The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ah yes, that. The so-called 'future' of our little interest, namely gaming. If Microsoft, and to a certain extent, Sony had us believe everything, then it is the un-questionable future, and that we should all embrace it with open arms.
But is it?
Let me explain.
1. GAMES
How is online gaming going to increase the quality of games? As far as I can see, it won't, but there will be more players on them, and thats about it. Of course, you can have a lot of fun, playing against 'real people' but some games are far better when left to one person, and I can't see the quality of games improving dramaticly, just because 'Online' is stamped on the DVD case.
2. PLAYERS
Whats more fun? 4-player deathmatch on PD or online UT by yourself against people you don't know? Perfect Dark in my opinion. Nothing beats the satisfaction of killing you mate in a tense shoot out (in games anyway!) Online can be a little, well, cold, lifeless, nad sometimes dull. Of course, if you can play against your friends online, thats excellent, but if not, it is sterile, and while fun with mates, its not as fun as a split screen frag-fest. In my opinion.
3. COMPANIES
They stand to make a killing of course, so of course, they promote it heavily as an advantage to the player. They promote it as the future, so it becomes the future. This is not certain. Microsoft, you could argue, are rushing into online because the XBox is not doing so well, and if this works, it could put it on top. Or not. Online is not that amazing. It has been around for yonks on PC, and so is already 'old-hat'. If its the future, why has it not hit already? I remember online Red Alert way back in 1998. Surely, the 'future' would have hit by now? I suppose th real 'future' is a centralised entertainment centre, controlled by one company, offering everything............
4. SPEED
Broadbands all very well......in the USA. But not here so much. So the online capability is seriously damaged. 56k is all very well, but often too slow.......
--------------
So, it may be a new(ish) idea to take gaming in, for consoles at least, but I personaly, do not see it as the future. Why? Well, all the above points, and that it does not affect our games one bit, which is the most important thing, and in fact affects the way we play them, perhaps the least.
Cheers.
But is it?
Let me explain.
1. GAMES
How is online gaming going to increase the quality of games? As far as I can see, it won't, but there will be more players on them, and thats about it. Of course, you can have a lot of fun, playing against 'real people' but some games are far better when left to one person, and I can't see the quality of games improving dramaticly, just because 'Online' is stamped on the DVD case.
2. PLAYERS
Whats more fun? 4-player deathmatch on PD or online UT by yourself against people you don't know? Perfect Dark in my opinion. Nothing beats the satisfaction of killing you mate in a tense shoot out (in games anyway!) Online can be a little, well, cold, lifeless, nad sometimes dull. Of course, if you can play against your friends online, thats excellent, but if not, it is sterile, and while fun with mates, its not as fun as a split screen frag-fest. In my opinion.
3. COMPANIES
They stand to make a killing of course, so of course, they promote it heavily as an advantage to the player. They promote it as the future, so it becomes the future. This is not certain. Microsoft, you could argue, are rushing into online because the XBox is not doing so well, and if this works, it could put it on top. Or not. Online is not that amazing. It has been around for yonks on PC, and so is already 'old-hat'. If its the future, why has it not hit already? I remember online Red Alert way back in 1998. Surely, the 'future' would have hit by now? I suppose th real 'future' is a centralised entertainment centre, controlled by one company, offering everything............
4. SPEED
Broadbands all very well......in the USA. But not here so much. So the online capability is seriously damaged. 56k is all very well, but often too slow.......
--------------
So, it may be a new(ish) idea to take gaming in, for consoles at least, but I personaly, do not see it as the future. Why? Well, all the above points, and that it does not affect our games one bit, which is the most important thing, and in fact affects the way we play them, perhaps the least.
Cheers.
Cyclone wrote:
> 4. SPEED
>
> Broadbands all very well......in the USA. But not here so much. So the
> online capability is seriously damaged. 56k is all very well, but
> often too slow.......
I was going to save this for my own post i here on "Online Gaming", but couldn't be @rsed to finish it! So I decided to add it here under this...
(All figures from OFTEL)
43% of homes are connected to the internet
Out of these...
89% use dial up of 56k or less
6-8% use broadband
2% use ADSL
5% use cable
67% of SME's (Small to Medium Enterprises) use a dial up connection
9% of SME's use broadband
Average time spent online: Nine hours per week
What was the point of that? I hear you ask... Well these figures are from OFTEL, those wonderful people who govern telecomunications in the UK and these figures came from an audit they did on telephone exchanges across the UK.
If you turn these into homes...
43% of 30million homes (est based on an avg 2.4 people per home) thats 12,900,000 homes connected to the internet out of these...
11,481,000 use 56k or less the remaining 1,419,000 have high speed internet access. far from the "Broadband Britain" we are supposed to be.
Now you could take this one step further and work out the ratio of console owners with high speed internet access in the UK, how many of those 1,419,000 housholds own an XBOX or PS2 or even a GC?...
With Microsoft about to unleash XBOX-Live in the UK next year (2003), why do I ponder the success of this service in the UK? Only available via broadband and pityful sales, though the drop in price point on Saturday 31st to £159.99 may change this, there is still false hope of it being a success over here due to poor high speed access.
As for Sony and Nintendo, maybe they'll get it right. Both support 56k with the understanding that broadband is still far from reality in the UK and this isn't likely to change in the near future.
Sony having the larger market share, it makes sense for them to support lower bandwidths and making online gaming for the masses more of a reality.
The future may be "online" and in the world of PC's and Counter Strike, this is indeed true and already here, but as for "Online Console Gaming" beong the future, this is still a long way off before it becomes a reality in the UK.
The adoption rate for high speed internet access in the UK is increasing at an alarming rate, but mainly in the business and education sector, domestic adoption will take longer, much longer especially concidering things like cost (for what you pay in fee's you could set your self up with a new title every month!), lead times, availablility and reliability.
NTL are on the verge of going under (£26million+ in debt), BT still hold the monolopoly on the Local loop and still govern the costs of high speed access. They charge people like Pipex about £20 per person for access to the local loop to supply their service, until this figure is reduced, it'll be a while before your average family comit to a 12 month contract for a future which has yet to be proven.
Apologies if none of this made sense, it's late
> 4. SPEED
>
> Broadbands all very well......in the USA. But not here so much. So the
> online capability is seriously damaged. 56k is all very well, but
> often too slow.......
I was going to save this for my own post i here on "Online Gaming", but couldn't be @rsed to finish it! So I decided to add it here under this...
(All figures from OFTEL)
43% of homes are connected to the internet
Out of these...
89% use dial up of 56k or less
6-8% use broadband
2% use ADSL
5% use cable
67% of SME's (Small to Medium Enterprises) use a dial up connection
9% of SME's use broadband
Average time spent online: Nine hours per week
What was the point of that? I hear you ask... Well these figures are from OFTEL, those wonderful people who govern telecomunications in the UK and these figures came from an audit they did on telephone exchanges across the UK.
If you turn these into homes...
43% of 30million homes (est based on an avg 2.4 people per home) thats 12,900,000 homes connected to the internet out of these...
11,481,000 use 56k or less the remaining 1,419,000 have high speed internet access. far from the "Broadband Britain" we are supposed to be.
Now you could take this one step further and work out the ratio of console owners with high speed internet access in the UK, how many of those 1,419,000 housholds own an XBOX or PS2 or even a GC?...
With Microsoft about to unleash XBOX-Live in the UK next year (2003), why do I ponder the success of this service in the UK? Only available via broadband and pityful sales, though the drop in price point on Saturday 31st to £159.99 may change this, there is still false hope of it being a success over here due to poor high speed access.
As for Sony and Nintendo, maybe they'll get it right. Both support 56k with the understanding that broadband is still far from reality in the UK and this isn't likely to change in the near future.
Sony having the larger market share, it makes sense for them to support lower bandwidths and making online gaming for the masses more of a reality.
The future may be "online" and in the world of PC's and Counter Strike, this is indeed true and already here, but as for "Online Console Gaming" beong the future, this is still a long way off before it becomes a reality in the UK.
The adoption rate for high speed internet access in the UK is increasing at an alarming rate, but mainly in the business and education sector, domestic adoption will take longer, much longer especially concidering things like cost (for what you pay in fee's you could set your self up with a new title every month!), lead times, availablility and reliability.
NTL are on the verge of going under (£26million+ in debt), BT still hold the monolopoly on the Local loop and still govern the costs of high speed access. They charge people like Pipex about £20 per person for access to the local loop to supply their service, until this figure is reduced, it'll be a while before your average family comit to a 12 month contract for a future which has yet to be proven.
Indeed, what about it.
If I remember fosbe like Xboxes......
If I remember fosbe like Xboxes......
Ranger guy wrote:
> Xbox.
What about it?
> Xbox.
What about it?
Xbox.
I prefer to play multiplayer games with other people in the room as well.
I have played quite alot of online PC games like RTCW and MoH:AA recently, and they are very fun, but they still don't compare to GoldenEye and Perfect Darks split-screen modes.
There is something very impersonal about online multiplayer, something which does distract from the satisfaction you get when playing.
I.e--If you were playing Pro Evolution Soccer online and scored a great goal, you wouldn't love it as much as if you'd scored it against a friend or sibling rival.
Same goes for kills in FPS. I had so much fun playing GoldenEye all those years ago, and myself and the people I played with were always rolling about on the floor with laughter sometimes as it was just so darn fun.
But I don't get this with MoH:AA et all as i'm playing against total strangers.
Whilst i'm looking foward to IGI2 and a few other PC shooters which will have good online modes, I am most looking foward to the split-screen deathmatches on Timesplitters 2.
I have played quite alot of online PC games like RTCW and MoH:AA recently, and they are very fun, but they still don't compare to GoldenEye and Perfect Darks split-screen modes.
There is something very impersonal about online multiplayer, something which does distract from the satisfaction you get when playing.
I.e--If you were playing Pro Evolution Soccer online and scored a great goal, you wouldn't love it as much as if you'd scored it against a friend or sibling rival.
Same goes for kills in FPS. I had so much fun playing GoldenEye all those years ago, and myself and the people I played with were always rolling about on the floor with laughter sometimes as it was just so darn fun.
But I don't get this with MoH:AA et all as i'm playing against total strangers.
Whilst i'm looking foward to IGI2 and a few other PC shooters which will have good online modes, I am most looking foward to the split-screen deathmatches on Timesplitters 2.
I haven't done much online gaming, but I'm thinking of doing it with Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Some of my mates have it, but I don't think it'll be as good as a split-screeen frag-fest as you said.
I always find playing multiplayer games more enjoyable when the people you're playing against are actually there in the room with you, not miles away.
Worth a shot though methinks...and yes I'm yet to get Broadband for my PS2.
Cry for me.
I always find playing multiplayer games more enjoyable when the people you're playing against are actually there in the room with you, not miles away.
Worth a shot though methinks...and yes I'm yet to get Broadband for my PS2.
Cry for me.
Any thoughts?
ANY?
ANY?
Ah yes, that. The so-called 'future' of our little interest, namely gaming. If Microsoft, and to a certain extent, Sony had us believe everything, then it is the un-questionable future, and that we should all embrace it with open arms.
But is it?
Let me explain.
1. GAMES
How is online gaming going to increase the quality of games? As far as I can see, it won't, but there will be more players on them, and thats about it. Of course, you can have a lot of fun, playing against 'real people' but some games are far better when left to one person, and I can't see the quality of games improving dramaticly, just because 'Online' is stamped on the DVD case.
2. PLAYERS
Whats more fun? 4-player deathmatch on PD or online UT by yourself against people you don't know? Perfect Dark in my opinion. Nothing beats the satisfaction of killing you mate in a tense shoot out (in games anyway!) Online can be a little, well, cold, lifeless, nad sometimes dull. Of course, if you can play against your friends online, thats excellent, but if not, it is sterile, and while fun with mates, its not as fun as a split screen frag-fest. In my opinion.
3. COMPANIES
They stand to make a killing of course, so of course, they promote it heavily as an advantage to the player. They promote it as the future, so it becomes the future. This is not certain. Microsoft, you could argue, are rushing into online because the XBox is not doing so well, and if this works, it could put it on top. Or not. Online is not that amazing. It has been around for yonks on PC, and so is already 'old-hat'. If its the future, why has it not hit already? I remember online Red Alert way back in 1998. Surely, the 'future' would have hit by now? I suppose th real 'future' is a centralised entertainment centre, controlled by one company, offering everything............
4. SPEED
Broadbands all very well......in the USA. But not here so much. So the online capability is seriously damaged. 56k is all very well, but often too slow.......
--------------
So, it may be a new(ish) idea to take gaming in, for consoles at least, but I personaly, do not see it as the future. Why? Well, all the above points, and that it does not affect our games one bit, which is the most important thing, and in fact affects the way we play them, perhaps the least.
Cheers.
But is it?
Let me explain.
1. GAMES
How is online gaming going to increase the quality of games? As far as I can see, it won't, but there will be more players on them, and thats about it. Of course, you can have a lot of fun, playing against 'real people' but some games are far better when left to one person, and I can't see the quality of games improving dramaticly, just because 'Online' is stamped on the DVD case.
2. PLAYERS
Whats more fun? 4-player deathmatch on PD or online UT by yourself against people you don't know? Perfect Dark in my opinion. Nothing beats the satisfaction of killing you mate in a tense shoot out (in games anyway!) Online can be a little, well, cold, lifeless, nad sometimes dull. Of course, if you can play against your friends online, thats excellent, but if not, it is sterile, and while fun with mates, its not as fun as a split screen frag-fest. In my opinion.
3. COMPANIES
They stand to make a killing of course, so of course, they promote it heavily as an advantage to the player. They promote it as the future, so it becomes the future. This is not certain. Microsoft, you could argue, are rushing into online because the XBox is not doing so well, and if this works, it could put it on top. Or not. Online is not that amazing. It has been around for yonks on PC, and so is already 'old-hat'. If its the future, why has it not hit already? I remember online Red Alert way back in 1998. Surely, the 'future' would have hit by now? I suppose th real 'future' is a centralised entertainment centre, controlled by one company, offering everything............
4. SPEED
Broadbands all very well......in the USA. But not here so much. So the online capability is seriously damaged. 56k is all very well, but often too slow.......
--------------
So, it may be a new(ish) idea to take gaming in, for consoles at least, but I personaly, do not see it as the future. Why? Well, all the above points, and that it does not affect our games one bit, which is the most important thing, and in fact affects the way we play them, perhaps the least.
Cheers.