IGN rant blaming gamers for loss of innovation

[TheEdge]

http://retro.ign.com/articles/956/956296p1.html

Editorial: You Failed SEGA
But you can avenge the death of Jet Set Radio.
by Levi Buchanan
February 23, 2009 - When planning last week's Where Did Sonic Go Wrong? feature, I asked fellow IGN editors about their take on Sonic's trajectory. Hilary Goldstein, editor-in-chief of IGN Xbox, linked Sonic's fortunes directly to SEGA's: "The real problem is that for many years, SEGA invested considerable resources into games that were critical hits but financial failures. SEGA chose to break up the teams that made Jet Set Radio, Panzer Dragoon Orta and Gunvalkyrie -- three of the best SEGA titles of the past generation -- and focus on products that made cash."

Remember that for a moment.

There is something deliciously rich about reading message board rants and blog missives that excoriate publishing giants like Activision and Electronic Arts for pushing a steady stream of sequels and franchise expansions into the marketplace. Gamers act as if they abhor such practices, but sales figures say something quite different. Last holiday season, EA released the innovative first-person free-runner Mirror's Edge as part of their stated effort to focus more on original, non-annual games. Guess how Mirror's Edge sold? It didn't even reach the top 20 in November, it's first month of release, typically the window where games make their biggest splash.

Nice moves, guys.

Is Mirror's Edge a perfect game? No. But it was an intense effort from EA to respond to concerns that videogames were turning into soulless commodities. Instead of rewarding EA's risk-taking, we all said "more please" to Call of Duty: World at War. That's not a slam against World at War, because it is a fine World War II shooter. But how many World War II shooters do we really need to play? Your dollars just told these publishers that you value refinements over revolutions.

But this is hardly a new phenomenon. The duplicitous nature of gamers once laid low an entire hardware maker by not supporting what they are now publicly demanding: SEGA.

On September 9, 1999, SEGA released the Dreamcast in North America. The console was the culmination of four years of listening to complaints about the Saturn and responding with a feature set that met almost all of them. It wasn't just the addition of a modem for online play and the ease of programming to encourage greater third-party support, though, that made the Dreamcast such a special machine. The Dreamcast was SEGA's love letter to gamers that wanted fresh concepts and ideas.

The majority of gamers stamped it with "return to sender."

Samba!Sony's promises of "Toy Story" graphics for the PlayStation 2 (still waiting) blunted the Dreamcast's momentum and eventually forced SEGA into pulling the plug before it pulled the whole company under with it. The embrace of the PS2 is not a negative. The effect of the PS2's success on the videogame industry -- heck, the entire entertainment industry -- cannot be undersold.

But SEGA was trying to do something very clever with Dreamcast software like Samba de Amigo, Space Channel 5, ChuChu Rocket!, and Jet Grind Radio. Why did gamers largely turn their backs on this stuff? And does anybody see the crazy irony behind the lamentation of an over-reliance on franchises when great games like this now exist in the rear view mirror?

It wasn't always like this. There was a time in this industry when SEGA reigned supreme. SEGA's development studios were arcade kings due to such blistering hits like Space Harrier and After Burner. Their rule was extended by monsters like Daytona USA, Virtua Cop, and Virtua Fighter.

That success was not replicated at home right away. The Master System was a flea on the rear-end of Nintendo's elephant. Nevermind the amazing games for the Master System like the Phantasy Star and Alex Kidd in Miracle World. The NES cleaned the Master System's clock. The Genesis, on the other hand, was a big hit and ran neck and neck with the Super NES for sometime. Factors contributing to that success are legion, from Sonic the Hedgehog to the emergence of Madden. The accurate recreations of arcade hits like Altered Beast sure didn't hurt either. SEGA was starting to really show its chops with innovative home games during the Genesis' halcyon days, from ToeJam & Earl to Ecco the Dolphin. And SEGA was rewarded for those efforts.

Not so much with the Saturn, but that was a disaster of SEGA's own making. Two of SEGA's greatest achievements appeared on the Saturn -- Panzer Dragoon and NiGHTS -- but the console was so mishandled and mismanaged that you cannot fairly blame gamers for letting the Saturn wither on the shelf

But not the Dreamcast. And definitely not the first wave of SEGA's post-hardware games. After an initial outpouring of success with the Dreamcast, SEGA threw hardcore gamers a real party with such incredible new games like Jet Grind Radio and Samba de Amigo, as well as excellent arcade ports such as SEGA Rally and House of the Dead 2. The original Dreamcast titles were fresh ideas we had not seen before, especially something like Jet Grind Radio, which pioneered an entirely new art style for games that is still used today. How did we thank SEGA? By stepping over Shenmue on the way to pre-order SSX.

Remember the quote from Hilary that opened this editorial: "The real problem is that for many years, SEGA invested considerable resources into games that were critical hits but financial failures. SEGA chose to break up the teams that made Jet Set Radio, Panzer Dragoon Orta and Gunvalkyrie -- three of the best SEGA titles of the past generation -- and focus on products that made cash."

Hilary is dead right. SEGA did not see the death of the Dreamcast as a reason to stop weaving its magic and immediately set about crafting its unique brand of games for the surviving machines like the Xbox. But sales of those games certainly told them otherwise. We weren't interested no matter what system they appeared on. Take your flying dragon action game and stuff it up Sonic's cakehole. That gorgeous rocket-skating game with a bleeding edge soundtrack? Eat it. We're playing Tony Hawk's Pro Skateboarding 4! And then we're going to have the cojones to complain a few years later that -- boo hoo -- EA just keeps annualizing Need for Speed. (Side note: Those of you that ignored EA's Shox are jerks.)

I bring this up now specifically because of the economic climate. In 2001, there was an assumption that videogames were recession-proof. After the last six months of heartbreaking stories about studio closures, we know that's not true.

At DICE 2009, EA CEO John Riccitiello's stated his belief that the recession was a "blessing" for the industry. It would shake out C-level players that made C-level games. He also said EA would continue to invest in new ideas with games like Dante's Inferno and Dragon Age. Good on them. If they are great games, then the ball is definitely in our court.

The shrinking amount of discretionary dollars to spend on videogames puts us at a critical crossroads. They way we spend them right now could have very long-reaching effects on the games of the next ten years.

I implore you to consider the legacy of SEGA's business-driven abandonment of games like Jet Set Radio Future. The tanking of the Dreamcast cannot be avenged, but nor should it be forgotten. So, think about the ghost of Panzer Dragoon before you put down that copy of Dead Space and pick up the latest Guitar Hero. And before you curse Activision for ditching games like Brutal Legend, look down and make sure you don't have the blood of Gunvalkyrie on your hands. Because if you do, you lack the righteousness needed to rail against that decision.

Spend smartly. Spend like the possibility of a new Jet Set Radio depends on it.


I stand vindicated yet again!

Stagnation of the Seventh Generation

[MrMatthews]

I read this article the other day and thought of you. Very interesting and VALID points being made here.

But the article isn't dismissing this entire generation of games as stagnant. It is merely pointing out that original IPs are being largely ignored in favor of tired, "safe" sequels.

If anything, I'd say that this generation is shaping up to be more ambitious and innovative than the last. The writer is advising gamers to reward and encourage this development by actually BUYING these games.

You should get a current-gen console so you can help. ;)

[Scooter]

So of course the facts that Sega had morons at the helm (Stolar most of all), repeatedly failed their loyal fanbase, repeatedly made overpriced and underselling hardware add-ons without a good idea of what to actually do with them and had a distinct lack of third party support starting with the Saturn and continuing into the Dreamcast had nothing to do with the Dreamcast's failure (and along with it many of the innovative games made for that system).....

[TheEdge]

I read this article the other day and thought of you. Very interesting and VALID points being made here.

But the article isn't dismissing this entire generation of games as stagnant. It is merely pointing out that original IPs are being largely ignored in favor of tired, "safe" sequels.

equals (=) Stagnation. :cool:


1+1=2

[Melf]

I have to call bullshit in a sense, on this one. Levi is arguing about how people bitch about sequels on message boards, and that's true. What isn't, however, is that these are the same people who buy the same old crap instead of buying original and creative games. Who does he think bought the few copies of PDO, Shenmue, and Gun Valkyrie that were sold? Soccer moms?

This article is preaching to the choir.

[Metal_Sonic]

Noby Noby Boy
Flower
Fl0w
Locoroco Coccoreccho
Lumines
Eye of Judgement
The Buzz! series
Brain Challenge
Piyotama
LittleBigPlanet
Blast Factor
Super Stardust HD
Cash Gun Chaos
Pain
Soldner-X
Valkyria Chronicles
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Geometry Wars

Stagnation?
I could keep going. I didn't even add DS games.

[TheEdge]

I liked these quotes the best.



That gorgeous rocket-skating game with a bleeding edge soundtrack? Eat it. We're playing Tony Hawk's Pro Skateboarding 4!


Instead of rewarding EA's risk-taking, we all said "more please" to Call of Duty: World at War. That's not a slam against World at War, because it is a fine World War II shooter. But how many World War II shooters do we really need to play? Your dollars just told these publishers that you value refinements over revolutions.



Sony's promises of "Toy Story" graphics for the PlayStation 2 (still waiting)

[Scooter]

equals (=) Stagnation. :cool:


No, not necessarily. Just because the subject matter is based on previously covered material does not necessarily mean that the sequel can't also be innovative. For example, can you honestly say that Panzer Dragoon Saga wasn't innovative in some ways because it was based on a storyline already used in two previous games?

Also, simply including innovation does not always equate to a better game or a step forward. Dragon's Lair was certainly innovative in it's time, but was it really a better way to play a game? How many small run, high on innovation games are there that no one ever talks about and which have mostly been forgotten simply because as games they simply suck? Sega's Make My Video games on the Sega CD were certainly innovative for their time but as games they reeked.

Additionally, what one gamer considers an innovation may not be recognized as such by another gamer. I've played some games that were sequels with supposed "innovations" from the previous version only to find that those "innovations" were, at least in my experience, annoyances instead.

[Elusive]

What a hypocrite.

"You utter morons! Stop buying games created by GIGANTIC SOUL-LESS CORPORATIONS! Stop buying *this* kind of game, buy *these* games instead! Support the 'little guy' in the industry!" *works for IGN, apportions review scores based on freebies from developer*


no what is this, seriously, all the author is doing is namedropping titles - a vast, varied spectrum of titles, from all different genres - that appear on GameFAQs' Top Ten lists and saying 'YES THESE ARE GOOD DO MORE OF THESE'.

[Metal_Sonic]

Noby Noby Boy
Flower
Fl0w
Locoroco Coccoreccho
Lumines
Eye of Judgement
The Buzz! series
Brain Challenge
Piyotama
LittleBigPlanet
Blast Factor
Super Stardust HD
Cash Gun Chaos
Pain
Soldner-X
Valkyria Chronicles
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Geometry Wars

Stagnation?
I could keep going. I didn't even add DS games.

I like this quote the best.

[TheEdge]

No, not necessarily. Just because the subject matter is based on previously covered material does not necessarily mean that the sequel can't also be innovative. For example, can you honestly say that Panzer Dragoon Saga wasn't innovative in some ways because it was based on a storyline already used in two previous games?

Also, simply including innovation does not always equate to a better game or a step forward. Dragon's Lair was certainly innovative in it's time, but was it really a better way to play a game? How many small run, high on innovation games are there that no one ever talks about and which have mostly been forgotten simply because as games they simply suck? Sega's Make My Video games on the Sega CD were certainly innovative for their time but as games they reeked.

Additionally, what one gamer considers an innovation may not be recognized as such by another gamer. I've played some games that were sequels with supposed "innovations" from the previous version only to find that those "innovations" were, at least in my experience, annoyances instead.

Good points BUT the question in my "Seventh Generation Stagnation" thread is not about innovation.


Has making video games become standardized? Is it like something out of an assembly line. Very generic. Where is the revolutionary game play? Where is the raising of the standards?

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6086


^ This was the question and I stand completely vindicated. At least in my opinion.

The only reason why people continue to harp on the word "innovation" is because one person read the thread wrong and ran with it.

[MrMatthews]

equals (=) Stagnation. :cool:


1+1=2

No, it certainly does not. All it means is that people are choosing to ignore the quality, original titles that developers are offering in lieu of rehashed shovelware that clutter up the libraries of every single generation of games since video games became a profitable commidity.

Imagine if 60% of all games released for a console were respectable games. You might say that that's a damn good library. However, the remaining 40% were Madden sequels, licensed games, and Tom Clancy/WWII shooters. Just because more people bought from that 40% than the 60% doesn't mean the library was "stagnant."

Levi addresses some of the comments you have made here, but he is not condemning this generation at all. He is launching this argument against parents who bought their kids Wall-E over deBlob (etc)

[TheEdge]

I think this article shows the root cause of the stagnation. Now if you excuse me I have to go and play some Call of Duty 10

[MrMatthews]

I'll agree with that much, then.

[Metal_Sonic]

Dont mind me, I am just gonna keep adding to my list.

Gears of War
Killzone 2
MadWorld
Halo Wars(Finally, a decent Console Strat)
Street Fighter IV(No SFII rehash Capcom? Hooray!)
Lost Planet
MLB 09(Baseball has never been this realistic)
The Lego series
Heavenly Sword
Super Mario Galaxy
Left 4 Dead
Fallout 3
Assassins Creed
Mirrors Edge
Dead Space
Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts
Sid Meirs Civilization Revolution
Dead Rising
Tales of Vesperia
Folklore
Uncharted: Drakes Fortune
Bioshock
Motorstorm 1 & 2
Condemned 1 & 2
Dark Sector

Dear me, so much stagnant games this gen.....Oh wait.

[jesus.arnold]

Dont mind me, I am just gonna keep adding to my list.

Gears of War
Killzone 2
MadWorld
Halo Wars(Finally, a decent Console Strat)
Street Fighter IV(No SFII rehash Capcom? Hooray!)
Lost Planet
MLB 09(Baseball has never been this realistic)
The Lego series
Heavenly Sword
Super Mario Galaxy
Left 4 Dead
Fallout 3
Assassins Creed
Mirrors Edge
Dead Space
Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts
Sid Meirs Civilization Revolution
Dead Rising
Tales of Vesperia
Folklore
Uncharted: Drakes Fortune
Bioshock
Motorstorm 1 & 2
Condemned 1 & 2
Dark Sector

Dear me, so much stagnant games this gen.....Oh wait.I'm not really sure what to make of this list, why did you make a list of stagnant games including one or two unique games? :?

[oldmanwinters]

Sigh... the Dreamcast still lives in my heart.:rip::sonic:

I was a NES and Genesis devotee back in their heyday. But no system captured my imagination like that beautiful gray box with the funky swirl.

[TheEdge]

Sigh... the Dreamcast still lives in my heart.:rip::sonic:

I was a NES and Genesis devotee back in their heyday. But no system captured my imagination like that beautiful gray box with the funky swirl.

:nod: :love: :rock:

[InternalPrimate]

Has making video games become standardized? Is it like something out of an assembly line. Very generic. Where is the revolutionary game play? Where is the raising of the standards?

Sounds like you're describing the need for innovation, just without using the word "innovation". And then arguing with people for misconstruing your original point, saying you weren't talking about innovation.

My issue with articles like these are that they're entirely hypocritical. These same people begging for original IPs and innovative gameplay also beg for traditional "hardcore" games on the Wii.

That being said, I'd kill for a sequel to either Panzer Dragoon Orta or Jet Set Radio Future.

*Reads article, shrugs, goes and plays COD:4*

[MrMatthews]

I'm not really sure what to make of this list, why did you make a list of stagnant games including one or two unique games? :?
I think there are a few different interpretations of "stagnation" going on here.

It's one thing for a game to be released in a genre cluttered with look-alikes and me-too's; it's quite another to actually stand-out in such a crowd. A game doesn't need to re-invent the wheel to be great.

[17daysolderthannes]

Noby Noby Boy
Flower
Fl0w
Locoroco Coccoreccho
Lumines
Eye of Judgement
The Buzz! series
Brain Challenge
Piyotama
LittleBigPlanet
Blast Factor
Super Stardust HD
Cash Gun Chaos
Pain
Soldner-X
Valkyria Chronicles
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Geometry Wars

Stagnation?
I could keep going. I didn't even add DS games.

That list is laughably short compared to the late 80's/early 90's list of innovative games, especially considering the difference in number of homes with a video game console nowadays.

The same problem with stagnation exists with movies as well: the 90% of the retard public wants the same old shit so the 10% that can appreciate something new gets the shaft.

As far as I'm concerned, Street Fighter IV might as well be called "Super Street Fighter II plus a couple other new characters 2.5D HD Remix ruined by another gay inclusion of a combo system." (in a related story, I HATE combo system fighters, combo systems make every match into a waiting game to see who can initiate a 20 hit combo first and win the match, mega lame).

I think the most sequels a serious should see is 3 without some AMAZING EARTH SHATTERING redesign. Rare managed to make a brilliant sequel to Goldeneye with Perfect Dark, even though technically there is no relation to one another other than genre. The only real complaint you could make is that you preferred modern day weapons over the futuristic space weapons of Perfect Dark.

Obscene sequels killed the arcades too IMO (people say it was home consoles catching up, but come on, there are some things you just have to do at the arcade). How many sequels did every game get on the Neo Geo? Almost every Neo Geo game either died off after the first iteration or went on to make 6 sequels. I still can barely tell a difference between Fatal Fury 3 and Real Bout Fatal Fury 2: the newcomers. I would've preferred fewer sequels with more time spent on each one. Some of this may have been arcades groaning about home console ports taking their business as well.

Some sequels, however, I believe are necessary and justified, particularly sims like Gran Turismo. Gran Turismo is sort of like the tech demo for the capabilities of the Sony hardware and always has substantial enhancements and improvements over the previous version.

I'm kind of torn overall: on the one hand, I like it when developers go back and revive a cherished series like the Mega Man 2.5D remakes for PSP or a new Mario game (Galaxy), but at the same time, you just have to ask yourself, "why can't you make a totally new game with the same loveable charm as Mega Man or Mario?"

[TheEdge]

That list is laughably short compared to the late 80's/early 90's list of innovative games, especially considering the difference in number of homes with a video game console nowadays.

The same problem with stagnation exists with movies as well: the 90% of the retard public wants the same old shit so the 10% that can appreciate something new gets the shaft.


Yep, I can't understand it. Its like the bar keeps getting lowered. My friend told me that he hasn't seen a good movie since 1990. lol, I have to agree with him. Yes there was a few different ones that came out but overall the quality has gone done immensely.

[MrMatthews]

Yep, I can't understand it. Its like the bar keeps getting lowered. My friend told me that he hasn't seen a good movie since 1990. lol, I have to agree with him. Yes there was a few different ones that came out but overall the quality has gone done immensely.


It's pretty easy to explain. Whereas not terribly long ago only about a hundred movies or so were released to theaters, nowadays you can multiply that by five or six.

Most movies these days (just like most games) are quick cashgrabs that are designed specifically to give the public what it wants (and as quickly as possible too, before word-of-mouth kicks in).

There are just as many good movies released today as there were ten or twenty years ago, but for the most part they get buried under the far more flashy (and marketable) eye candy movies.

[17daysolderthannes]

It's pretty easy to explain. Whereas not terribly long ago only about a hundred movies or so were released to theaters, nowadays you can multiply that by five or six.

Most movies these days (just like most games) are quick cashgrabs that are designed specifically to give the public what it wants (and as quickly as possible too, before word-of-mouth kicks in).

There are just as many good movies released today as there were ten or twenty years ago, but for the most part they get buried under the far more flashy (and marketable) eye candy movies.

well some of it too (and I should've mentioned this in my first post) is due to the fact that so much has already been done that something new is actually hard to do. It's like being a physicist or mathematician now vs. 100 or 200 years ago. Back then, everything was a breakthrough discovery. Now, just about any physics or math related discovery is just a tiny little variation of what was already there and so specific that most people would never know the difference.

[GameUser-16-32-128]

Sigh... the Dreamcast still lives in my heart.:rip::sonic:

I was a NES and Genesis devotee back in their heyday. But no system captured my imagination like that beautiful gray box with the funky swirl.

Sounds like your DC needs a good clean up! Get that dust off!

[Alvatron]

That's a nice article and all, but I didn't buy a Dreamcast because I was worried about innovation. I just wanted to play some good games. There we go.

[Metal_Sonic]

That list is laughably short compared to the late 80's/early 90's list of innovative games, especially considering the difference in number of homes with a video game console nowadays.

Oh dear me, you didn't read your own post did you? Of course games were innovative in the 80's/90's, they were still new back then. The only new type of thing would be Fl0w, Flower, The Katamari Damacy series and Noby Noby Boy. I seriously dont get what TheEdge expects from this gen, like you and others have said, you can only improve the wheel, not reinvent it. If you say the games in both my lists are bad, you're delusional. I think its a case of the nostalgias because its a fact shit is more spectacular when you're younger.

[Chilly Willy]

I think its a case of the nostalgias because its a fact shit is more spectacular when you're younger.

QFT.

Long gone are the days when I'd spend 18 hours straight playing Missile Command. Older gamers demand more. That's one reason DS games sell better - they're aimed at little kids who don't demand anything other than the next bit of shovelware.

[Kiba in Exile]

Jet Set Radio and JSR Future were awesome. But I just want Shenmue 3.

[17daysolderthannes]

Oh dear me, you didn't read your own post did you? Of course games were innovative in the 80's/90's, they were still new back then. The only new type of thing would be Fl0w, Flower, The Katamari Damacy series and Noby Noby Boy. I seriously dont get what TheEdge expects from this gen, like you and others have said, you can only improve the wheel, not reinvent it. If you say the games in both my lists are bad, you're delusional. I think its a case of the nostalgias because its a fact shit is more spectacular when you're younger.

Its not a matter of being bad, just many of them being slightly altered updates of the previous game.

For some retarded ass reason Japan seems to have plenty of innovative games, yet we get almost none of them here. Katamari Damacy, Loco Roco, Patapon, etc. are all VERY Japanese games, yet represent a tiny fraction of very innovative Japanese titles released in America (Tant R would be a retro example if you have the Sega Classics Collection, it's like Wario Ware before there was Wario Ware). While we're going "ohhhh for fucks sake" at the new Call of Duty 9 or Halo 12, companies are missing big opportunities to drop the innovative Japanese titles on us.


QFT.

Long gone are the days when I'd spend 18 hours straight playing Missile Command. Older gamers demand more. That's one reason DS games sell better - they're aimed at little kids who don't demand anything other than the next bit of shovelware.

I find DS games aren't games so much as they are activity playsets. Kids just get excited they can "blow" into the microphone, etc. rather than wanting any real challenge, which explains the whole Wii dilemma. I guess developers collectively decided that hard games aren't worth making because too much of the public is too stupid to play them. I think that's why video games were considered a "nerd" hobby back in the day: the nerds were the only people smart enough to excel at them.


Jet Set Radio and JSR Future were awesome. But I just want Shenmue 3.

JSR felt like a cheesy Tony Hawk ripoff to me. The controls are crap and I could care less about putting tags on walls. Besides, you can do that on Tony Hawk anyway (one of the games has it for sure, American Wasteland?). Shenmue was unique, but very heavy winded as well, I just kind of felt like "so how many people do I have to talk to before I can walk 3 more feet this way?" I hate games with too much dialogue, text is for books, not for games.

[jesus.arnold]

Oh dear me, you didn't read your own post did you? Of course games were innovative in the 80's/90's, they were still new back then.No, you are completely wrong here, games in the 80's were not innovative because they were new, they were innovative because they were all widely different to each other and original.

You didn't categorize games for the C64 or Spectrum because 70% of them were different concepts, It was often impossible to pick up and play games for those systems without reading the instructions first.

I played Killzone 2 the other day, picked it up and played it as though I'd played it a hundred times before without reading any instructions or anything, you know why, I have played the game a hundred times before because it's a clone.


The only new type of thing would be Fl0w, Flower, The Katamari Damacy series and Noby Noby Boy. I seriously dont get what TheEdge expects from this gen, like you and others have said, you can only improve the wheel, not reinvent it. If you say the games in both my lists are bad, you're delusional. I think its a case of the nostalgias because its a fact shit is more spectacular when you're younger.Unfortunately you are a product of this generation of consoles, you're used to it to the stage where it seems normal and you expect nothing else, there is no real reason why this many 1st person shooters should be coming out at all, what about 1st person adventure games? all that seemed to come out was Metroid Prime or even 1st person sword fighting games like Maken X? don't see 12 of them coming out a year improving on the idea.

If anything I would say that Halo 3, Killzone 2 and the Resistance games are a massive step back we had stuff like Deus Ex last gen for f#cks sake and now we have games were the whole point is

1. move from A to B shoot bad guys,

2. move from B to C shoot bad guys,

3. watch FMV scene,

4. do vehicle level

5. Goto 1

[MrMatthews]

No, you are completely wrong here, games in the 80's were not innovative because they were new, they were innovative because they were all widely different to each other and original.

You didn't categorize games for the C64 or Spectrum because 70% of them were different concepts, It was often impossible to pick up and play games for those systems without reading the instructions first.

I played Killzone 2 the other day, picked it up and played it as though I'd played it a hundred times before without reading any instructions or anything, you know why, I have played the game a hundred times before because it's a clone.

You know what? I agree. And all I can say is that thank God all those platformers and shooters came with instruction manuals back then, because I otherwise wouldn't have had the slightest clue how to jump from one game to the other.

Wipe the mist from your eyes when looking back at yesterday's games, and I think you'll see that there were just as many clones back then as there are today.

How many side/vertically-scrolling spaceship/airplane shooters did we have back then? How were they "wildly different" from each other?

How many run-to-the-right, collect-100-thingies-for-a-life platformers did we have back then? How many brawlers did we have? What about fighters or Tetris clones?

Just as there have been innovators and trail blazers since the dawn of video games, there have been immitators that try to capitalize on the success of another. And even in the 80's/90's, there were a lot more of the latter than the former.

But what I said about this generation is the same as all the others - just because you make a Mario clone or Double Dragon clone doesn't mean that you can't make a great Mario or Double Dragon clone.


Unfortunately you are a product of this generation of consoles, you're used to it to the stage where it seems normal and you expect nothing else, there is no real reason why this many 1st person shooters should be coming out at all, what about 1st person adventure games? all that seemed to come out was Metroid Prime or even 1st person sword fighting games like Maken X? don't see 12 of them coming out a year improving on the idea.

If anything I would say that Halo 3, Killzone 2 and the Resistance games are a massive step back we had stuff like Deus Ex last gen for f#cks sake and now we have games were the whole point is

1. move from A to B shoot bad guys,

2. move from B to C shoot bad guys,

3. watch FMV scene,

4. do vehicle level

5. Goto 1

First of all, remember that Metal Sonic is on a retro-game fansite. Just because it doesn't give him the perspective of playing them originally doesn't mean that he's completely oblivious to the differences between this generation at the last.

Whereas we once had to choose between top-down or side-scrolling action games, now we get to choose between first-person or third-person. Take your pick, but know first that there are only so many different ways to make either one.

I'm pretty sure I said this in the last "innovation" thread, but today's games aren't any more or less like one-another than the games we played as kids.

Nostalgia is the main thing separating the generations.

[TheEdge]

:sweat::huh:

I never new one IGN article would cause such a big debate.

(pats self on back)

[MrMatthews]

Did you read the recent one about what might have happened if Sony hadn't ever released the Playstation? It's very interesting.

[TheEdge]

Did you read the recent one about what might have happened if Sony hadn't ever released the Playstation? It's very interesting.

No, I didn't see that one. Can you link it?

[MrMatthews]

No, I can't do it from my phone. Just go to retro.ign.com and you'll see it.

[17daysolderthannes]

http://retro.ign.com/articles/956/956990p1.html

I think they overstated Sony's "influence," Sony just won because they had the most balanced and versatile systems, coupled with a ruthless quest to get every freakin game made ported to it. "Mature" games were an inevitability, the only reason NES didn't have such games is the technology wasn't there. By 8-bit standards, Castlevania was pretty violent.

[TheEdge]

Sony won not because the PS2 was the most balanced. They won because they had money to bump out or compete with the competition. The PS2 has one of the worst libraries in the history of gaming.

80% of its games are dull, colorless, lifeless, and have absolutely no entertainment or replay value.

Bottom line is that the PS2, Microsoft, and Nintendo have lots of cash. Just look at Sony now. They have (HAD) so much money that they can take 3-4 billion dollars of lost sales and still keep going. They just outspent their competitors. Namely Sega.

[MrMatthews]

I didn't necessarily agree with everything they said. I think Nintendo's mature content (what little there was, anyway) definitely got overshadowed by the PSX, but I'm sure they would have gotten more into it on their own, eventually.

One thing that the article didn't acknowledge was that Sega wasn't shy about mature content, either. I think that, if the Nintendo/Sega battle had continued without any newcomers, Sega would have gone for more graphic games first (house of the dead, anyone?) and Nintendo would have followed suit.

[TheEdge]

I didn't necessarily agree with everything they said. I think Nintendo's mature content (what little there was, anyway) definitely got overshadowed by the PSX, but I'm sure they would have gotten more into it on their own, eventually.

One thing that the article didn't acknowledge was that Sega wasn't shy about mature content, either. I think that, if the Nintendo/Sega battle had continued without any newcomers, Sega would have gone for more graphic games first (house of the dead, anyone?) and Nintendo would have followed suit.


Yea, Nintendo would have been forced to. I think we all remember SNES Mortal Kombat II. Sega forced Nintendo to go into mature content to compete with it. I think it would have been good for Nintendo. They can't stay "family friendly" forever.

Madworld / House of the Dead is good examples of them finally getting the point. Ironically they are both made by Sega

[MrMatthews]

Despite what the article said, I can't imagine that the video game would be THAT worse off without Sony in the picture.

Mature content is kind of a weak argument, as far as I'm concerned, as are the games and series that debuted on the Playstation. I have a hard time accepting that it is through Sony's influence that Capcom and Konami came out with the Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Metal Gear Solid series. Both developers have strong history with Nintendo AND Sega, so I can easily imagine Resident Evil coming to the Saturn and Nintendo getting Castlevania: SOTN and MGS.

I have no love for any of the Playstations, even if I love some of their exclusives. I think we'd be better off without them.

Thanks, Nintendo. You brought this upon yourself and the rest of us.

[Metal_Sonic]

I played Killzone 2 the other day, picked it up and played it as though I'd played it a hundred times before without reading any instructions or anything, you know why, I have played the game a hundred times before because it's a clone.

Unfortunately you are a product of this generation of consoles, you're used to it to the stage where it seems normal and you expect nothing else, there is no real reason why this many 1st person shooters should be coming out at all, what about 1st person adventure games? all that seemed to come out was Metroid Prime or even 1st person sword fighting games like Maken X? don't see 12 of them coming out a year improving on the idea.

If anything I would say that Halo 3, Killzone 2 and the Resistance games are a massive step back we had stuff like Deus Ex last gen for f#cks sake and now we have games were the whole point is

1. move from A to B shoot bad guys,

2. move from B to C shoot bad guys,

3. watch FMV scene,

4. do vehicle level

5. Goto 1

Let me just do this

Noby Noby Boy - I can't think of a game similiar to this.
Flower - same as above
Fl0w - same as above
Locoroco Coccoreccho - same as above
Lumines - a variation of the puzzle genre, awesome game
Eye of Judgement - No other game like it.
The Buzz! series - Same as above
Brain Challenge - Overdone but still a good game, short of a IQ test
Piyotama - A puzzle game? in this day and age?
LittleBigPlanet - Platformer where users make maps? great!
Blast Factor - SHMUPS!YOU'RE BACK!
Super Stardust HD- Glad to see ya
Cash Gun Chaos - AND YOU BROUGHT TOP DOWN SHOOTER WITH YA?!
Pain - slingshot a human being into stuff = win
Soldner-X - Oh shmups
Valkyria Chronicles - Nice breath of air
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - This is one of the best WRPG's ive ever played.
Geometry Wars - A shmup with a twist
Gears of War - Best cover system ever plus chunking Locust is supreme
Killzone 2 - Bets graphics, a cover system that WORKS in 1st person? sign me up
MadWorld - Wii grows a pair
Halo Wars - Finally, a decent Console Strat
Street Fighter IV - No SFII rehash Capcom? Hooray!
Lost Planet - A new place, good story.
MLB 09 - Baseball has never been this realistic.
The Lego series - Platformers are alive.
Heavenly Sword - They sure are
Super Mario Galaxy - Mario came back with a vengeance
Left 4 Dead - Best game to play with friends.
Fallout 3 - Another superb WRPG
Assassins Creed - A little repetitive but a fresh take on sandbox games.
Mirrors Edge - You gotta play this
Dead Space - Survival Horror? in my seventh generation?
Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts - Platformer ahoy!
Sid Meirs Civilization Revolution - decent Console strat
Dead Rising - Fucking awesome
Tales of Vesperia - JRPGs are here too
Folklore - Great game
Uncharted: Drakes Fortune - 3rd person shooter done right, 10x better than Tomb Raider.
Bioshock - nuff said
Motorstorm 1 & 2 - speaks for itself
Condemned 1 & 2 - Survival horror is here to stay
Dark Sector - Meh, its allright

I'm still not gonna add the plethora of games on the DS. Whats innovative is an opinion, I think these games improve the formula from past games and some are brand new and fresh, but someone who has been playing games as long as you, not only do you have the nostalgias but you also have been playing so many years, it all starts to blend and look the same.

[TheEdge]

Despite what the article said, I can't imagine that the video game would be THAT worse off without Sony in the picture.

Mature content is kind of a weak argument, as far as I'm concerned, as are the games and series that debuted on the Playstation. I have a hard time accepting that it is through Sony's influence that Capcom and Konami came out with the Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Metal Gear Solid series. Both developers have strong history with Nintendo AND Sega, so I can easily imagine Resident Evil coming to the Saturn and Nintendo getting Castlevania: SOTN and MGS.

I have no love for any of the Playstations, even if I love some of their exclusives. I think we'd be better off without them.

Thanks, Nintendo. You brought this upon yourself and the rest of us.

Saturn did get Resident Evil 1 - too bad it was 18 months after the Playstation version came out.

Your right about Nintendo should have gotten Castlevania: SOTN instead of Playstation. I think it would have been better suited on a Nintendo system.

And why does no one ever mention about XBOX and Gamecube only being out for 3-4 years before they bagged them? Sega gets kicked in the ass in every blog / editorial for dropping the 32X and Saturn in the west. Why don't they jump on XBOX and Gamecube for only being out for a very short period of time as well?

[InternalPrimate]

And why does no one ever mention about XBOX and Gamecube only being out for 3-4 years before they bagged them? Sega gets kicked in the ass in every blog / editorial for dropping the 32X and Saturn in the west. Why don't they jump on XBOX and Gamecube for only being out for a very short period of time as well?

Because the circumstances surrounding these consoles all differed. Both the 32x and Saturn were highly unsuccessful when compared to their competition. I'm not saying the sucked (well, the 32X did), but it made more sense for Sega to regroup and focus on its next gen console then to put themselves in a bigger financial hole.

THe Xbox bowed out early because of momentum and opportunity. It had separated itself from the Gamecube as the number 2 system of last generation, and Microsoft wanted to have the first console of the current generation to corner the market. Simply put, it worked. Despite its mechanical problems and technical inferiority to the PS3, it's still outselling the PS3 2 to 1. It was a great business move.

The Gamecube, on the other hand, basically lasted a standard console generation - five years. So... they didn't bow out early.

[Chilly Willy]

Because the circumstances surrounding these consoles all differed. Both the 32x and Saturn were highly unsuccessful when compared to their competition. I'm not saying the sucked (well, the 32X did), but it made more sense for Sega to regroup and focus on its next gen console then to put themselves in a bigger financial hole.

THe Xbox bowed out early because of momentum and opportunity. It had separated itself from the Gamecube as the number 2 system of last generation, and Microsoft wanted to have the first console of the current generation to corner the market. Simply put, it worked. Despite its mechanical problems and technical inferiority to the PS3, it's still outselling the PS3 2 to 1. It was a great business move.

The Gamecube, on the other hand, basically lasted a standard console generation - five years. So... they didn't bow out early.

The XBox never made MS a cent during its lifespan. Hard to call that a success... unless the goal was to force competitors out of the market (cough - SEGA - cough). All of Sony's consoles except the PS3 make a profit. The PS3 is taking longer to make a profit than Sony hoped because it's so much more expensive, but it IS projected to start making a profit within the year.

It's not that Nintendo quit making the GC early, it's that they quit SUPPORTING it early. GC games trickled off to nothing long before its replacement appeared - it's only the success of the DS that Nintendo stayed afloat. That's why Nintendo decided to take a DS-ish approach to the GC's replacement - make it cheap (even if it's not as good as the competitors), and shovel out the shovelware aimed at kids.

[TheEdge]

The XBox never made MS a cent during its lifespan. Hard to call that a success... unless the goal was to force competitors out of the market (cough - SEGA - cough). All of Sony's consoles except the PS3 make a profit. The PS3 is taking longer to make a profit than Sony hoped because it's so much more expensive, but it IS projected to start making a profit within the year.

It's not that Nintendo quit making the GC early, it's that they quit SUPPORTING it early. GC games trickled off to nothing long before its replacement appeared - it's only the success of the DS that Nintendo stayed afloat. That's why Nintendo decided to take a DS-ish approach to the GC's replacement - make it cheap (even if it's not as good as the competitors), and shovel out the shovelware aimed at kids.

Thats what I'm saying. booooyakasha!\



Because the circumstances surrounding these consoles all differed. Both the 32x and Saturn were highly unsuccessful when compared to their competition. I'm not saying the sucked (well, the 32X did), but it made more sense for Sega to regroup and focus on its next gen console then to put themselves in a bigger financial hole.

THe Xbox bowed out early because of momentum and opportunity. It had separated itself from the Gamecube as the number 2 system of last generation, and Microsoft wanted to have the first console of the current generation to corner the market. Simply put, it worked. Despite its mechanical problems and technical inferiority to the PS3, it's still outselling the PS3 2 to 1. It was a great business move.

The Gamecube, on the other hand, basically lasted a standard console generation - five years. So... they didn't bow out early.

Saturn was a moderate success in Japan. Lasted all the way until the DC came out.

Xbox bowed out early because of momentum and opportunity?:? I don't believe that. It cut the cord just as early as any of Sega's past messes. Also you call that big piece of crap called the XBOX360 a console of opportunity????. Its hilarious that educated gamers are forced to pay for such crap because these soulless monopolies have taken control of the market. Just look at what has happened to video gaming. Stagnation and standardization. They turned it into a business program.

Back to the original point. Both XBOX and GC left the Sixth Generation early and they don't get shit about it. I think someone should call them on it. Especially on the GC

[jesus.arnold]

thank God all those platformers and shooters came with instruction manuals back then, because I otherwise wouldn't have had the slightest clue how to jump from one game to the other.

Wipe the mist from your eyes when looking back at yesterday's games, and I think you'll see that there were just as many clones back then as there are today.

How many side/vertically-scrolling spaceship/airplane shooters did we have back then? How were they "wildly different" from each other?

How many run-to-the-right, collect-100-thingies-for-a-life platformers did we have back then? How many brawlers did we have? What about fighters or Tetris clones?Whoah I have to check up here more often.

The answer is I had virtually no clone platformers I could pick up and play without checking instructions and very few shooters.

I have to remember that the NES the most un-original console ever created ruled America whilst falling on it's arse everwhere else, I was talking for myself and not realising it unfortunately.

In the UK the 80s were a massive push forward of new ideas and concepts in video games, in the US you had a plumber jumping over gaps :)


Whereas we once had to choose between top-down or side-scrolling action games, now we get to choose between first-person or third-person. Take your pick, but know first that there are only so many different ways to make either one.NO, Platformers are a diverse genre of games which entail things like mario style hop n' bop, sword slashing ninja gaiden, puzzle orientated stuff like Lost Vikings, fast paced run and gunning, and generally a few weirder concepts such as those found in rainbow islands.

Halo/Killzone/Resistance style first person shooters are not a genre they are a sub-genre if you converted them into platformers they would all be run and gun games, during the 16-bit era we did not have nothing but run N' gun games.

[jesus.arnold]

Let me just do this

Noby Noby Boy - I can't think of a game similiar to this.
Flower - same as above
Fl0w - same as above
Locoroco Coccoreccho - same as above
Lumines - a variation of the puzzle genre, awesome game
Eye of Judgement - No other game like it.
The Buzz! series - Same as above
Brain Challenge - Overdone but still a good game, short of a IQ test
Piyotama - A puzzle game? in this day and age?
LittleBigPlanet - Platformer where users make maps? great!
Blast Factor - SHMUPS!YOU'RE BACK!
Super Stardust HD- Glad to see ya
Cash Gun Chaos - AND YOU BROUGHT TOP DOWN SHOOTER WITH YA?!
Pain - slingshot a human being into stuff = win
Soldner-X - Oh shmups
Valkyria Chronicles - Nice breath of air
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - This is one of the best WRPG's ive ever played.
Geometry Wars - A shmup with a twist
Gears of War - Best cover system ever plus chunking Locust is supreme
Killzone 2 - Bets graphics, a cover system that WORKS in 1st person? sign me up
MadWorld - Wii grows a pair
Halo Wars - Finally, a decent Console Strat
Street Fighter IV - No SFII rehash Capcom? Hooray!
Lost Planet - A new place, good story.
MLB 09 - Baseball has never been this realistic.
The Lego series - Platformers are alive.
Heavenly Sword - They sure are
Super Mario Galaxy - Mario came back with a vengeance
Left 4 Dead - Best game to play with friends.
Fallout 3 - Another superb WRPG
Assassins Creed - A little repetitive but a fresh take on sandbox games.
Mirrors Edge - You gotta play this
Dead Space - Survival Horror? in my seventh generation?
Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts - Platformer ahoy!
Sid Meirs Civilization Revolution - decent Console strat
Dead Rising - Fucking awesome
Tales of Vesperia - JRPGs are here too
Folklore - Great game
Uncharted: Drakes Fortune - 3rd person shooter done right, 10x better than Tomb Raider.
Bioshock - nuff said
Motorstorm 1 & 2 - speaks for itself
Condemned 1 & 2 - Survival horror is here to stay
Dark Sector - Meh, its allright

I'm still not gonna add the plethora of games on the DS. Whats innovative is an opinion, I think these games improve the formula from past games and some are brand new and fresh, but someone who has been playing games as long as you, not only do you have the nostalgias but you also have been playing so many years, it all starts to blend and look the same.You've got some innovative game here i'll admit but how the hell can you say -

Motorstorm
Killzone 2
Heavenly sword
Eye of Judgement
Buzz
Halo Wars
Street Fighter IV

are original in any way?!!?!?!?

Buzz is a damn quiz game for gods sake!!!!

Eye of judgement is a Magic the Gathering/Yu Gi Oh rip off with a camera gimmick to force you into buying the cards separately instead of getting them all included free with the game.

The Lego Series?!!?!? wander around collecting stuff, walk over to a pile of lego and press a button repeatedly, the only reason why those games are good is the stories they are based off of and the 2 player, Traveller's Tales have been using this play-the-original-story tactic since the 16-bit days starting with that Mickey Mouse game (who's name elludes at the moment)

Heavenly Sword is a repetitive hack and slash watered down God of War game

Killzone 2?!?!! another crappy Halo clone, and I didn't particularly like Halo in the 1st place, wow it has a better working version of the cover system from Perfect Dark Zero/hoards of other games

Street Fighter IV, I got to the end of this game in 30 minutes using the same tactics I always use for a Street Fighter game.

Bioshock is not original or innovative it's just admirably well crafted (actually I guess the theme is original but the game is not innovative)

[JDB]

Sony won (...) because they just outspent their competitors. Namely Sega.

+1

[MrMatthews]

The answer is I had virtually no clone platformers I could pick up and play without checking instructions and very few shooters.

Alright, so side-scrolling platformers are tougher for you to figure out than today's games. I can't remember the last time I actually had to read the instructions to figure out how to play a none-strategy video game, and it certainly wasn't any platformer I own.


I have to remember that the NES the most un-original console ever created ruled America whilst falling on it's arse everwhere else, I was talking for myself and not realising it unfortunately.

Well, my hat goes off to you for managing to make a Top 100 list of games for "the most unoriginal console ever created."


In the UK the 80s were a massive push forward of new ideas and concepts in video games, in the US you had a plumber jumping over gaps :)

It's funny how completely unoriginal you seem to think the Mario games were (and yet all three NES games are at or near the top of your "Top 100" list). The original Super Mario Bros pretty much paved the way for most of the games of the next two generations, and I can honestly say that Nintendo has kept that series fresh and innovative with each consecutive release. But if you want to see them as just "a plumber jumping over gaps," then it's really pointless for me to argue with you.


NO, Platformers are a diverse genre of games which entail things like mario style hop n' bop, sword slashing ninja gaiden, puzzle orientated stuff like Lost Vikings, fast paced run and gunning, and generally a few weirder concepts such as those found in rainbow islands.

Why are you defining "platformer" for me, especially since the quote you are responding to said nothing about the genre, let alone something that I needed clarified? :confused:


Halo/Killzone/Resistance style first person shooters are not a genre they are a sub-genre if you converted them into platformers they would all be run and gun games, during the 16-bit era we did not have nothing but run N' gun games.

Are you tired or something?

I think you are really, really trying to argue with me. This is my original quote, to which both of your quotes above were responding:

"Whereas we once had to choose between top-down or side-scrolling action games, now we get to choose between first-person or third-person. Take your pick, but know first that there are only so many different ways to make either one."

For one, I'm amazed that you seem to disagree with that at all, since it's true And two, your "argument" isn't remotely related to what I said. I never said Halo/Killzone/Resistance style first person shooters were "platformers." I said they were action games, which they are. First- and third-person shooters are the evolution of games like Contra and MERCs, not Super Mario Bros or even Mega Man.

[jesus.arnold]

Alright, so side-scrolling platformers are tougher for you to figure out than today's games. I can't remember the last time I actually had to read the instructions to figure out how to play a none-strategy video game, and it certainly wasn't any platformer I own. You're not listening at all, there were not hoards of arcade platform games and scrolling shooters on the C64 or Spectrum, have you absolutely no experience with games from these machines?! yes there were some games from these genre's on those systems but not to the stage where they were in any kind of majority, heck I'd like to see how long it takes for you to learn how to play Armalyte, a C64 shoot-em-up properly without instructions, especially seeing as half the people I speak to online don't seem to know how to play it at all.


Well, my hat goes off to you for managing to make a Top 100 list of games for "the most unoriginal console ever created." un-original does not always equal bad, I don't mind that some 70% of the NES game library is made up of platformers and Shoot-em-ups, I like those games and the NES does a fantastic job of refining those genre's (not sub-genre's like First Person Shooter, if the NES had nothing but Run n' Gun games making up it's library then it would be a different matter entirely).


It's funny how completely unoriginal you seem to think the Mario games were, The original Super Mario Bros pretty much paved the way for most of the games of the next two generationsSuper Mario Bros is Pac Land with head bouncing that's it, yes head bouncing is a cool and important idea but it's not enough to hold up most of the NES library as original, people listen to Nintendo's PR department a little too much, Ghosts N' Goblins came out like a week after Super Mario Bros, Wonder Boy only a few months, both those games paved just as many important elements as SMB.


Why are you defining "platformer" for me, especially since the quote you are responding to said nothing about the genre, let alone something that I needed clarified? :confused:I'm defining platformers to you because for some reason you are comparing a sub-genre (FPS) to an entire genre (platformer) of video games, if there was any number of 1st person adventure games (how many of these even get made these days?!!? Metroid Prime has even started to morph more into an FPS with the 3rd) 1st person sword fighting games, of heck what about a 1st person game where you run around on rainbows that you've created?! then we would'nt be having this conversation would we?


"Whereas we once had to choose between top-down or side-scrolling action games, now we get to choose between first-person or third-person. Take your pick, but know first that there are only so many different ways to make either one."A more realistic thing to say is

"Whereas we once had to choose between Run N' Gun Games (Contra, Metal Slug), Hop N' Bop games (Mario, Marvel Land, Kid Chameleon), Puzzle Platformers (Lost Vikings), adventure platformers (Super Metroid, Wonder Boy in Monster World) Melee based Platformers (Ninja Gaiden, Strider), now we get to choose from First Person Shooters"

What the hell does it matter whether you could theoretically make a variety of different styles of First Person Games if nobody actually makes them for you to play?


I never said Halo/Killzone/Resistance style first person shooters were "platformers." I said they were action games, which they are. I never said you did, I wrote that because you compared what we have now, with what we had during the 16-bit era which is BS


First- and third-person shooters are the evolution of games like Contra and MERCs, not Super Mario Bros or even Mega Man.Now I'm confused, so you're admitting that we have much less variety now than we had then?

Also yes I do enjoying arguing with you just for the sake of arguing, especially when I'm bored :D

[InternalPrimate]

Saturn was a moderate success in Japan. Lasted all the way until the DC came out.

Xbox bowed out early because of momentum and opportunity?:? I don't believe that. It cut the cord just as early as any of Sega's past messes. Also you call that big piece of crap called the XBOX360 a console of opportunity????. Its hilarious that educated gamers are forced to pay for such crap because these soulless monopolies have taken control of the market. Just look at what has happened to video gaming. Stagnation and standardization. They turned it into a business program.

Back to the original point. Both XBOX and GC left the Sixth Generation early and they don't get shit about it. I think someone should call them on it. Especially on the GC


I guess me and Edge are back to our arguing ways :p

The Saturn was a moderate success in Japan, but I said unsuccessful when compared to their competition. Which I stand by. Again, I'm NOT saying the Saturn sucked, because I think it's a top 5 console if you import games.

Xbox did back out early because they saw the opportunity to release their next-gen console first. The proof is in the pudding, and it worked. I agree with you that the actual hardware itself is crap (I've had four different "ring of death" moments), but releasing first allowed them to create a strong user base that forced many PS3 exclusives (Assassins Creed, Devil May Cry 4, Final Fantasy XIII) to go multi-platform. The 360 is a success because Microsoft bowed out of the last generation early.

And I don't really know how to argue with you about the GC! It lasted five years, which again, is a standard console lifespan. And I'm not buying the "well, support ended long before the console was officially discontinued." argument. The GC received much better support in its last year than the N64 did, and no one here is arguing against that console. The GC may not have been very successful, but it wasn't a failure either.

[TheEdge]

I guess me and Edge are back to our arguing ways :p

The Saturn was a moderate success in Japan, but I said unsuccessful when compared to their competition. Which I stand by. Again, I'm NOT saying the Saturn sucked, because I think it's a top 5 console if you import games.

Xbox did back out early because they saw the opportunity to release their next-gen console first. The proof is in the pudding, and it worked. I agree with you that the actual hardware itself is crap (I've had four different "ring of death" moments), but releasing first allowed them to create a strong user base that forced many PS3 exclusives (Assassins Creed, Devil May Cry 4, Final Fantasy XIII) to go multi-platform. The 360 is a success because Microsoft bowed out of the last generation early.

And I don't really know how to argue with you about the GC! It lasted five years, which again, is a standard console lifespan. And I'm not buying the "well, support ended long before the console was officially discontinued." argument. The GC received much better support in its last year than the N64 did, and no one here is arguing against that console. The GC may not have been very successful, but it wasn't a failure either.


I'm not buying that. :!::cool:

The XBOX and GC were both short lived consoles and no matter what you say about the opportunities and theories behind why they "bowed out" is all very questionable. Hes the info on both the consoles



XBOX
Retail availability
NA November 15, 2001
JP February 22, 2002
PAL March 14, 2002

Discontinued
NA 2006
JP 2005

Gamecube
Release date
JP September 14, 2001 (2001-09-14)
NA November 18, 2001 (2001-11-18)
EU May 3, 2002 (2002-05-03)
AUS May 17, 2002

Discontinued
????

Someone should call out these two consoles. They need to explain themeselves

[jesus.arnold]

The GC received much better support in its last year than the N64 did, and no one here is arguing against that consoleDid I hear correctly that you're looking for someone to argue with about N64 support? :lol:

The N64 games I remember being released towards the end were Banjo Tooie, Majora's Mask, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Excite Bike 64 and Battle For Naboo, What did the Gamecube get? all I can remember were years of nothing broken up by some cheesy Mario cash-ins one christmas (Dance Mix, Mario Baseball Baseball) and then ending it off with Chibi Robo and Twilight Princess (which ended up multi-format with Wii).


The Saturn was a moderate success in Japan The Saturn was actually a massive success in Japan, it sped off into the lead and it took the PS1 years to catch up and surpass it mainly due to FFVII's popularity.


And I don't really know how to argue with you about the GC! It lasted five years, which again, is a standard console lifespan. And I'm not buying the "well, support ended long before the console was officially discontinued." argument. . The Gamecube was pretty much dead waaay before it was discontinued, I remember there being literally less than 5-10 worthwhile releases for the last 2 years of it's lifespan.

I think 2004 was probably it's last well supported year, with 2005 being it's last death throws of quality software support.

[MrMatthews]

You're not listening at all, there were not hoards of arcade platform games and scrolling shooters on the C64 or Spectrum, have you absolutely no experience with games from these machines?! yes there were some games from these genre's on those systems but not to the stage where they were in any kind of majority, heck I'd like to see how long it takes for you to learn how to play Armalyte, a C64 shoot-em-up properly without instructions, especially seeing as half the people I speak to online don't seem to know how to play it at all.

un-original does not always equal bad, I don't mind that some 70% of the NES game library is made up of platformers and Shoot-em-ups, I like those games and the NES does a fantastic job of refining those genre's (not sub-genre's like First Person Shooter, if the NES had nothing but Run n' Gun games making up it's library then it would be a different matter entirely).

Super Mario Bros is Pac Land with head bouncing that's it, yes head bouncing is a cool and important idea but it's not enough to hold up most of the NES library as original, people listen to Nintendo's PR department a little too much, Ghosts N' Goblins came out like a week after Super Mario Bros, Wonder Boy only a few months, both those games paved just as many important elements as SMB.

I'm defining platformers to you because for some reason you are comparing a sub-genre (FPS) to an entire genre (platformer) of video games, if there was any number of 1st person adventure games (how many of these even get made these days?!!? Metroid Prime has even started to morph more into an FPS with the 3rd) 1st person sword fighting games, of heck what about a 1st person game where you run around on rainbows that you've created?! then we would'nt be having this conversation would we?

A more realistic thing to say is

"Whereas we once had to choose between Run N' Gun Games (Contra, Metal Slug), Hop N' Bop games (Mario, Marvel Land, Kid Chameleon), Puzzle Platformers (Lost Vikings), adventure platformers (Super Metroid, Wonder Boy in Monster World) Melee based Platformers (Ninja Gaiden, Strider), now we get to choose from First Person Shooters"

What the hell does it matter whether you could theoretically make a variety of different styles of First Person Games if nobody actually makes them for you to play?

I never said you did, I wrote that because you compared what we have now, with what we had during the 16-bit era which is BS

Now I'm confused, so you're admitting that we have much less variety now than we had then?

Also yes I do enjoying arguing with you just for the sake of arguing, especially when I'm bored :D

Well, I think you're deliberately being obtuse, and I'm not going going to argue with you over what classifies as a "genre" and what classifies as an "sub-genre" game.

And no, I don't have any experience with the C64 or Spectrum.

[jesus.arnold]

Well, I think you're deliberately being obtuse, and I'm not going going to argue with you over what classifies as a "genre" and what classifies as an "sub-genre" game.

And no, I don't have any experience with the C64 or Spectrum.You're not going to argue anymore? :(

[MrMatthews]

You're not going to argue anymore? :(


Don't get me wrong, I think you're one of the best debaters on this site and you've actually made me think twice a couple times, but this argument is going nowhere because we are defining genres differently.

The platformers and "run-n-gun" games (which I call action games) both exist today. They have not mutually evolved into first-person shooters (which IMO aren't as popular today as third-person shooters)

[jesus.arnold]

Don't get me wrong, I think you're one of the best debaters on this site and you've actually made me think twice a couple times, but this argument is going nowhere because we are defining genres differently.

The platformers and "run-n-gun" games (which I call action games) both exist today. They have not mutually evolved into first-person shooters (which IMO aren't as popular today as third-person shooters)Do you have a flash cart for your DS? there is actually a Spectrum emulator for DS which is pretty much literally perfect (I think I've heard that the spectrum resolution fits the DS screen 1/1 or something) and the website Worldofspectrum.com actually asks the programmers of games for permission to host their games, so if you find a game there it's pretty much ok to download. You might like to try out the machine seeing as it never got a full release in the US, it did have over 1000 odd games made for it, though I'd imagine the Spectrum is pretty much of limited interest to those outside of Europe, many of it's games being in monochrome and all.

[MrMatthews]

I think I'm familiar with the machine, though. Is that the one that actually looks like a tiny arcade cabinet and has color overlays for the screen to simulate colors? Wire-frame graphics with games like battletank and asteroids?

[jesus.arnold]

I think I'm familiar with the machine, though. Is that the one that actually looks like a tiny arcade cabinet and has color overlays for the screen to simulate colors? Wire-frame graphics with games like battletank and asteroids?I think you mean something else, maybe the vectrex, here's a video I made ages ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkL1jNvkqVU&feature=channel_page

[MrMatthews]

Yeah, I think it was that was the one I was thinking of.

Either way, I haven't yet had a need for an SD card for my DS (I don't even know where the slot is). I might upgrade to the DSi at some point, so I will hold off until then.

But I've been more than satisfied with the existing DS library, so I haven't been tempted to use it to play any other kinds of games.

[TheEdge]

Here is a comment on one of CNET's articles. I believe this completely. This may be the beginning of the next Video Game crash.




I sure hope Sega doesn't get into the hardware "fray". Does anyone remember the collapse of the video game market in 1983? Part of the reason for the collapse was due to a far to heavy market penetration; Atari, Coleco, Fairchild, Magnavox, among others. (Another reason was lousy games, which, arguably, is happening once again.) This may well shape up; have you seen the dismal numbers the PS3 is posting against the Xbox 360 and Wii. (I don't want to get into the reason behind it; I'm just stating a fact that the PS3 lags well behind both consoles.) Historically, only two systems have been able to survive at any given time; SNES-Genesis; N64-Playstation; Xbox-PS2; add the Game Boy franchise and the PSP. I believe that this generation is shaping up to be Xbox 360 and Wii.
(If anyone is interested, I will post the "failures" that existed between all the generations of hardware. )

I would like to mention that I loved the Dreamcast - I believe it was better than the PS2, and probably would have done much better, if it hadn't been for some of the poor marketing decisions Sega made. While I might enjoy a new Sega machine, I don't think the current market (even before the "economic downturn") will be able to tolerate much more from a new system. They would certainly have to work very hard to mimic and improve on the availability of the current/next gen systems. And they would have to bring it home under the $200.00 mark to make it attractive to most of the general population.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10158267-17.html

[InternalPrimate]

Edge, for it to become the beginning of the next video game crash, wouldn't sales have to be down? As far as I know, video games is one of the few consistently growing industries around. Maybe the current economic climate will change that, but as is, the industry is doing better than ever.

[TheEdge]

Sega laid off 560

Sony laid off a couple thousand

Midway just went bankrupt

Where are you getting your info from?

[InternalPrimate]

Here (http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE51C0LU20090213)

[Metal_Sonic]

Yea the video game industry is rising during the recession, its just certain companies that are taking losses. Also, when I see one man say lousy games while the multitudes say otherwise(me being one of them) and with consoles selling more than ever, saying there is gonna be another video game crash is plain retarded.

[MrMatthews]

This may be the beginning of the next Video Game crash.

Edge, let's sidestep the fact that you aren't helping matters by not buying any new games (!) and head straight into some of the reasons for the original "crash" and how they differ from today's video game market.

(someone else feel free to jump in and fill some gaps and correct me if necessary)

1. How many systems were available at the time? Sure, there was Colecovision and Intellivision, but the 2600 was the unquestionable dominating force (in the US, at least, jesus.arnold ;)). Atari was not only on top, they arrogantly believed that they would remain on top indefinitely.

Imagine if the PS2 was the only system on the market . . . ever. It would be seen as a novelty. A fad. New games can come out for it indefinitely, but any fad burns brightly for a period of time and then sputters out. People are always looking for "the next big thing," and without one in sight from Atari, people began to move on.

2. Atari was run very poorly. As the 2600 became more and more successful and the money began pouring in, they demanded that games be completed more and more quickly. In their haste to meet unrealistic deadlines, game designers were forced to turn over unfinished hackjobs.

Yes, yes, everyone thinks of ET, but what about the fact that, not only was the game virtually unplayable, Atari produced 2-3 times as many games as the number of installed systems? That's a lot of money they just flushed down the drain right out of the gates, not to mention how much they lost in return sales.

Also remember that games were typically designed by one-man teams back then. One person who, according to Atari, should never be acknowledged (as opposed to the age we live in now, where game designers achieve rockstar-status). This pissed off a lot of their employees, who took pride in their work and felt they should be credited. This and the already less-than-ideal work conditions drove away Atari's game designers. Atari had to pay their employees exorbitant salaries to keep the best ones on board.

More money down the drain.

3. The industry was still new. No one really knew how it was "supposed" to work. The five-year life cycle of modern consoles was a non-factor back then. Keep in mind that, as popular as the 2600 was, the industry didn't have nearly the grip on the market as it has today. Modern consoles sell to everyone these days, from the kids who's first system ever is a PS3, Wii, or 360, to 30 and 40-somethings who have grown up playing video games. Nowadays even grandparents are buying them. Back then, video games were more of a niche market and not taken much more seriously than any other passing fad.

So if the industry wasn't taken seriously back then, there was no evolution in hardware or software to maintain people's interest, and the quality of the existing software was dropping abyssmally, is it any wonder that the market crashed?


Virtually none of those things go on these days. Do crap games (shovelware) make it onto the shelves? Of course they do. But through the advent of video game magazines and online reviews, patrons can gather more than enough information to make smart retail choices.

Is the video game market as we know it today tenuous or fragile in the least? Heck no! Those roots go deep, and it would take some unimaginable force to tear them out.

Is the console market stagnant? Not the games, the consoles. Nope. I'm sure as soon as Sony, MS, and Nintendo sent their systems out the door, their r&d departments were already tossing around ideas for the next generation. Consumers may not be able to count on a 100% satisfaction rate with the software, but a new system puts a shine on every generation . . . and people line up in droves to buy them.

[TheEdge]

There seems to be conflicting information



Bad economy means lame games

The video game industry is being hit hard by the economy, just like every other industry. And although I believe it's potentially recession-proof, it won't be easy for gaming to stay that way.

Things are looking bleak for game creators. In a statement Tuesday, Electronic Arts, the world's largest video game developer, announced that it was forced to lay off about 1,100 employees and close 12 facilities worldwide to streamline its business operation and cut operating expenses by $500 million to prepare for uncertain economic times.

Microsoft Game Studios was hit hard by Microsoft's recent announcement of 5,000 layoffs. Avalanche Studios, another prominent developer, cut nearly half its staff late last year. And Take-Two Interactive, a former EA acquisition target, announced in its last quarterly filing that it incurred a $15 million loss for the three months ending October 31, 2008.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10157402-17.html?tag=mncol;title




Remember what lame games did to the industry?

[MrMatthews]

Albertsons and Ralphs went out of business, too. Does that mean people are going to stop buying groceries?

[InternalPrimate]

While I agree with the article, lame games doesn't mean an industry crash. Original IPs tend to have a really difficult time selling well, while games like Madden or Call of Duty sell extremely well. Those purchases are safer, because you know exactly what you're going to get. Justifying a $60 purchase is getting more and more difficult in these times. Still, the industry grew 13% in the last year, so I don't see an upcoming crash.

[MrMatthews]

The silver lining is that 2009 looks like it will be a good year to be a Wii owner.

I really hope that Sega's next two games end up reviewed at least as well as Overkill.

[Metal_Sonic]

I am sticking with my PC until I see some real changes and innovation.
Oh my god, you don't even have any of the new systems? Why are you passing judgement on games you haven't even played? I was wondering why you were arguing why the seventh gen games were so "stagnant", you dont even have them. Awesome games are coming out that you haven't played so I am done arguing that this gen is just as good the last.

[MrMatthews]

I've been waiting for an opportunity to point this out.

It's along the same lines as "if you didn't vote, you can't complain about who's in the office."

[Metal_Sonic]

Yea and the "incoming" video game crash argument also doesnt hold any water. Certain companies=/=The entire industry.

[MrMatthews]

Hang on there, MS. Are you suggesting that the entire video game industry isn't held aloft by the bastions that were Midway and Acclaim????????????

[Rusty Venture]

Yup.

Halo? Final Fantasy? Mario? Pffff. The entire game industry is kept afloat with so-so MK sequels and whatever junk Acclaim cranked out.

[jesus.arnold]

I was just re-reading some of this thread and I must say I was being a bit of a prick yesterday, sorry to anyone I f#cked off, I get carried away and I really hate Killzone 2/Resistance/Halo 3.

[MrMatthews]

Can't speak for Killzone or Resistance, but I think Halo is horribly over rated and boring. I can't believe I heard it compared to Metroid Prime (by IGN, I think!)

[Youngie]

Halo=overrated times 1 million.

[InternalPrimate]

Going off on a little bit of a tangent here, but I got Timesplitters 3: Future Perfect in the mail yesterday, and it's miles better than any of the Halos.

I'll admit that I own all three Halos for one reason: multiplayer. It's the one series I could count (until COD4) on all my friends to own, and we played the hell out of it. The single player, ESPECIALLY in Halo 1, has always been boring.

But Timesplitters 3... what a masterpiece that was. Smooth controls, fantastic visuals, large single player game with varied levels and environments, large amount of challenges, unlockables, fast-paced and ridiculously fun multplayer, etc... And while every FPS shooter takes itself so seriously - Call of Duty, Halo, Resistance, Killzone, FEAR - Timesplitters had this amazing sense of humor. Each level had a new cast of hilarious characters, and I laughed out loud on nearly every level.

http://media.ignimgs.com/xbox/xbox/image/article/595/595906/timesplitters-future-perfect-20050314063152967.jpg

[MrMatthews]

I have Timesplitters 2, and man is it awesome. You can tell almost immediately that it was worked on by the Goldeneye crew.

It is quite challenging, however. I still haven't beaten the last level.

[InternalPrimate]

It's kind of sad, I prefer all three Timesplitters games to Perfect Dark Zero. Didn't Free Radical either just go under or was purchased?

[Puffy2k316]

Crytek bought Free Radical I believe.

Timesplitters on the Crysis engine plz

[MrMatthews]

I heard a rumor that another TS game was in the works. Don't know how substantiated that is, though.

[InternalPrimate]

We can pray, right?

[MrMatthews]

I knew it wasn't just a rumor!

Timesplitters 4 has been officially announced, although the systems it is coming to have not.

It will surely come to the 360 and PS3, though.

Status: TBA 2009

[jesus.arnold]

But Timesplitters 3... what a masterpiece that was. Smooth controls, fantastic visuals, large single player game with varied levels and environments, large amount of challenges, unlockables, fast-paced and ridiculously fun multplayer, etc... And while every FPS shooter takes itself so seriously - Call of Duty, Halo, Resistance, Killzone, FEAR - Timesplitters had this amazing sense of humor. Each level had a new cast of hilarious characters, and I laughed out loud on nearly every level.Yep, for years all the idiotic critics kept saying "will anyone ever usurp Halo's crown" when in all reality Timesplitters 2 had already done so.


I knew it wasn't just a rumor!

Timesplitters 4 has been officially announced, although the systems it is coming to have not.

It will surely come to the 360 and PS3, though.

Status: TBA 2009They were seriously considering putting it on the Wii, then they had a poll on their website asking which console to put it on (which I voted on myself) and the Wii got the most votes.

Immediately after that suspiciously their new poll was "do you want to see more hardcore games on the wii or more casual" to which more hardcore games won by a landslide.

Then they went under :(

[InternalPrimate]

Crytek UK is Free Radical's new name. I'd love to see it on the Wii, although more could be made out of the online multiplayer on other consoles. Still, if it were to be a Wii game, I think it would automatically be THE Wii game.

[MrMatthews]

What would suit the series better? Motion controls ala Metroid Prime and Medal of Honor: Heroes 2? Or the horsepower behind the 360 and PS3?

Since the last two games were on all three consoles, I wouldn't be surprised if the same happens this time around, too.

[InternalPrimate]

I say controls, because the series was never about cutting edge visuals. The characters always maintained a cartoony look as well. Still, the Crysis engine would be going to waste...

[Puffy2k316]

Timesplitters 4 has been announced for awhile but they couldn't get anyone to publish it I think.

[Metal_Sonic]

Hang on there, MS. Are you suggesting that the entire video game industry isn't held aloft by the bastions that were Midway and Acclaim????????????

Sometimes I just cant decipher sarcasm from honesty. If you are serious, I meant that just because some companies have hard times and/or go bankrupt, doesnt mean the entire industry is in trouble. Took me a while to respond but hey, I did it.

[MrMatthews]

Sarcasm level: 8

Midway and Acclaim are two examples of defunct game companies who haven't made a worthwhile contribution to the industry in . . . well, a long time.

Translation: If crappy companies like these are the ones are going under, then that just means all the more business for the good ones who actually deserve to make money.

[jesus.arnold]

I think Timesplitters 4 could well and truly die on it's arse if it's released for 360 and PS3, they have too many FPS games with higher budgets and marketing campaigns, the game will just be lost and overlooked.

If they do a good job with a Wii port it could really become successful through critical praise as being the best fps exclusive on the system, and through word of mouth, I think the Timesplitters series has always been pretty popular with Nintendo fans more than fans of any other systems too, due to

1. the Golden Eye connection
2. Timesplitters 2 was pretty much the only good FPS on the GC (Apart from RF2) so everyone bought it.

[MrMatthews]

That's an interesting point. I'd never thought of the shooter deficiency on the Cube, mainly because I didn't actively seek out games from the genre. The only other FPS I have for the system is Serious Sam, which actually seems to play as well as I remember the original PC game from ten years ago. Problem is, my tastes for that type of game have matured a little bit, and SS has become a little too shallow and repetitive for my taste.

Another shooter that seems to be ranked pretty highly on the GameCube is 007: Nightfire. Has anyone else played this? If it's the game I'm thinking of, I believe I played it through the first two levels (beginning with a helicopter chase, I believe?). While it was certainly decent, I couldn't help but compare it to Everything or Nothing and Goldeneye/Timesplitters 2, and it lost.

[InternalPrimate]

I think Timesplitters 4 could well and truly die on it's arse if it's released for 360 and PS3, they have too many FPS games with higher budgets and marketing campaigns, the game will just be lost and overlooked.

If they do a good job with a Wii port it could really become successful through critical praise as being the best fps exclusive on the system, and through word of mouth, I think the Timesplitters series has always been pretty popular with Nintendo fans more than fans of any other systems too, due to

1. the Golden Eye connection
2. Timesplitters 2 was pretty much the only good FPS on the GC (Apart from RF2) so everyone bought it.

I wholly agree. I think Timesplitters + Wii = monster success. Just look at the hype The Conduit is receiving. While I hope it does somewhat resemble Perfect Dark, the reality is that it's a standard setting FPS with above average visuals and an online component. That's it. And people are going crazy with anticipation over it! Imagine Timesplitters with IR control and an online component (with map sharing) and you would have THE most successful hardcore game on the Wii.

This thread's evil, now I can't think of any other game than one in developmental purgatory :(

[MrMatthews]

This thread's evil, now I can't think of any other game than one in developmental purgatory :(


Really? This is all I can think about:

http://ds.ign.com/objects/142/14266989.html

[InternalPrimate]

That too. And RE5. And Guitar Hero Metallica. But other than that... nothing!

[MrMatthews]

Madworld? NPC Pikmin & Metroid Prime(s)? FFCC: Echoes of Time? Punch-Out? Sin & Punishment 2? Bionic Commando? Bioshock 2? StarCraft 2?

[InternalPrimate]

Madworld? NPC Pikmin & Metroid Prime(s)? FFCC: Echoes of Time? Punch-Out? Sin & Punishment 2? Bionic Commando? Bioshock 2? StarCraft 2?

Madworld and Pikmin yes, but I don't seriously expect Metroid Prime 1 or 2 to come out for another 6 months. Sad, yes, but that's just Nintendo for ya.

As for Echoes of Time... meh. I'll consider getting it on the DS, but there's a TON I want to finish ahead of that. Punch Out! is going to be great, same with Sin & Punishment 2, but when is that expected to release? I have no urge to play a next gen Bionic Commando, and I really want to finish Bioshock 1 before moving on to 2.

Starcraft? PC gaming?! Not for me.

[gamevet]

Edge, let's sidestep the fact that you aren't helping matters by not buying any new games (!) and head straight into some of the reasons for the original "crash" and how they differ from today's video game market.

(someone else feel free to jump in and fill some gaps and correct me if necessary)

1. How many systems were available at the time? Sure, there was Colecovision and Intellivision, but the 2600 was the unquestionable dominating force (in the US, at least, jesus.arnold ;)). Atari was not only on top, they arrogantly believed that they would remain on top indefinitely.



There was no videogame crash. People started buying C64, Atari 400/800 and Apple II computers. Even Coleco, tried to turn the Colecovision into a computer, with the Adam setup.

[Metal_Sonic]

There was no videogame crash. People started buying C64, Atari 400/800 and Apple II computers. Even Coleco, tried to turn the Colecovision into a computer, with the Adam setup.

THATS RIGHT BOY! PC GAMING IN ITS INFANCY SON!

[MrMatthews]

I put "crash" in quotes for a reason. The whole incident has been hideously overblown. I thought I hinted at that a couple times.

[Metal_Sonic]

Okay Matthews, EVERYONE! Matthews was the first to mention a overblown video game crash, give him all the credit. Jokes aside, the game crash is a matter of perception. Sure PC gaming was born but the price of a PC and a console were really different. Consoles died so there was a theoretical console crash but eh.

[gamevet]

Okay Matthews, EVERYONE! Matthews was the first to mention a overblown video game crash, give him all the credit. Jokes aside, the game crash is a matter of perception. Sure PC gaming was born but the price of a PC and a console were really different. Consoles died so there was a theoretical console crash but eh.

Don't confuse PC gaming, with computer gaming.

The PC was the evolution of the business computer to the home, while the MAC is the evolution of the home computer. The popularity of home computers brought the PC world down to a level where the average consumer could afford one. And even then, the PC didn't have a real soundchip or soundcard until the late 80's.

The PC world can thank companies like Commodore, Atari and Apple for bringing the stiff world of IBM down to the consumer level. I don't believe PC gaming (or console) would exist the way it does today, without them.