The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 don't want it to be over but the boom which has occured in the gaming world in the last three years has calmed down, we had so many amazing games in the last five years that I think the gaming world which I loved is going to slower be overtaken by elements of entertainment, two out of the four next generation console had extra details, one has a DVD player and one which is yet to be released has it all.
I think we have seen all the great possible genres of games, I don't think any game will impress me as much as ones from when the gaming market reached its peak (1999-00).
Above all this horrible grey cloud there may be a silver lining, in that of Nintendo, they want to continue to make games which are 'fun', they claim to be the only ones which want the gaming world to play games, they have solely released the GameCube for only games, the GBA is something which will be completely Advanced, nothing you have ever seen will prepare you for the GBA, I can promise you when you play it your mouth will drag along the ground, then after a few seconds of not breathing much needed air you will say the words 'I must get one of these'. Nintendo are trying to create something which will be the future of gaming, a console which plays games like the good old days.
I don't think that the games market will ever be better then it was 2 years ago, but then again that just might be me getting old and annoyed that the dreamcast with its brilliant games is now officially dead, RIP SEGA because you had the best released console, but earlier mistakes lead one thing to another.
Where as SEGA failed I don't only want Nintendo to succeed they NEED to succeed for the gaming world to keep on track, SONY are currently many mistakes abroad, Microsoft are entering for the wrong reasons (and they need to sell 30 games to every XBox buyer for them to make any profit which isn't good figures).
Nintendo are really as I see it are only hopes for a great future of gaming. I hope they succeed for all of us. and although some of you may hate them, you will love them one day.
Thanks for reading
Joby
I think we have seen all the great possible genres of games, I don't think any game will impress me as much as ones from when the gaming market reached its peak (1999-00).
Above all this horrible grey cloud there may be a silver lining, in that of Nintendo, they want to continue to make games which are 'fun', they claim to be the only ones which want the gaming world to play games, they have solely released the GameCube for only games, the GBA is something which will be completely Advanced, nothing you have ever seen will prepare you for the GBA, I can promise you when you play it your mouth will drag along the ground, then after a few seconds of not breathing much needed air you will say the words 'I must get one of these'. Nintendo are trying to create something which will be the future of gaming, a console which plays games like the good old days.
I don't think that the games market will ever be better then it was 2 years ago, but then again that just might be me getting old and annoyed that the dreamcast with its brilliant games is now officially dead, RIP SEGA because you had the best released console, but earlier mistakes lead one thing to another.
Where as SEGA failed I don't only want Nintendo to succeed they NEED to succeed for the gaming world to keep on track, SONY are currently many mistakes abroad, Microsoft are entering for the wrong reasons (and they need to sell 30 games to every XBox buyer for them to make any profit which isn't good figures).
Nintendo are really as I see it are only hopes for a great future of gaming. I hope they succeed for all of us. and although some of you may hate them, you will love them one day.
Thanks for reading
Joby
Page:
> After all, if they'd been paying attention to what
> crap developers were putting out for their machine, they could've
> just said, "Sorry, this one needs to be tweaked a bit
> more."
As meka has already replied to one of my posts, you can't tell developers that "this game isn't good enough" because they'll go elsewhere, as was found in the mass migration to Sony's first machine. So it's a bit of a catch-22.
Sony also take an interest in what developers are doing - several have had extensive help from Sony in overcoming problems on the PS2.
There have been several interviews with major publishers in the mags I read where they've stated that, while they have had problems, Sony have been extremely good at supporting them.
> crap developers were putting out for their machine, they could've
> just said, "Sorry, this one needs to be tweaked a bit
> more."
As meka has already replied to one of my posts, you can't tell developers that "this game isn't good enough" because they'll go elsewhere, as was found in the mass migration to Sony's first machine. So it's a bit of a catch-22.
Sony also take an interest in what developers are doing - several have had extensive help from Sony in overcoming problems on the PS2.
There have been several interviews with major publishers in the mags I read where they've stated that, while they have had problems, Sony have been extremely good at supporting them.
meka_dragon wrote:
> So now you're choosing quantity over quality then? ;-p <
You know what I meant, you little...
Fine: "Quality should never become more of a focus than quality, IMO." Exchange the first 'Quality' there for the word 'Quantity'.
Thus: "Quantity should never become more of a focus than quality, IMO."
> So now you're choosing quantity over quality then? ;-p <
You know what I meant, you little...
Fine: "Quality should never become more of a focus than quality, IMO." Exchange the first 'Quality' there for the word 'Quantity'.
Thus: "Quantity should never become more of a focus than quality, IMO."
PseudoSavant wrote:
> Okay...the first "Quality" in that one sentence should be
> "Quantity". Pardon the typo.
So now you're choosing quantity over quality then? ;-p
> Okay...the first "Quality" in that one sentence should be
> "Quantity". Pardon the typo.
So now you're choosing quantity over quality then? ;-p
meka_dragon wrote:
> What [Sony is], however, is incredibly good business people. Look at the number of 3rd Party Developers they managed to attract to the PSX! <
This is true, but it really didn't take a genius to achieve this if you think about it. Nintendo and Sega had been the top dogs of the console industry, so both of them were growing a little hard on third-party developers, because well...they could. Then Sony pops up, says, "We love you all!," and off they went. Frankly, I think how they've handled the PS2 has proven that they aren't especially brilliant.
> You can't blame Sony for the quality of games some of these developers put out , but there sure were good games out there. <
You know what, I actually can. Nintendo, unlike Sony, takes a very active interest in what their developers - be they 1st, 2nd, or 3rd parties - are producing for them. They exercise quality over quantity; Sony did the exact opposite. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the PSX didn't have good games on it. I'm saying that it was sheer luck that they occurred, while I can and DO blame Sony for the bad ones. After all, if they'd been paying attention to what crap developers were putting out for their machine, they could've just said, "Sorry, this one needs to be tweaked a bit more."
> They bought playing games to the masses, putting more money into the industry, meaning bigger and better things to come. <
I don't think 'more money' necessitates 'better things'. That's what is ticking me off presently with Hollywood. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on films that end up being attrocious. Just seems like they lost their heart a long while ago.
> If the cost is a few shoddy games on the shelves, I'm willing to pay it. <
Frankly, this is the kind of stuff that DOES bother me. I don't like visually stunning, yet shoddy games littering the shelves. Quality should never become more of a focus than quality, IMO.
> I won't suffer as I don't make too many purchases without knowing about the games first. It's only the casual gamers that will suffer, those that buy games becuase the screenshots look good rather than it having received great reviews. <
This is true, but we (the more hardened gamers) NEED casual gamers. We don't need half-@$$ed developers driving them away. If this industry is going to grow, it requires the interests of newcomers to the industry. It has to appeal to them. If it blatantly spurns them, then they're not going to stick around to become like us.
> What [Sony is], however, is incredibly good business people. Look at the number of 3rd Party Developers they managed to attract to the PSX! <
This is true, but it really didn't take a genius to achieve this if you think about it. Nintendo and Sega had been the top dogs of the console industry, so both of them were growing a little hard on third-party developers, because well...they could. Then Sony pops up, says, "We love you all!," and off they went. Frankly, I think how they've handled the PS2 has proven that they aren't especially brilliant.
> You can't blame Sony for the quality of games some of these developers put out , but there sure were good games out there. <
You know what, I actually can. Nintendo, unlike Sony, takes a very active interest in what their developers - be they 1st, 2nd, or 3rd parties - are producing for them. They exercise quality over quantity; Sony did the exact opposite. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the PSX didn't have good games on it. I'm saying that it was sheer luck that they occurred, while I can and DO blame Sony for the bad ones. After all, if they'd been paying attention to what crap developers were putting out for their machine, they could've just said, "Sorry, this one needs to be tweaked a bit more."
> They bought playing games to the masses, putting more money into the industry, meaning bigger and better things to come. <
I don't think 'more money' necessitates 'better things'. That's what is ticking me off presently with Hollywood. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on films that end up being attrocious. Just seems like they lost their heart a long while ago.
> If the cost is a few shoddy games on the shelves, I'm willing to pay it. <
Frankly, this is the kind of stuff that DOES bother me. I don't like visually stunning, yet shoddy games littering the shelves. Quality should never become more of a focus than quality, IMO.
> I won't suffer as I don't make too many purchases without knowing about the games first. It's only the casual gamers that will suffer, those that buy games becuase the screenshots look good rather than it having received great reviews. <
This is true, but we (the more hardened gamers) NEED casual gamers. We don't need half-@$$ed developers driving them away. If this industry is going to grow, it requires the interests of newcomers to the industry. It has to appeal to them. If it blatantly spurns them, then they're not going to stick around to become like us.
Thanks guys. Did anyone read Digitiser today, The PiG just actually copied my topic completely in saying exactly what I said, GBA, Nintendo etc. and I posted it before digi so they copied me!
I feel happy right now, go and have a look!
I feel happy right now, go and have a look!
The Game wrote:
> Er-No nails a cracker mid-way through the second half...GOAL!
A cracker i've scored better than that.....and what......goal.
> Er-No nails a cracker mid-way through the second half...GOAL!
A cracker i've scored better than that.....and what......goal.
Yes well done............i think i've been let down now....
Er-No nails a cracker mid-way through the second half...GOAL!
Yeah, well done er-no!
Page: