much needed boost to a console becoming increasingly known as the sequelstation, now that batton has been handed to the Gamecube, let's just see if Nintendo hve what it takes to turn themselves around.
E3 was stagnant, and ECTS looks bleak, life is a gamer is looking gloomy, to say the least. But hey, at least we can look at the brilliant particle effects in FIFA 2002, it mut have taken a massive amount of money to produce such life like and physically realistic confetti for the players to run out onto the pitch.