The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 think there are a lot of problems with the gaming industry, for a start, the price. I can understand that there are production prices, and programming fees etc. and I know that PC games are more expensive because they are so easy to copyand pirate. But console games, for example N64 games, are upwards to as much as £60 for a brand new game, over twice as much as a brand new PC game, yet cartridges are (as far as I know) unable to be copied, or at least, very difficult. So can anyone explain to me why they are so expensive?
Secondly, I think the games market has very much got stuck in a vicious circle. So many copies and sequals are being made of games that there are very few original ideas now, with certain genres of game dominating the market. I think that game developers are either afraid to make new and original games because the market has settled to making the same style of game, or they lack the ideas, in which case I think they should look towards the game players for ideas.
A good idea at the moment, would be a nice battle of games, like Quake 3: Arena and Unreal Tournament provided. It brought apon huge debates about which was better, and large amounts of new maps and mods were created to try and out-do the other game. Sides were taken, and I think this is what the games industry needs RIGHT NOW!
And anyway, Quake 3: Arena was sooooooo much better than Unreal Tournament, how can you deathmatch game create by the original deathmatch creators...?
Secondly, I think the games market has very much got stuck in a vicious circle. So many copies and sequals are being made of games that there are very few original ideas now, with certain genres of game dominating the market. I think that game developers are either afraid to make new and original games because the market has settled to making the same style of game, or they lack the ideas, in which case I think they should look towards the game players for ideas.
A good idea at the moment, would be a nice battle of games, like Quake 3: Arena and Unreal Tournament provided. It brought apon huge debates about which was better, and large amounts of new maps and mods were created to try and out-do the other game. Sides were taken, and I think this is what the games industry needs RIGHT NOW!
And anyway, Quake 3: Arena was sooooooo much better than Unreal Tournament, how can you deathmatch game create by the original deathmatch creators...?
Admittedly, that was rather short sighted of me to comment on Quake 3: Arena after criticising sequals, but I have to point out that Quake 3 was the first game to be devoted completely to multiplayer deathmatch etc (Quake 3 may have been released later than UT, but the .plans and ideas were in production long before the curse that was Unreal Tournament stepped in to copy it).
And one more thing, we've established that console catridges are more expensive due to production costs, but another annoying thing about Nintendo is their lack of sharing. I watch the N64 spew out huge numbers of classic PC games, and terminally destroy them. Would you like a list? Well, your getting one anyway...Doom-Doom64 (That was a particular crippler...the poor game, and one of the best games in the world, ever...ripped to crud by N64 games producers...) Duke Nukem 3D-Duke Nukem64 (Another classic game, the bridge between Doom and Quake, not as bad as some N64 games, but quite devestating all the same) Quake, Quake 3-Quake 64 and Quake2 64. And has anyone noticed they are all first-person shooters? I will highlight my point that first person shooters designed on PC's WILL NOT WORK ON CONSOLES! Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, great games, built specifically for the N64.
Which brings me to my next point, the sharing thing. Why wont Nintendo allow any of the said games to be ported to PC? Are they scared that the PC will do a better job? Or are they afraid that the PC will botch up the games like the N64 did to classic PC games? Nintendo even pulled out all emulated versions of Goldeneye, unbelievably tight fisted. Something needs to be done. NOW!
And one more thing, we've established that console catridges are more expensive due to production costs, but another annoying thing about Nintendo is their lack of sharing. I watch the N64 spew out huge numbers of classic PC games, and terminally destroy them. Would you like a list? Well, your getting one anyway...Doom-Doom64 (That was a particular crippler...the poor game, and one of the best games in the world, ever...ripped to crud by N64 games producers...) Duke Nukem 3D-Duke Nukem64 (Another classic game, the bridge between Doom and Quake, not as bad as some N64 games, but quite devestating all the same) Quake, Quake 3-Quake 64 and Quake2 64. And has anyone noticed they are all first-person shooters? I will highlight my point that first person shooters designed on PC's WILL NOT WORK ON CONSOLES! Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, great games, built specifically for the N64.
Which brings me to my next point, the sharing thing. Why wont Nintendo allow any of the said games to be ported to PC? Are they scared that the PC will do a better job? Or are they afraid that the PC will botch up the games like the N64 did to classic PC games? Nintendo even pulled out all emulated versions of Goldeneye, unbelievably tight fisted. Something needs to be done. NOW!
markbhai wrote:
They have tried W.W.T.B.A Millionaire and
> whilst this was a good strong title
Sorry!?!? How can you say WWTBAM is a strong title? It was a pile of pants. A pile of unwashed, skid marked, crusty pants to be precise.
They have tried W.W.T.B.A Millionaire and
> whilst this was a good strong title
Sorry!?!? How can you say WWTBAM is a strong title? It was a pile of pants. A pile of unwashed, skid marked, crusty pants to be precise.
The 'Cash cow' principle will show again with the Eidos situation. Lara Croft (I don't want to imply she is a cow of any kind) was the cash generator for Eidos and when she was in power the share price soared. Games like 'Chicken Run' have been and gone. Now that Lara has lost her appeal (to the city at least) the shares have sunk in value.
Without something to replace Lara as the cash generator Eidos don't fare well. They have tried W.W.T.B.A Millionaire and whilst this was a good strong title I don't think it is likely to be the next long term cash generator.
'I rate EIDOS as a SELL'
Oops wrong Forum!
Without something to replace Lara as the cash generator Eidos don't fare well. They have tried W.W.T.B.A Millionaire and whilst this was a good strong title I don't think it is likely to be the next long term cash generator.
'I rate EIDOS as a SELL'
Oops wrong Forum!
Originality.
Always a problem area.
These days gaming is big business. If a relatively small company takes a risk and it isn't successful it could easily lead to bankruptcy for them.
As a result developers have to have a number of 'cash cows' that they can successfully milk for a number of years. As long as a developer has a cash cow, they should be able to raise their capital enough to invest in an original game, knowing that they can cover the cost of a potential flop.
The aim is to take these original ideas, and turn them into new 'cash cows'.
Lets use Electronic Arts as our case study:
EA successfully ship a number of franchises, such as FIFA and Madden. They update these regularly, and they always sell by the bucketload. EA made lots of money last year thanks to their major titles.
With the PS2 launch, EA released a game called SSX. This game was considered among the best PS2 launch titles. Coming soon is SSX: DVD Edition for the PS2, and a GameCube version is also in the pipeline. EA have found themselves a new 'cash cow'. Had the original SSX have flopped EA would not have disappeared, they have the money to take the risk, and it worked for them.
So in order to see originality we need sequels. The big games that bring in the money are necessary, and just because they're sequels doesn't mean that some of them aren't any good, and it just so happens that they're funding the original and refreshing ideas.
Always a problem area.
These days gaming is big business. If a relatively small company takes a risk and it isn't successful it could easily lead to bankruptcy for them.
As a result developers have to have a number of 'cash cows' that they can successfully milk for a number of years. As long as a developer has a cash cow, they should be able to raise their capital enough to invest in an original game, knowing that they can cover the cost of a potential flop.
The aim is to take these original ideas, and turn them into new 'cash cows'.
Lets use Electronic Arts as our case study:
EA successfully ship a number of franchises, such as FIFA and Madden. They update these regularly, and they always sell by the bucketload. EA made lots of money last year thanks to their major titles.
With the PS2 launch, EA released a game called SSX. This game was considered among the best PS2 launch titles. Coming soon is SSX: DVD Edition for the PS2, and a GameCube version is also in the pipeline. EA have found themselves a new 'cash cow'. Had the original SSX have flopped EA would not have disappeared, they have the money to take the risk, and it worked for them.
So in order to see originality we need sequels. The big games that bring in the money are necessary, and just because they're sequels doesn't mean that some of them aren't any good, and it just so happens that they're funding the original and refreshing ideas.
I think we are slowly starting to see more original ideas for games, if only on PC's.
As PC's become more powerful they are letting the developers create much more detailed routines and environments for us to play our games in.
Genre defining games recently:
B&W
Deus Ex
Shogun: Total War
Shenmue
MSR
Theif
MGS2
Ok, not all these games are original, but there pushing forard the boundaries of gaming.
B&W isnt original, its a God game, and they have been done many times in the past. But what B&W does do, is to push the genre onto new things. This game couldt have come out on PC's 2 years ago, not just from the graphics point of view, but also because you need a fast processor to handle all the AI routines for all the villagers etc.
Deus Ex, again, not 100% original, but it mixes up multiple genres creating a game that seems fresh and different.
I could go on with the other games ive listed, and name some more, but i think ive made my point.
As PC's become more powerful they are letting the developers create much more detailed routines and environments for us to play our games in.
Genre defining games recently:
B&W
Deus Ex
Shogun: Total War
Shenmue
MSR
Theif
MGS2
Ok, not all these games are original, but there pushing forard the boundaries of gaming.
B&W isnt original, its a God game, and they have been done many times in the past. But what B&W does do, is to push the genre onto new things. This game couldt have come out on PC's 2 years ago, not just from the graphics point of view, but also because you need a fast processor to handle all the AI routines for all the villagers etc.
Deus Ex, again, not 100% original, but it mixes up multiple genres creating a game that seems fresh and different.
I could go on with the other games ive listed, and name some more, but i think ive made my point.
Cartridges cost more to produce, hence the higher RRP at the point of sale. £60 is pretty unjustified for CBFD, but reports are saying that Nintendo justified this price because it would put kids off buying it, and it wasn't a kids game. (Nice one Ninendo, great marketing strategy as always....)
The only other game that hit £60 that wasn't a limited edition or gold plated was probably Street Fighter, but that was just the developers and publishers getting very greedy because they knew that the game would sell at any price, such was the hype surrounding it whilst it was in production.
Sequels are more and more in circulation because developers have yet to get to grips with the new technology of the PS2 and the other next gen consoles. There is only so much that you can do with the existing pre-PS2 consoles, Metal Gear Solid is notable for being hailed as the game that really pushed the old PlayStation to it's technical limits, most people agree that not much can now be done with it.
Your Quake 3/ UT idea is interesting. Both to me are just sequels, in that Quake 3 is a sequel in a series, and UT is just another First Person Shooter, although those two particular titles are the top of their genre.
I think as developers get to grips with programming for the new consoles that are coming out, that we should start to see more game engines being developed which will bring new levels of gameplay into our gaming arena, a good thing for all, and we'll get out of this rut of sequels and 'same engine different title' production.
Give it another 5 years or so, and I expect we'll be complaining about more sequels again.
The only other game that hit £60 that wasn't a limited edition or gold plated was probably Street Fighter, but that was just the developers and publishers getting very greedy because they knew that the game would sell at any price, such was the hype surrounding it whilst it was in production.
Sequels are more and more in circulation because developers have yet to get to grips with the new technology of the PS2 and the other next gen consoles. There is only so much that you can do with the existing pre-PS2 consoles, Metal Gear Solid is notable for being hailed as the game that really pushed the old PlayStation to it's technical limits, most people agree that not much can now be done with it.
Your Quake 3/ UT idea is interesting. Both to me are just sequels, in that Quake 3 is a sequel in a series, and UT is just another First Person Shooter, although those two particular titles are the top of their genre.
I think as developers get to grips with programming for the new consoles that are coming out, that we should start to see more game engines being developed which will bring new levels of gameplay into our gaming arena, a good thing for all, and we'll get out of this rut of sequels and 'same engine different title' production.
Give it another 5 years or so, and I expect we'll be complaining about more sequels again.
I think there are a lot of problems with the gaming industry, for a start, the price. I can understand that there are production prices, and programming fees etc. and I know that PC games are more expensive because they are so easy to copyand pirate. But console games, for example N64 games, are upwards to as much as £60 for a brand new game, over twice as much as a brand new PC game, yet cartridges are (as far as I know) unable to be copied, or at least, very difficult. So can anyone explain to me why they are so expensive?
Secondly, I think the games market has very much got stuck in a vicious circle. So many copies and sequals are being made of games that there are very few original ideas now, with certain genres of game dominating the market. I think that game developers are either afraid to make new and original games because the market has settled to making the same style of game, or they lack the ideas, in which case I think they should look towards the game players for ideas.
A good idea at the moment, would be a nice battle of games, like Quake 3: Arena and Unreal Tournament provided. It brought apon huge debates about which was better, and large amounts of new maps and mods were created to try and out-do the other game. Sides were taken, and I think this is what the games industry needs RIGHT NOW!
And anyway, Quake 3: Arena was sooooooo much better than Unreal Tournament, how can you deathmatch game create by the original deathmatch creators...?
Secondly, I think the games market has very much got stuck in a vicious circle. So many copies and sequals are being made of games that there are very few original ideas now, with certain genres of game dominating the market. I think that game developers are either afraid to make new and original games because the market has settled to making the same style of game, or they lack the ideas, in which case I think they should look towards the game players for ideas.
A good idea at the moment, would be a nice battle of games, like Quake 3: Arena and Unreal Tournament provided. It brought apon huge debates about which was better, and large amounts of new maps and mods were created to try and out-do the other game. Sides were taken, and I think this is what the games industry needs RIGHT NOW!
And anyway, Quake 3: Arena was sooooooo much better than Unreal Tournament, how can you deathmatch game create by the original deathmatch creators...?