The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Well done er-no.
Yes I suppose it could be classed as "right place, right time". If Sony hadn't done it, someone else would have.
Maybe my question shuold have ended with "as we know it."
Maybe my question shuold have ended with "as we know it."
Yes there would.
It's easy to argue that Sony brought gaming to the masses, but we were perfectly happy back in the pre-Sony days, weren't we?
Had Sony not been there, I have a feeling that the Saturn may well have picked up a fair share of what would have been Sony's audience, as the Saturn had many arcade conversions and other such games which were all appealing to the older gamer. It's less likely that Nintendo would have caught the eye of the 'casual' gamer, but there were a great many 'hardcore' gamers in the PSX market, too.
Did Sony really bring gaming to the masses, or would it have happened anyway?
Whilst the games market could easily have survived without the huge audience increase we credit Sony for reeling in, I think it's likely that games were going to appeal to an ever wider audience in any case. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, whilst not particularly convincing in my opinion, simply look at sales figurs for console games and you'll see that they were always on the increase even before Sony entered the market. Is there a good reason to assume this would have changed? Secondly, if we make the broad (yet reasonably accurate) assumption that the games most commonly played by the twentysomething gamers are those such as fighters, racers, and sports sims, then it's quite easy to argue that the principle feature of these games is realism. With the inevitablility of steady graphical progress in the gaming world, these games would become ever more realistic, and therefore ever more appealing to this particular age group. Thirdly, as gamers we grow ever older, yet apparantly we don't 'grow out' of games. As the number of youngsters becoming familiar with games consoles at an early age is increasing, a generation of twentysomething gamers was certainly on the horison in any case.
It's easy to argue that Sony brought gaming to the masses, but we were perfectly happy back in the pre-Sony days, weren't we?
Had Sony not been there, I have a feeling that the Saturn may well have picked up a fair share of what would have been Sony's audience, as the Saturn had many arcade conversions and other such games which were all appealing to the older gamer. It's less likely that Nintendo would have caught the eye of the 'casual' gamer, but there were a great many 'hardcore' gamers in the PSX market, too.
Did Sony really bring gaming to the masses, or would it have happened anyway?
Whilst the games market could easily have survived without the huge audience increase we credit Sony for reeling in, I think it's likely that games were going to appeal to an ever wider audience in any case. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, whilst not particularly convincing in my opinion, simply look at sales figurs for console games and you'll see that they were always on the increase even before Sony entered the market. Is there a good reason to assume this would have changed? Secondly, if we make the broad (yet reasonably accurate) assumption that the games most commonly played by the twentysomething gamers are those such as fighters, racers, and sports sims, then it's quite easy to argue that the principle feature of these games is realism. With the inevitablility of steady graphical progress in the gaming world, these games would become ever more realistic, and therefore ever more appealing to this particular age group. Thirdly, as gamers we grow ever older, yet apparantly we don't 'grow out' of games. As the number of youngsters becoming familiar with games consoles at an early age is increasing, a generation of twentysomething gamers was certainly on the horison in any case.
Yes. That's the simple answer.
I imagine that it would be quite different though.
There were many console gamers before Sony came along. It was so popular, in fact, that even The Sun had a computer games pull out.
You can assume that the Sega Saturn would still have come along. If it wasn't for the PSX I'm sure that more developers would have jumped on the Sega ship, as it was a far superior piece of kit to the SNES. Whether the N64 would have come along as it is now is another question. It's quite possible we would have seen a SNES upgrade instead.
I'd say that if it wasn't for Sony we wouldn't be awaiting the GameCube or XBox. Nintendo and Sega would still be pleasing millions of gamers, but they whether the market would be as big as it is now? I really don't think so.
I imagine that it would be quite different though.
There were many console gamers before Sony came along. It was so popular, in fact, that even The Sun had a computer games pull out.
You can assume that the Sega Saturn would still have come along. If it wasn't for the PSX I'm sure that more developers would have jumped on the Sega ship, as it was a far superior piece of kit to the SNES. Whether the N64 would have come along as it is now is another question. It's quite possible we would have seen a SNES upgrade instead.
I'd say that if it wasn't for Sony we wouldn't be awaiting the GameCube or XBox. Nintendo and Sega would still be pleasing millions of gamers, but they whether the market would be as big as it is now? I really don't think so.
> They bought playing games to the masses, putting more
> money into the industry, meaning bigger and better things to
> come.
This is a point I'd like to pick up...
I'm afraid I can't word this in any way that *doesn't* make me sound incredibly pro-Sony, but I can only try to assure everyone that it isn't my intent to be biased; this post ends with what I think is a perfectly reasonable question.
The industry is currently bigger than it has ever been, and this is largely down to Sony and the original PlayStation bringing gaming to the masses, and - in particular - the section of the market having the largest disposable income: young males between 18-25.
Even so, within the last five or six years (which is when this 'revolution' has happened), a games 'giant' such as Sega has had a more or less constant struggle to survive, culminating in the termination of hardware manufacturing and a return to software production only.
Nintendo, another 'giant' have faired better, but have been pushed some way from the limelight, largely due to their insistence - until now - on sticking with what many consider to be outdated and expensive cartridge technology.
Now, regardless of what the future holds for the four main contenders, consider this:
If Sony hadn't come along when they did, and done what they did, would there even *be* a games industry today?
> money into the industry, meaning bigger and better things to
> come.
This is a point I'd like to pick up...
I'm afraid I can't word this in any way that *doesn't* make me sound incredibly pro-Sony, but I can only try to assure everyone that it isn't my intent to be biased; this post ends with what I think is a perfectly reasonable question.
The industry is currently bigger than it has ever been, and this is largely down to Sony and the original PlayStation bringing gaming to the masses, and - in particular - the section of the market having the largest disposable income: young males between 18-25.
Even so, within the last five or six years (which is when this 'revolution' has happened), a games 'giant' such as Sega has had a more or less constant struggle to survive, culminating in the termination of hardware manufacturing and a return to software production only.
Nintendo, another 'giant' have faired better, but have been pushed some way from the limelight, largely due to their insistence - until now - on sticking with what many consider to be outdated and expensive cartridge technology.
Now, regardless of what the future holds for the four main contenders, consider this:
If Sony hadn't come along when they did, and done what they did, would there even *be* a games industry today?
Dringo wrote:
> I'm sorry I have no faith in Sony they have worked wonders with the
> Playstation but all along I never saw them as a game company rather
> a company who makes home entertainment systems like TV's and
> Playstations but I don't see them as a game company.
That's probably why Sony don't make games then.
What they are, however, is incredibly good business people. Look at the number of 3rd Party Developers they managed to attract to the PSX!
You can't blame Sony for the quality of games some of these developers put out , but there sure were good games out there.
They bought playing games to the masses, putting more money into the industry, meaning bigger and better things to come.
If the cost is a few shoddy games on the shelves, I'm willing to pay it. 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.
> I'm sorry I have no faith in Sony they have worked wonders with the
> Playstation but all along I never saw them as a game company rather
> a company who makes home entertainment systems like TV's and
> Playstations but I don't see them as a game company.
That's probably why Sony don't make games then.
What they are, however, is incredibly good business people. Look at the number of 3rd Party Developers they managed to attract to the PSX!
You can't blame Sony for the quality of games some of these developers put out , but there sure were good games out there.
They bought playing games to the masses, putting more money into the industry, meaning bigger and better things to come.
If the cost is a few shoddy games on the shelves, I'm willing to pay it. 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.
I agree with Pseudo on that one.
I think the winner of the next gen console war will be the company that gets most support from Sega. I think im basically going to buy the one that Sega develops most for because Sega make brilliant games, and, at the end of the day, its the games that should count. Not whether you are annoyed at Microsoft because you had to format your PC for the 5th time or whatever.
Someone also mentioned that Microsoft would have to sell 30 odd games per console to get their money back. Firstly they dont need to get their money back they've got so much of it it doesnt matter it they lose a couple of billion here or there. Also i thought that the games wouldnt be licensed by Microsoft, i thought it would be like PC games where Microsoft wont get any money from game sales (unless its their own games of course). This should be a good thing cos then the games should, in theory, be the same as PC games.
I agree with the GBA thing though, i think its going to be amazing, especially if you can play original SNES games on it, MarioKart anyone?
I think the winner of the next gen console war will be the company that gets most support from Sega. I think im basically going to buy the one that Sega develops most for because Sega make brilliant games, and, at the end of the day, its the games that should count. Not whether you are annoyed at Microsoft because you had to format your PC for the 5th time or whatever.
Someone also mentioned that Microsoft would have to sell 30 odd games per console to get their money back. Firstly they dont need to get their money back they've got so much of it it doesnt matter it they lose a couple of billion here or there. Also i thought that the games wouldnt be licensed by Microsoft, i thought it would be like PC games where Microsoft wont get any money from game sales (unless its their own games of course). This should be a good thing cos then the games should, in theory, be the same as PC games.
I agree with the GBA thing though, i think its going to be amazing, especially if you can play original SNES games on it, MarioKart anyone?
I don't know, Sega are still in control of the type of game they make, as long as they pay a licence to the console company (i.e. Sony, Nintendo..) then they can bring out whatever they want to. The worst part is that they have to get used to new technology and learn new tricks to get the most from the other consoles.
But then most other games firms are already doing that. Anyway, Sega has had plenty of practice at writing for other platforms, it has always done a fair share of this in the past, especially on 8-bit and 16-bit computer systems.
But then most other games firms are already doing that. Anyway, Sega has had plenty of practice at writing for other platforms, it has always done a fair share of this in the past, especially on 8-bit and 16-bit computer systems.
But by producing your own console you can make any tupe of game you want Sega may now feel restricted.
Page: