mikeszekely Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 Sorry for the late reply. I'd like to believe (although I'm probably delusional on this one) that the regulars in this topic were curious to see what insight I'd offer. As an unbiased owner of all three current-gen consoles (not to mention a Dreamcast, GBA, DS, and PSP... I sold off anything older than that), I'd said plenty of times that the 360 was shaping up to be an early favorite for me. Kutaragi's arrogant comments, the lackluster lineup of commercial sequels, their stubborn insistance on using the prohibitively expenisve Blu-Ray format when DVD-9s should be plenty big enough and have faster access speeds, Apple's public dissapointment with the Cell, and the fact that the console itself was likely to be on the expensive side has me turned off on the PS3. And as for the Revolution, the big draw seems to be the ability to download and play older games... something I've been doing for years on my PC, Dreamcast, PS2, and currently on my PSP. Only, unlike my PC, PS2, DC, and PSP, I'll have to pay for it on the Revolution. Other than that, I don't know enough to be interested in the Revolution... although I do know that it's a bummer that it doesn't support HD. If it turns out to be anything like GC, it'll probably be a relatively inexpensive console that I might buy to compliment my first choice for some of fun 1st party games, but I won't be able to live on the Revolution alone. Meanwhile, the Xbox 360 was supposed to offer everything I wanted. HD support, a comfortable 1st-party wireless controller, excellent online service, a hard drive, some kind of backwards compatibility, and games I'm actually excited to play, like Perfect Dark Zero. And the best part was, they were hinting that I'd be able to get one for around $300. Then they went and pulled what is, essentially, the equivalent of kicking their (potential) customers in the nuts. Yes, you can get an Xbox 360 for $300... but that deal is a joke. Even if you don't want the hard drive for backwards compatibility, figure that you're going to want to save your games... $100 for a 20GB HD, or $40 for a crappy 64mb memory card? I'll take the hard drive, thanks... especially since, if I buy it bundled with the system, I get the wireless controller instead of the wired one, and the headset, and (since I'm in the first batch), the remote control. In other words, I (and just about everyone else who wants a 360 at launch) will pay $400. The $300 "core set" is a joke. It's a slight-of-hand so that Microsoft can say that the Xbox 360 costs $300 even when everyone's buying the $400 deal. And as long as I'm ranting, Microsoft's pricing on peripherals sucks even worse. $40 for a memory card? People complained that Sony's were too much at $25. $100 for that piece of crap wireless network adaptor (that is, essentially, a USB wi-fi adaptor that'd sell for maybe $40 for a PC)? I'll stick with the ethernet cable, thanks (fortunately, the router is by the modem, which is by where the cable comes out of the wall, which is by the TV, which is where the consoles go anyway). $40 for the WIRED controller? Again, everyone else is charging under $30. (I'll forgive the $50 wireless, since that's the MSRP for the Logitech controller for the current Xbox). The A/V cables are all at least $20 overpriced (all the more reason to buy the bundle since I'm going to want the component cables at the minimum), while I'm at it... and I don't see any HDMI! Over-priced consoles, over-priced accessories, over-priced games... the next-gen SUCKS.
Gunbuster Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 Wait a second, I thought that's what Sony's been doing ;; It's kinda like MS talking about releasing the next HALO on the same day the PS3 ships. They're spending so much time trying to piss in eveyrone else's cereal that they're not thinking enough about their own market (and will probably suffer greatly for it). 321424[/snapback]
mikeszekely Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 Wait a second, I thought that's what Sony's been doing ;; It's kinda like MS talking about releasing the next HALO on the same day the PS3 ships. They're spending so much time trying to piss in eveyrone else's cereal that they're not thinking enough about their own market (and will probably suffer greatly for it). 321424[/snapback] 321488[/snapback] Everybody is cereal-pissing. The next-gen sucks.
Gunbuster Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 Everybody is cereal-pissing. The next-gen sucks. 321490[/snapback] LOL! Hahaha …yeah, what happened to the good old days where we had to use imagination with our videogames?
yellowlightman Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 Everybody is cereal-pissing. The next-gen sucks. 321490[/snapback] I need to buy more games for my Saturn. I think that's the solution.
Skull Leader Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 (edited) Everybody is cereal-pissing. The next-gen sucks. 321490[/snapback] I can remember in the 8 bit days when a system had to survive or fail on it's own merits... I really don't recall that much competition between the NES and the SMS. They both seemed to exist in on their own and have their own circle of users and a few, here or there, had the good fortune of owning both (and had a store nearby that actively stocked stuff for both systems) At the time, no one really trashed-talked one system over the other. Both were great systems for their day, and did some things really well (while doing other things incredibly bad) Hell, even in the early 16-bit days when Sega Genesis and Turbo Graphix 16 ruled the market, it was still pretty much the same way. TG16 was almost an unknown entity here in the midwest (they were here, but decidedly rare by comparison). Either way, no one seemed to complain about one system over the other, LEAST of all the companies themselves. Any arguing that was done by the consumers was largely based on that system's game-library, not the system's capabilities. When the SNES showed up on the market, there was a considerable amount of bragging going on over what it could accomplish over the Sega Genesis (the "vast" number of colors it could support on-screen at once, better sound quality, "mode 7" capabilities, etc). This is probably where it really began I think, because by the time it was a CD based market, things were in full swing. Now things have gotten so bad, companies have stopped focusing on making the best game system they can make and have completely focused on trying to outdo each other. NO THOUGHT to the consumer exists in this process. It's just as well that I don't do as much gaming as I used to. In fact the game that sees more time in my PS2 tray than anything else is FFIV (a PSone game!) -Jeremy (who would gladly return to an 8-bit or 16-bit market if it meant games would be INNOVATIVE and ENJOYABLE again.) Edited August 19, 2005 by Skull Leader
JKeats Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 Mike, thank you for expressing my exact thoughts on the Xbox 360. I would have said the same things but with a LOT MORE CUSS WORDS.
Gaijin Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 MS's core system is both a PR move and a way to sell accessories at rape me prices. I'll pick up the $399 pack as it's a pretty good deal and the "true" 360 (not a dumbed down version). PS3 at the rumored $399 with Sony eating $100 looks pretty good with blu ray and wifi out of the box..no HDD but if they keep that price down, they may come out looking not bad at all.
Chowser Posted August 19, 2005 Posted August 19, 2005 still, for $400, I don't need the HD cables since I haven't bought an HDTV yet, will my regular S-Video cables from my regular Xbox work with the 360? But I don't think I'll pay $400 to play Halo 3. Of course, my son would like to get it just to play Halo 3. I told him to wait until it actually comes out and maybe MS will lower the price by then. If I did buy it, I would have to buy the full package, I just wish wireless was built-in.
Gaijin Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 still, for $400, I don't need the HD cables since I haven't bought an HDTV yet, will my regular S-Video cables from my regular Xbox work with the 360? But I don't think I'll pay $400 to play Halo 3. Of course, my son would like to get it just to play Halo 3. I told him to wait until it actually comes out and maybe MS will lower the price by then.If I did buy it, I would have to buy the full package, I just wish wireless was built-in. 321551[/snapback] No, they went to new connectors so they could sell new cables (bastards). I'm more and more beginning to think that the PS3 with wifi and bluetooth controllers, BluRay, the old legacy Playstation connectors( so you could use your old component or S Video), and HDMI is starting to look pretty damn good if they actually release that at $399 as is the rumor. I'm still buying a 360 to take in the High Def games (once you go HDTV, it's really painful to play 480i interlaced on one of those sets), but I'm really waiting this time around for PS3 (I skipped PS2 at launch because the launch games were blah compared to Dreamcast stuff I had). Perhaps we'll see unlicensed 3rd party connectors for $15 or so...
mikeszekely Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 Mike, thank you for expressing my exact thoughts on the Xbox 360. I would have said the same things but with a LOT MORE CUSS WORDS. 321529[/snapback] No prob... except that Skull Leader has inspired me, so "cereal piss" will be my substitute cuss word. Cereal piss on the whole cereal-pissing next-gen cereal piss. once you go HDTV, it's really painful to play 480i interlaced on one of those sets Heh heh... I'm learning that myself. At least a bunch of the original Xbox game support 420p, 16:9 widescreen, and Dolby Digital 5.1 with that advanced A/V pack and a optical cable. I'd been playing my PS2 a ton lately, but since I got my new TV, I see myself spending a lot more time with my Xbox until the 360 comes out. I'll pick up the $399 pack as it's a pretty good deal and the "true" 360 (not a dumbed down version). Is it really a good deal, though? Yeah, in the sense that Microsoft will still be selling the things at a loss, and yes in the sense that it'll be bundled with a bunch of stuff that would cost a lot more to buy seperately. But it's not a good deal when you consider that Microsoft had been telling us since May that the Xbox 360 would come with a hard drive and a wireless controller, and that it would be around $300. I, and I'm sure most people, took that to mean that we'd get a 360 for around $300 with a hard drive and wireless controller, not that I'd have the option to get a 360 for around $300 OR get a 360 with a hard drive and a wireless controller. Couple of quotes from Tycho at PA... At the very least, you're going to need their forty dollar memory card. The lower cost "sku" isn't for the "Wal-Mart" consumer, it's for f*cking retards.I'm not trying to push you into the high cost option, I'm confident that the average Penny Arcade reader has been making sound, informed console buying decisions for as many as twenty years. I'm trying to say that their low cost option doesn't actually exist. The $300 is nothing but PR. It exists so Microsoft can proudly proclaim that the Xbox 360 launches at $300. But NO ONE actually wants it. $300 for console with wire controller+ $40 so I can save my games, or $400 for console with wireless controller, headset, and HD for both saving games, saving Live content, and playing my old Xbox games... it's a no brainer. I'll bet any money that my store gets 40 or so $400 360s during the month of November, and maybe two $300 units. And the only reason those two units will sell is because there will be those desperate holiday buyers who will take what they can get after the reserves and early birds are gone. Reactions to the Xbox 360 pricing have been all over the place, most of what I've seen is bad, but at the end of the day I doubt it really matters. People buy what they want to buy, even if it places them in mortal danger. And that's really the crux of it. Am I happy about the 360's dual-sku price scam? Hells no. Am I going to piss in someone's cereal over it? Probably. But when push comes to shove, am I going to shell out the extra hundred bucks. You betcha. Bottom line: I want my 360, especially since I got my HDTV. And I'm not the only one who'll be making their disgruntled purchase come November. Microsoft knows it, too.
JB0 Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 Everybody is cereal-pissing. The next-gen sucks. 321490[/snapback] I can remember in the 8 bit days when a system had to survive or fail on it's own merits... I really don't recall that much competition between the NES and the SMS. They both seemed to exist in on their own and have their own circle of users and a few, here or there, had the good fortune of owning both (and had a store nearby that actively stocked stuff for both systems) One of the few stores in the nation. The NES didn't survive on its own merits. It survived on the fact that once Nintendo America picked up some steam, they used their position to bully everyone else into backing them. A lot of stores that carried SMSes and 7800s started "mysetriously" losing shipments around Christmas time. Stores that carried unlicensed games(specifically Tengen's) recieved notes TELLING them that they would start losing shipments if they carried said games(allegedly because they didn't meet Nintendo's rigorous quality control standards and damaged Nintendo's reputation... yeah, sure, uh-huh...). And most developers on the NES had to sign exclusivity contracts. If you developed for the NES, you ONLY developed for the NES. At the time, no one really trashed-talked one system over the other. Because NINTEY-FIVE PERCENT of the market was the NES. Step back a bit to the 1st era. 2600 VS Intellivision(first system war). Followed by 5200 VS INTV, INTV VS Colecovision, and 5200 VS CV. All were hotly debated subjects, with people on either side insisting their system was the only one worth owning and infinitely superior to the others. All were also successful consoles that enjoyed healthy competition from other platforms. No one ever argued the merits of an Arcadia or Channel F against a 2600, because there WERE NO Arcadias and Channel Fs out there. Hell, even in the early 16-bit days when Sega Genesis and Turbo Graphix 16 ruled the market, it was still pretty much the same way. TG16 was almost an unknown entity here in the midwest (they were here, but decidedly rare by comparison). Legacy. The developers weren't going to break away from Nintendo and risk their necks on an unknown. And then when the Genesis took off and developers decided it was worth the risk to jump the NES ship, SEGA started in with exclusivity contracts. Either way, no one seemed to complain about one system over the other, LEAST of all the companies themselves. Any arguing that was done by the consumers was largely based on that system's game-library, not the system's capabilities. "Genesis does what Nintendon't." Enough said. When the SNES showed up on the market, there was a considerable amount of bragging going on over what it could accomplish over the Sega Genesis (the "vast" number of colors it could support on-screen at once, better sound quality, "mode 7" capabilities, etc). This is probably where it really began I think, because by the time it was a CD based market, things were in full swing. I've already documented the history. Every time there've been two serious players in the market, there've been fanboys duking it out. Now things have gotten so bad, companies have stopped focusing on making the best game system they can make and have completely focused on trying to outdo each other. NO THOUGHT to the consumer exists in this process. It's just as well that I don't do as much gaming as I used to. In fact the game that sees more time in my PS2 tray than anything else is FFIV (a PSone game!) A PS1 game that's a bad port of an SNES game, at that. Personally, being late to the game, I'm dumping my free time into Star Ocean 3. The staff at tri-Ace are like a bunch of little gods.
Gaijin Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 (edited) Is it really a good deal, though? Yeah, in the sense that Microsoft will still be selling the things at a loss, and yes in the sense that it'll be bundled with a bunch of stuff that would cost a lot more to buy seperately. But it's not a good deal when you consider that Microsoft had been telling us since May that the Xbox 360 would come with a hard drive and a wireless controller, and that it would be around $300. I, and I'm sure most people, took that to mean that we'd get a 360 for around $300 with a hard drive and wireless controller, not that I'd have the option to get a 360 for around $300 OR get a 360 with a hard drive and a wireless controller. I never believed they would launch at $300 with all the bells and whistles. Though I never expected them to take them OUT to make $300...I figured they would have an expensive "standard" and a super duper deluxe one with the works (2 controls, Live Gold, Larger HDD or something) at a higher cost. And I agree totally with the wireless being alluded to being standard...Allard specifically said the 360 controls were designed as wireless from the ground up, they were the new standard controllers etc. The wired ones at all public appearances were said to have been optional ones and only at the shows as a security measure (so no one would walk away with them). That said, I am dissapointed but not really surprised at the pricing (well, except the accessories...$40 wired control...$99 WiFi...c'mon!!). To be totally honest, I wouldn't get a 360 yet if I didn't have HDTV...I'd wait for PS3 but I need more High Def sources... PS3 looking mighty fine if they keep everything in...BluRay, WiFi, Bluetooth controls, etc. Btw, have you had your high def experience with any of the high def stations in your area yet with your new set? Again, it's painful to watch SD TV afterwards....well not painful but just knowing and seeing the difference between SD and HD shows is such a huge step forward made a true believer out of me. High Def TV totally rocks. Can't wait for BluRay movies....the difference between HBO HD Spiderman 2 and my Superbit Spidey 2 DVD is quite noticeable(even with an upconverting DVD Player)...more than I expected since I think Spidey 2 was shot on film. Edited August 20, 2005 by Gaijin
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 (edited) When the SNES showed up on the market, there was a considerable amount of bragging going on over what it could accomplish over the Sega Genesis (the "vast" number of colors it could support on-screen at once, better sound quality, "mode 7" capabilities, etc). This is probably where it really began I think, because by the time it was a CD based market, things were in full swing. Don't forget the neogeo ads complete with specs showing the superiority of the beast in graphics and sound and how it brought the arcade home. Ahhh the days of fighting over crappy system capabilities and minute crap instead of focusing on the games. Brings back memories.. Genesis imo was king because you could play games by Treasure (Gunstar Heroes) and all kinds of shoot em ups, and the snes was the 2d platformer system showing off its mode 7 fx and bragging to the genesis:"we don't need no fancy 6 layers of parrallax scrolling in the background when we can just use mode 7" But play an intense shooting game on the snes' slower processor, and expect slow down and flickering. (some exceptions like space megaforce showed what it could do when good developers put there minds to it though) Looking back, all that stuff is taken for granted. One thing you've got to understand though, is that this rivalry was healthy for us consumers. The competition only brings out the best in each side. The only thing now is: with all this technology who is going to truly exploit a machine so that thier games show any noticable degree of difference? It's now easier to just port stuff on to multiple systems and there is less chance of seeing games unique to each platform, giving less incentive for each person to want to own all systems. Eventually the most "mainstream" system gets everything ported to it (apart from first party titles which is nintendo's one strength) and those developers won't want to offend the leader. The thing that worries me is when all kinds of unecessary crap to generate buzz (eg. the emotion engine hype of the ps2) is used to trick people into believing thier system is really superior when it isn't. This kind of media attention and hype between rivals is all propaganda until we see full games running on actual hardware that is the same system we will be playing in our homes. As long as people stay focused on the games, you can be immune from all hype/fanboy crap and viral marketing agents lurking on game forums and who probably work for the retailers who are being pressured by the manufacturers to support thier platform behind the scenes or else pull support. (don't let fanboys use fear of "slow sales" or percieved poor performance trick you into making decisions based on numbers they pull out of thier ass. None of that poo matters if total number of best titles of one platform beats the total number of best titles on rival platforms - this is how hype can slowly kill off the more-competant-but-less-mainstream systems and help bring about another 80's-era nintendo-like monopoly) One of the good things about being laid back and not being an early adopter is that you can observe what moves they make and not feel ripped off after the crucual price drops. Another thing that worries me is when game releases are rushed to make a strategic date. I'm of the "if the game isn't ready to be released, don't release it, keep fine tuning it to perfection instead of spreading improvements over several generations of sequels and forcing us to buy slightly-more-improved versions of the same bloody thing"-school of thought. Edited August 20, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
JB0 Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 When the SNES showed up on the market, there was a considerable amount of bragging going on over what it could accomplish over the Sega Genesis (the "vast" number of colors it could support on-screen at once, better sound quality, "mode 7" capabilities, etc). This is probably where it really began I think, because by the time it was a CD based market, things were in full swing. Don't forget the neogeo ads complete with specs showing the superiority of the beast in graphics and sound and how it brought the arcade home. Ahhh the days of fighting over crappy system capabilities and minute crap instead of focusing on the games. Brings back memories.. Well, they had to do SOMETHING. Marketing took a system that was inteded as a reantal and made it for sale, and it was priced WAY over the competition. Having said that, it I Strue that you get what you pay for. The NeoGeo was damned impresssive hardware, and unlike everyone else that claimed arcade quality, it actually WAS(identical hardware save the BIOS, and used the exact same software. They didn't even burn new ROMs, just stuck them on a new board). ... the snes was the 2d platformer system showing off its mode 7 fx and bragging to the genesis:"we don't need no fancy 6 layers of parrallax scrolling in the background when we can just use mode 7" Ummm.... the genesis only had 2 background layers. And 1 had to be used for the game field. So there was only 1 parallax layer. The SNES, by comparison, had a max of 4 layers(which varied with mode, down to NO background layers for any screen region in graphics mode 7 unless you count the 3D object), for 3 parallax layers. But play an intense shooting game on the snes' slower processor, and expect slow down and flickering. (some exceptions like space megaforce showed what it could do when good developers put there minds to it though) Flickering was a graphics chipset problem, actually. I forget the exact cause, though. Slowdown, though, was the CPU, and one of the SNES' great handicaps. It had incredible AV hardware, but lacked the processing power needed to make full use of it except in RPGs and action-adventures. Looking back, all that stuff is taken for granted. One thing you've got to understand though, is that this rivalry was healthy for us consumers. The competition only brings out the best in each side. Damn right. Most companies are content to ride the hardware they have until someone else starts making a competitor. I'm of the "if the game isn't ready to be released, don't release it, keep fine tuning it to perfection instead of spreading improvements over several generations of sequels and forcing us to buy slightly-more-improved versions of the same bloody thing"-school of thought. Damn right.I tend to be somewhat anti-sequel. Not because the sequels are inherently bad, but because I'd rather see the effort they poured into Legend of Zelda 37 expended on a fresh new title. And all of oyu that kick back and wait for an interesting non-sequel to hit the bargin bins... YOU KILLED BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL!
Skull Leader Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 LOL, I guess I didn't know as much about the early market as I thought I did. Ahh well, at that point in my life I didn't care so much about what went on behind the curtains... I went and bought the games I wanted, went home and played them, had a beer and called it a day I WILL agree that competition is a good thing, I just think the desire to "one up" the competitor can really get out of hand, and I feel like it's coming to a head (what will happen, i don't know...)
Gaijin Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 And all of oyu that kick back and wait for an interesting non-sequel to hit the bargin bins... YOU KILLED BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL! 321770[/snapback] I got mine long time ago....just like Ico...
JB0 Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 And all of oyu that kick back and wait for an interesting non-sequel to hit the bargin bins... YOU KILLED BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL! 321770[/snapback] I got mine long time ago....just like Ico... 321835[/snapback] Then you're not one of the guilty.
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 (edited) Well, they had to do SOMETHING. Marketing took a system that was inteded as a reantal and made it for sale, and it was priced WAY over the competition. Having said that, it I Strue that you get what you pay for. The NeoGeo was damned impresssive hardware, and unlike everyone else that claimed arcade quality, it actually WAS(identical hardware save the BIOS, and used the exact same software. They didn't even burn new ROMs, just stuck them on a new board). I know. It was the one system every kid wanted but could not afford! Kind of like certain toys hehe The ads were all about bigger badder better, and you could see it was a pissing match. But none of that mattered then because ultimately people had to choose between the staples. It is still possible to have great gameplay without the need for the baddest and meanest machine with the best specs. Just compare the ports of any street fighter II game on the 16 bit systems to say fatal fury 1 on neo geo or something. (I would still much rather play street fighter even if it is running on a crappier system and not 100% perfect: smaller sprites, lower resolutions, less memory, crappier sound, etc) I wanted to point out that there are still gamers out there (I consider myself one of them) that can see through just specs and make purchases based on depth and quality of gameplay alone without only caring about hardware. But these days it is hard to even have a conversation about the quality of games and thier depth of gameplay without someone looking down on you for being retro. I've had people think: "dude, you must be some poor person to still like those old games. Play something new! Buy the best system, comment with us on how great these framerates are, how detailed that textured building is, how much larger these levels are, how much clearer these sound fx sound to the ears etc"....as if this technology has any bearing on whether a game is actually going to be good or not. These days its embarassing to show apreciation for something just on its gameplay alone and because of the "system war" mentality of people on forums, they are very defensive if you try to praise something they do not like or does not support thier system. It's like they are defending a political party or a footy team or soemthing! And that because they have an agenda right from the start - which is to promote the system they favour and bash the one they hate - you can't really have an intelligent discussion anymore because its cool now to just randomly type in some BS specs or sales figures and gloat "how well X system" is doing or "how doomed your system is!!11", you know what I mean? There may have been a time when we all got along and apreciated each other's library and envied the systems mainly for the games that were made for them by the talented companies who made those games, not envied them because X hardware had this feature which a allowed a cleaner image and less loading time, or a slightly better framerate. Trivial poo that in 100 years time won't matter because like with the example of the NeoGeo, we remember GAMES (specific titles) and the quality of thier gameplay, not the specs. (it may have been a beast back then but is primitive now - and its not 100 years - which brings up my point about how silly we were all then to argue over this trivial stuff. But history repeats and its happening again with these next gen systems: people falling for the hype, people highlighting strengths and exaggerating thier worth, then sweeping the weaknesses under the table "to win an argument" and look good. (politics: not seeing the actual worth of a system objectively due to personal bias or because of thier own sense of brand "loyalty" to whatever company they've invested thier money in. I call this the "lock in" effect. You have already spent X amount of dollars on a platform so you are less likely to want to support a competitor platform or give a fair opinion of it. Therefore you ignore all criticism about your platform to justify to yourself the money you spent/invested.) Ummm.... the genesis only had 2 background layers. And 1 had to be used for the game field.So there was only 1 parallax layer. The SNES, by comparison, had a max of 4 layers(which varied with mode, down to NO background layers for any screen region in graphics mode 7 unless you count the 3D object), for 3 parallax layers. Nah, I'm pretty certain there were games displaying more than that. (see thunderforce III or maybe I used the wrong tech term) I can't provide the sources but you might want to ask others as my history is fuzzy. Look to people who are shoot em up fanatics and they might be able to provide examples. there are probably various ways to cheat the effect of having more depth in the backgrounds of games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_scroll but me != a games programmer I don't care how it works, so long as it looked pretty and gave a pseudo 3d effect it was enough. I WILL agree that competition is a good thing, I just think the desire to "one up" the competitor can really get out of hand, and I feel like it's coming to a head (what will happen, i don't know...) This whole one-upping thing is all because the fanboys who feel insecure if you judge thier system objectively and try tell them the truth about the weaknesses of owning thier platform, will feel like they got to defend thier system against trolls when all people want to do is provide honest criticism. (criticism that will be used in future to improve something.) There is this whole "I gotta defend my system against the evil bashers" belief that gets to me. Any criticism is seen as attacking, and that somehow owners of that system are victims. They have these delusions of being persecuted by haters of thier system when all the critics are doing is being honest about why certain platforms suck more than others. So then what has happened is all the gamers have had to flock (like birds that are alike) to people who think similarly to them and hold the same opinions as them and what you have is masses of mind-controlled, easily-marketed-and-targeted-to zombies who will only want to see the good things about that particular system they like, ignoring the bad things, ....as opposed what it was like in the good ole days where both sides could apreciate good games on either platform and bash each other on the game titles, not just the hardware. (it was about sonic vs mario, not X-brand hardware vs Y-brand hardware. - irrelevant stuff that won't affect gameplay. True we had BLAST PROCESSING and other such nonsense, but not on the scale it is today where the media seem to place more importance of who got more attention at a showing of new hardware, rather than what full games are coming and advances in gameplay depth.) No longer do people comment on how much worse X game is to y game by observing the gameplay depth and fun of the game. Now its about specs, sales, how big something is compared to its prequels in budget, and marketing dot points. Fanboys will try to then highlight that the game is ONLY so awesome because of what the hardware did, rather than highlight what talent the makers of the game had or how carefully and well put together that game was compared to other games. People criticised games more than systems because back then everyone had relied more on thier personal experience with the games and imo were more informed than today's gamers. The hype (marketing something to be a big event which steals a competition's "thunder" - rather than just providing info) and fear (fanboys who won't accept criticism of thier platform because they've been hanging out on forums with people who think too alike to them and have lived a sheltered existance) are the true reasons why companies go to all this trouble to wow people and "piss in cereal" instead of doing thier own thing and just doing that thing well. But it has a side effect: it's the cause of why there are all the fanboy wars on forums, and why people get disapointed when a release can't live up to the hype. A game that can't live up to the hype (generated by fanboys as opposed to objective gamers) is going to be seen by the bashers as a negative thing, because the creation of that hype was partially generated by fanboys who won't think objectively and allow some space to be disapointed. Whereas a sleeper hit that came out of nowhere is a positive thing. If fanboys on forums (whose only purpose is promoting thier platform) could just relax and enjoy something without the need to bash other systems due to this pressure to look good in front of thier "team", the gaming community would be much better informed rather than at war with each other, constantly needing to spread propaganda or cut and paste review scores from bribed critics, reviewers and magazine editors who have thier own agendas. (people who do that can't think for themselves, they would rather not try a game out first-hand and this has led to the same games always making the top ten charts and the growth of only the biggest developers, who will develop an attitude to not take risks anymore) Things definately were different back in the day due to the idea that gaming wasn't so mainstream (no need to promote the brand and show off) and people in my personal opinion were more like a closeknit community and relaxed. You could still have a discussion on videogames without getting into a system war because people apreciated the games themselves more than focused on whose system was dominating the market. It's when you go to a forum and all you see is people gloating about userbases and top ten charts and sales figures that has sort of corrupted people. You could be mistaken for thinking that they are more interested in the business end of gaming and the side of making the most money, (the actual industry itself) than they are about games themselves. They sound more like unpaid agents for the companies who want to sell thier systems, not game fans. Edited August 21, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
JB0 Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 I'll just be pulling parts of this post out. Parts of it just don't interest me, and others I don't feel like commenting on right now. Well, they had to do SOMETHING. Marketing took a system that was inteded as a reantal and made it for sale, and it was priced WAY over the competition. Having said that, it I Strue that you get what you pay for. The NeoGeo was damned impresssive hardware, and unlike everyone else that claimed arcade quality, it actually WAS(identical hardware save the BIOS, and used the exact same software. They didn't even burn new ROMs, just stuck them on a new board). I know. It was the one system every kid wanted but could not afford! Kind of like certain toys hehe The ads were all about bigger badder better, and you could see it was a pissing match. But none of that mattered then because ultimately people had to choose between the staples. It is still possible to have great gameplay without the need for the baddest and meanest machine with the best specs. Just compare the ports of any street fighter II game on the 16 bit systems to say fatal fury 1 on neo geo or something. (I would still much rather play street fighter even if it is running on a crappier system and not 100% perfect: smaller sprites, lower resolutions, less memory, crappier sound, etc) Personally, I never cared for Street Fighter. Fasn't into fighting games in general in my youth, actually. But I've always had a soft spot for Samurai Shodown. It wasn't just the fighting games, though. AeroFighters and Metal Slug stick out as other "must-plays" of the NeoGeo library. Anyways... it was a FAR more sound concept as originally pitched. They wanted NeoGeos in Blockbuster, or something similar. You plunked a few bucks down , dragged home your arcade sticks and game deck, and enjoyed arcade-perfect gaming for the weekend. Beat the hell out of a 600$ game deck and 200$ carts. Also note that SNK lied about system specs in their ads. They ran the silly 24-bit ad campaing insisting that 24>16, and the SNES and GEnny were only 16. But they glossed over the fact that the NG used the EXACT SAME processor setup as the Genny. A 16-bit 68000 CPU and an 8-bit z80 sound processor. SNES had a 16-bit CPU and... I THINK the SPC700 sound processor was 8-bit, but I'm not sure. I wanted to point out that there are still gamers out there (I consider myself one of them) that can see through just specs and make purchases based on depth and quality of gameplay alone without only caring about hardware. Yes. It IS all about the software in the end. I've got a bit of everything from a 2600 on up because of it. I intensely dislike Sony, but I've got a PS1 and PS2 both lying around simply because there were a lot of good games on both. But these days it is hard to even have a conversation about the quality of games and thier depth of gameplay without someone looking down on you for being retro. I've had people think: "dude, you must be some poor person to still like those old games. Play something new! Buy the best system, comment with us on how great these framerates are, how detailed that textured building is, how much larger these levels are, how much clearer these sound fx sound to the ears etc"....as if this technology has any bearing on whether a game is actually going to be good or not. These days its embarassing to show apreciation for something just on its gameplay alone and because of the "system war" mentality of people on forums, they are very defensive if you try to praise something they do not like or does not support thier system. http://www.atariage.com/forums/ AKA my haven from idiocy(no offense to anyone here). There's healthy discussion about everything up to and including the upcoming 3 systems. And a lot less "OMG MY MEGAHURTZ CAN BEAT UP UR POLLY COUNT!111" and "THE XBOX IS 256-BIT BECAUSE IT KICKS THE PS2'S ASS AND PS2 IS 128-BIT!111" (fun fact: XBox is a 32-bit machine, just like your standard IBM-compatible PC(unless you're running an Athlon 64). It's like they are defending a political party or a footy team or soemthing! I've thought people get pretty irrational about sports and politics too, personally. There may have been a time when we all got along and apreciated each other's library and envied the systems mainly for the games that were made for them by the talented companies who made those games, not envied them because X hardware had this feature which a allowed a cleaner image and less loading time, or a slightly better framerate. I've heard of fistfights started over 2600 VS INTV. That was was a little before my time, but I've been interested in the history of the industry for some time, and I've picked a bunch up form people that WERE there. Trivial poo that in 100 years time won't matter because like with the example of the NeoGeo, we remember GAMES (specific titles) and the quality of thier gameplay, not the specs. (it may have been a beast back then but is primitive now - and its not 100 years - which brings up my point about how silly we were all then to argue over this trivial stuff. *nods* I have to say, even though they rode it WAY too long, I was sad to see SNK retire the NeoGeo last year. Was the last dedicated sprite hardware on the market, and having it axed was the end of an era. But history repeats and its happening again with these next gen systems: people falling for the hype, people highlighting strengths and exaggerating thier worth, then sweeping the weaknesses under the table "to win an argument" and look good. (politics: not seeing the actual worth of a system objectively due to personal bias or because of thier own sense of brand "loyalty" to whatever company they've invested thier money in. I call this the "lock in" effect. You have already spent X amount of dollars on a platform so you are less likely to want to support a competitor platform or give a fair opinion of it. Therefore you ignore all criticism about your platform to justify to yourself the money you spent/invested.) Yah. The entire industry moves in cycles. Even in terms of retorgaming. I guarantee you, a decade from now people will moan about how there's no good games anymore and the PS1 was so great the same way they moan about the SNES/Genesis now. Ummm.... the genesis only had 2 background layers. And 1 had to be used for the game field.So there was only 1 parallax layer. The SNES, by comparison, had a max of 4 layers(which varied with mode, down to NO background layers for any screen region in graphics mode 7 unless you count the 3D object), for 3 parallax layers. Nah, I'm pretty certain there were games displaying more than that. (see thunderforce III or maybe I used the wrong tech term) I can't provide the sources but you might want to ask others as my history is fuzzy. Look to people who are shoot em up fanatics and they might be able to provide examples. Pr'ly done in software. The Genesis video chipset only provides for 2 background layers. But if you have the power available, you can re-draw it on the fly, to create an arbitrary # of "virtual backgrounds" on your 2 real backgrounds. And it's easy to do on the Genny due to the raw CPU power available. Most impressive example I've seen is Metal Storm on the NES, which has three independent background layers running at once on a underpowered system with only one hardware layer. ... Or you can just fake it by scrolling diffrent parts of the screen at diffrent speeds to create the ILLUSION of diffrent layers. The train scene in Ninja Gaiden... 2, I think... does this. There's only one layer, but it's animated in such a way that it looks like multiple layers scroling in parallax. there are probably various ways to cheat the effect of having more depth in the backgrounds of games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_scroll but me != a games programmer I don't care how it works, so long as it looked pretty and gave a pseudo 3d effect it was enough. I'm not a programmer either, really. But I've picked up my share of trivia, along with 4 other people's. And multiple background layers was more common on the SNES because it was easier to do. Sure Sega had the power, but Nintendo had a hardware interface for it, so you didn't have to write a software routine. So then what has happened is all the gamers have had to flock (like birds that are alike) to people who think similarly to them and hold the same opinions as them and what you have is masses of mind-controlled, easily-marketed-and-targeted-to zombies who will only want to see the good things about that particular system they like, ignoring the bad things, ....as opposed what it was like in the good ole days where both sides could apreciate good games on either platform and bash each other on the game titles, not just the hardware. (it was about sonic vs mario, not X-brand hardware vs Y-brand hardware. - irrelevant stuff that won't affect gameplay. Nah. There was a lot of vehement sparring about which system was technically superior, too. Sadly, I took part in it, and I knew very little of what I was talking about. Truth is it just depended on what you were doing. True we had BLAST PROCESSING and other such nonsense, Blast processing was VERY clever. It was a way to explain to people that had no clue what a CPU or megahertz was that the Genesis' 68000 could run rings around the 65816 of the SNES when they were clocked the same, and the Genny chip was clocked faster anyways. Fancy marketing buzzword for a very valid advantage.
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 (edited) Nah. There was a lot of vehement sparring about which system was technically superior, too. Sadly, I took part in it, and I knew very little of what I was talking about. Truth is it just depended on what you were doing. But back in previous generations so long as there were ways around a problem, and the game was a faithful recreation of the gameplay that the original creator had intended, that was what mattered. The reason I used street fighter II as an example was because this was one of the games that really needed to recreate that depth of gameplay you had in the arcades or people would really complain. Given the limits of consoles, and the budget of the average kid who is a fan of the arcade version of the game, the consoles versions would have competed with the arcade versions for money had the conversions been accurate enough gameplay recreations of the better arcade versions of the game. And this was what mattered: people saw that gameplay was the focus first, and could tolerate the reduction in graphics and sounds if it meant the game PLAYED the same. You see, it no longer mattered now that neo geo as a hardware platform kicked the sega genesis or the snes's ass in all those technological areas and that they as little kids with little pocket change couldn't afford to have the system due to how expensive it was: because so long as the gameplay was accurate on a sh1ttier system we would be happy enough. A slightly lower res sprite, a crappier choice of colours, a missing frame of animation, sound fx that might not have sounded as good as the arcade etc were cosmetic trivial things compared to important factors like: the game controlling perfectly, the combos working as they did, the collision detection being accurate, damage levels balanced etc... ie actual gameplay-related sh1t. But what I'm trying to say in all of this is: I think that is all changing now due to the "business" side of things and the need for fanboys to "justfiy thier expensive purchase" such that they would go so far as to bully people on a forum and insult others based on thier less popular choices of platform, not on thier taste of games. And they would bully them for the sole purpose of encouraging others to buy or support the platform that they favour. (fanboys that are kind of like free agents trying to bring a change of opinion) This sort of thing wasn't as common imho in early days, not compared to today at least, and that was what the original poster that I was responding to was trying to say. (which I agree with) If you think very carefully about why the arcade industry has slowly died out over these past years you will see it is due to home consoles being more powerful and competing with them. Now that the conversions of arcade games to the home are very close, and so long as they keep the crucual important gameplay intact (in a fighting game, slight changes may be big enough difference to tournment players) people disregard the platform they are playing that game on. Which is my point about previous generations: they were more gameplay conscious about the reasons for why they would buy something - not necessarily caring about the hardware itself. And this is why I believe next gen systems will fail to live up to the hype of the fanboys because they want high technology but to the rest, if there is very little difference in gameplay of games in the next gen, all it will do is fragment the industry more. The incentive to wanting a new system is to play a game you have never experienced before. The difference I wanted to make clear was that today if you have an increased level of detail in a game environment, automatically people think that this = a much much better game overall. (emphasis being on the cosmetic stuff) People then use that as a basis for thier argument that owning a high spec system means more fun. (just not true unless the game was designed for a higher spec machine from the beginning and allows for gameplay advantages from it - ie more resolution meaning you can see further or have a larger radar for eg) It may be true for certain genres, but I think we have reached a level where companies will try to one-up each other by only attacking thier competitor platform's tech specs, ignoring the quality of the content, the ideas behind those games, the depth of the games themselves, and whether they are actually any fun. Fanboys join in and take sides and nobody cares about how good the game's gameplay is. (because they will never try it firsthand - they'd rather be part of a system war which divides the gamefans into platform loyalists rather than apreciators of the games) This is why we saw the death of 2d gameplay because what happened was that these types of games do not display a system's 3d capabilities to the masses and wow the "platform loyalists". The platform loyalists prefer a game to sort of demonstrate what the system's hardware can do against the competition, (a pissing match) disregarding whether that game has been carefuly made and crafted with refinements that make a gameplay difference. (something that you can't actually "see", but something that is noticable and that you can "feel" after many hours of playing the game first hand) There is a difference, some people just won't admit it because nowadays games are just ported over from system to system. (not necessarily a bad thing, but can be annoying for those who want to see new content, with new ideas rather than a quick cashing in or a milking of a tired franchise through yearly sequels.) How much a game sold, how fast the framerate is, how much more detailed models there are, whether the fx are convincing, how well animated a character runs, how many levels there are, the number of weapons, the textures, etc are all the small trivial stuff (the dot points) that people focus on and forget the bigger picture of why they are playing the game and paying for it in the first place. If a game feels good to play even after many decades of technological improvments and changes in platforms, this is the sign of a well-made game. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, nothing to do with you "being in that age", or liking it because it made good use of a system's capabilities and limits for its time - these are pure technological things which mtter very little in the grand scheme of things. Nope: it is because they are still very deep games with very well thought out game design that even stands out to the depth of gameplay of games in later (more technologically advanced) ages: You still sweat your ass off while playing them and they still thrill you and challenge your mind and reflexes and various other skills that makes them fun and replayable that you'd keep playing and being addicted to it, until something better than it, comes along. And what I'm saying is an advancement in specs to a lot of game types or throwing money around isn't what is needed to necessarily make them better. It is a bit like watching a movie with very high production values and admiring the amount of effort that went in to the making of it, but realising that the movie really sucked still. It was an expensive turd. Then watching a movie which is very entertaining, was made cheaply, and one you'd watch over and over again and not get tired of it no matter when it was made or caring about the limits those people may have had in making it at the time. The quality is there despite the amount of money thrown behind it. Edited August 22, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
JB0 Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 Nah. There was a lot of vehement sparring about which system was technically superior, too. Sadly, I took part in it, and I knew very little of what I was talking about. Truth is it just depended on what you were doing. But back in previous generations so long as there were ways around a problem, and the game was a faithful recreation of the gameplay that the original creator had intended, that was what mattered. There weren't always ways around it. The SNES physically lacked the processing power to do a lot of fast action titles. It's a large part of why there's so few shooters on it. By the same token, you will never get high-quality sample-based sound out of a Genesis, or a 15-bit color pallete. The reason I used street fighter II as an example was because this was one of the games that really needed to recreate that depth of gameplay you had in the arcades or people would really complain. Given the limits of consoles, and the budget of the average kid who is a fan of the arcade version of the game, the consoles versions would have competed with the arcade versions for money had the conversions been accurate enough gameplay recreations of the better arcade versions of the game. Ya know, as a kid I didn't buy games. I talked my parents into doing it. And this was what mattered: people saw that gameplay was the focus first, and could tolerate the reduction in graphics and sounds if it meant the game PLAYED the same. You see, it no longer mattered now that neo geo as a hardware platform kicked the sega genesis or the snes's ass in all those technological areas and that they as little kids with little pocket change couldn't afford to have the system due to how expensive it was: because so long as the gameplay was accurate on a sh1ttier system we would be happy enough. A slight lower res sprite, a crappier choice of colours were cosmetic trivial things to important factors like: the game controlling perfectly, the combos working as they did, the collision detection being accurate etc... ie gameplay-related sh1t. You kind of missed the point. The gameplay on the NeoGeo was 100% accurate. Every move was timed exactly the same, every hit-box exactly the same, every trick, bug, and quirk identical. Because it used the EXACT same games. And the sprites were WAY lower-res, not slightly lower-res. Also, NeoGeo fighter ports always took a hit in the gameplay because you had to restrict the available playfield. SNK had an awesome scaling routine they used that allowed for large sprites when you were right next to each other, and everything got smaller as you scooted out further until you were on opposite edges of the playfield and reduced to flea-like sizes. Ports had to force it to a Street Fighter paradigm with a set viewing window, which drastically altered play. But yes, it WAS way too expensive. Only well-off adult gamers had the thing. Which goes back to my rude remarks about SNK's marketing team. But on Street Fighter... Genesis version. 3-button controller. Enough said. Ditto for Mortal Kombat. If you think very carefully about why the arcade industry has slowly died out over these past years you will see it is due to home consoles being more powerful and competing with them. Home consoles are less powerful again. But not terribly so for the most part. I do agree that riding a system as long as possible was one of the downfalls of the arcade industry, but it started going downhill well before the system boards. Now that the conversions of arcade games to the home are very close, and so long as they keep the crucual important gameplay intact (in a fighting game, slight changes may be big enough difference to tournment players) people disregard the platform they are playing that game on. Which is my point about previous generations: they were more gameplay conscious about the reasons for why they would buy something - not necessarily caring about the hardware itself. I disagree, having been involved in some fairly heated SNES VS Genesis debates. There were hardware loyalists then too. You just didn't see them venting on the internet. And this is why I believe next gen systems will fail to live up to the hype of the fanboys because they want high technology but to the rest, if there is very little difference in gameplay of games in the next gen, all it will do is fragment the industry more. The incentive to wanting a new system is to play a game you have never experienced before. That's funny, given how the industry has become increasingly reliant upon big-name sequels, and new game ideas are avoided like the plague by consumers. The incentive for most people isn't a new game. It's a new rehash of the same old game. The difference I wanted to make was that today if you have an increased level of detail in a game environment, automatically people think that this = a much much better game overall. (emphasis being on the cosmetic stuff) People then use that as a basis for thier argument that owning a high spec system means more fun. It may be true for certain genres, but I think we have reached a level where companies will try to one-up each other by only attacking thier competitor platform's tech specs, ignoring the quality of the content, the ideas behind those games, the depth of the games themselves, and whether they are actually any fun. But that's ALWAYS how it's been. I linked the Intellivision ad earlier. Mattel's ENTIRE campaign was screenshots of 1st-gen 2600 games VS latest-and-greatest INTV games. Fanboys join in and take sides and nobody cares about how good the game's gameplay is. (because they will never try it firsthand - they'd rather be part of a system war which divides the gamefans into platform loyalists rather than apreciators of the games) IMO, you're just hearing a lot more from the loyalists. They're the ones that talk about it mostly. The people that play everything just pay their cash and go about their business. This is why we saw the death of 2d gameplay because what happened was that these types of games do not display a system's 3d capabilities to the masses and wow the "platform loyalists". The platform loyalists prefer a game to sort of demonstrate what the system's hardware can do against the competition, (a pissing match) disregarding whether that game has been carefuly made and crafted with refinements that make a gameplay difference. (something that you can't actually "see", but something that is noticable and that you can "feel" after many hours of playing the game first hand) Actually, it has more to do with Sony's PS1 marketing techniques than it does fanboys equating penis length with hardware power. Sony drew a LOT of new people into the game market that, even if they didn't become hardware loyal, fervently believed that 3D = better, because it's what Sony used to convince them that they needed a PS. It's hard to sell a sprite-based game because they're viewed by most of the market as old and crappy. Sony's taken video games totally mainstream. Which means that they're now catering to the same idiots driving the movie, TV, and music industries. There is a difference, some people just won't admit it because nowadays games are just ported over from system to system. (not necessarily a bad thing, but can be annoying for those who want to see new content, with new ideas rather than a quick cashing in or a milking of a tired franchise through yearly sequels.) I DO dislike XCube2 games, mainly because they're fit to the lowest common denominator and don't take good advantage of ANY of the systems they're on. When you develop an exclusive title, you take advantage of the target system's strengths, and build the controls around that system's controller. And what I'm saying is an advancement in specs to a lot of game types or throwing money around isn't what is needed to necessarily make them better. It is a bit like watching a movie with very high production values and admiring the amount of effort that went in to the making of it, but realising that the movie really sucked still. It was an expensive turd. Then watching a movie which is very entertaining, was made cheaply, and one you'd watch over and over again and not get tired of it no matter when it was made or caring about the limits those people may have had in making it at the time. The quality is there despite the amount of money thrown behind it. I don't disagree with that. Just that the industry is running a lot diffrently than it used to.
Skull Leader Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 While we've been over it a million times now, I think I've found a quicker, easier way to sum up my feelings about games of late.. "Dude, where's my gameplay?" Don't get me wrong... my game cabnet right now looks like sequel city (except for Robotech...the only reason I don't have the second robotech game was because I can't get anyone to give me any real money for the first one and I don't want TWO terrible games taking up space on my shelf) and I enjoy most of those like any other person (I've yet to play an Ace Combat that I didn't enjoy, all the MGS games rock, etc). Still, they all lack the ingenuity of a new, innovative game. Looking back at our discussions over the matter (which I've found very enlightening and enjoyable, btw), we seem to pretty much blame everything from the hardware developers, to the software developers and everything in between... and I agree wholeheartedly with that, but could it simply be a case of we've run out of "new" ideas? In all seriousness, what is there left to do? I don't mean that sarcastically or rhetorically, but what subjects or ideas haven't been touched on in some way? JB0, Mike, 1/1, Gaijin... anyone? What have I missed?
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 (edited) You kind of missed the point. The gameplay on the NeoGeo was 100% accurate.Every move was timed exactly the same, every hit-box exactly the same, every trick, bug, and quirk identical. Because it used the EXACT same games. That is true: but like any arcade games, they were out of everyone's price range and so we had to make do with conversions of those games to home consoles. What I'm saying is: software developers who focus on fine tuning the conversions to be as faithful in gameplay to the original, but take a hit in other areas like graphics, sounds, and cosmetic stuff, open the door to the GAMEPLAY of those arcade games to people who could not afford to play them in the homes. So long as the core gameplay of the original will not change in the conversion process, I don't care so much as to what platform it runs on. The neogeo version will be better for having that power but if the gameplay is the same it is cosmetic. And this is what happened when conversions of arcade titles started getting really good due to skill and care put into them. (At the time I thought Street Fighter II and NBA Jam were some of the best arcade conversions at the time) If you owned a neogeo you were one lucky SOB, but the core of a game is its gameplay, not its sounds, or how high quality the image is or the size of the sprites. (these are bonuses for liking the game, and we can apreciate the technology helping to bring it but the spirit of the game lies in the gameplay itself not necessarily the technology or specific hardware platform that helped bring it) As an example I can play Street Fighter Alpha III Dash on my gameboy advance the same way I would play it on the arcade. And the GBA version adds more characters to the original and even the much-more-graphically-close-to-the-original DC version. Which would I rather play: the dc or GBA version? At first you might think the DC because of the closeness (in everything) to the original arcade, but in fact the GBA version is more attractive to me because not only does the gameplay from the arcade version remain intact, but it has even more depth than it. The deeper gameplay from the GBA version is what mattered more to me so I would choose that one to play over the DC version. (and I own both) So long as the original creator's gameplay intent is retained in the conversion, the ports will compete for dollars against the arcades and that is why you won't find people playing a game in the arcade that has already been ported to the homes as much as if it hadn't been ported. What is my point in all this? That a higher spec system with higher spec capabilities will always be the closest to the original intention of the creators of the game, but if the core GAMEPLAY is translated well to lesser-capable, crappier systems through skillful developers who care about the game, then in the end....in the grand scheme of things: what matters was the game's gameplay! NOT that it ran on the best hardware of its time or that the hardware was some blanket garantee that the gameplay of a game is even deep or fun. The emphasis today seems to be that the highest spec system will necessarily be the best console to buy. That's bullshit because it just means it wil be easier and more convenient to the developers (some of them may be sloppy) and it doesn't take into account workarounds like compression and such. In a lot of cases, crappy developers that whine about limits should blame their own lack of skills, not a platform. If you've played the GBA version of SFA3 you will really apreciate how great a conversion this game is in gameplay compared to the arcade. Yeah the sprites are smaller than what they were originally intended to be, but it plays exactly like what you would expect it to play, CONTROLS exactly like you would expect it to control, RESPONDS like you would expect it to respond had you played the game years ago when the original was made for the arcades. (and let's be honest its not like the arcade ran on anything special) Strategies you employ in the GBA version would work exactly like they would from the arcade. At the time of the genny and snes, what mattered was that gameplay retained the depth of the game. This took prime importance over whether the graphics were 100% exact (in terms of retaining pixel perfect details) or the sounds had been accurate. Yes there are minute details missing when you scale down something for a weaker platform but when handled with care and compatence, gameplay remains intact. No different if I had played DOOM in a slightly smaller window box and got less detail than I had if it were fullscreen, but the core gameplay was retained either way. All the strategies I use, would not suddenly change due to the scale down process. Anyone who claims a big difference in gameplay from that tiny change would be exaggerating. And yes I know about the scaling effect in samurai spirits which is very beautiful. But gloating about owning a neo only because you have a more powerful system (which is silly) and not because of the games you could access (which is sensible) are two different things. Most people would have to settle for a scaled down version at affordable price if it meant gameplay was as accurate as possible through skilled conversion over the unaffordable "perfect arcade in your home" experience. The SF II conversion to home was just a good example of me choosing a game for its depth in gameplay, not because it ran on a much higher spec machine. Compare SFII on a snes or genesis to Fatal Fury? (FF was an early neogeo fighter) I would say that because FF has less gameplay depth, the fact that is contains bigger sprites, crisper sounds, is outweighed by the fact that is has shallower gameplay. This is because it was designed less well and is poorer in quality where it counts.(in gameplay) Not because the platform let it down but because of por game design. Notice how my choice had nothing to do with hardware? I play both. I see one game having more depth. I choose to play the one with more depth. Simple. Similarly Samurai spirits is a great game NOT because it runs on a high spec machine but because the creators deserve credit for designing such a great game. Again notice how it has nothing to do with hardware? Back then this is how gamers thought. Today it is almost assumed that the platform a title runs on, makes huge differences to gameplay when they don't. (mainly due to lazy cross platform conversions.) Hardware will have very little to do with my decision to buy a next gen system unless that next gen system has fresh content and well-designed and well-thought-out concepts that make me want to buy the system to play the game. But there are some who just buy the system for the platform itself - disregarding the fact there is nothing worth playing on the system yet - "brand worshippers". I won't praise a good movie by the choice of theatre I chose to sit in. So why should people suddenly expect quality games by the system it runs on? Every system has a limit, a great game won't sudenlly suck because it runs on a lower spec machine. It will suck because the conversion process was handled poorly, or the developers were lazy, or if it is just imposible to do. There are good conversions and bad conversions. (take final fight on GBA - poorly done and lazily handled and it didn't even have to be so. Then compare it with SFA III on GBA. Well done! This would be like comparing toynami valk with a yamato valk they are both based on a cool design - the VF1 - but one is handled more competantly than another. The credit for the good design should go to the creator of the VF1, (and this is why people want a accurate toy of it) but the praise for the quality toy should go to the company who made the more accurate "conversion" from idea on paper... to physical object. (the well made toy) In game terms I'm saying the gameplay is that "idea" or "concept" on paper and there are various ways this "idea" can be put into reality. (either done craply or done well) So long as the conversion is competently done, I no longer feel so bad about playing the game on a lower spec system with hardware limits since what was important (the gameplay) has made it intact due to a competant conversion by skilled developers. Therefore we shoud not assume higher spec system necessarily will bring improvements in gameplay right across the board. (it will make it easier for a game demanding it however, but that makes no difference to the consumer on the other end who doesn't care how something was made or apreciate how much effort was behind it, just that is it quality product in final form) But what I'm saying is that today there is an "assumption" that better system means better games, and showing off specs and hyping them to be more important than they are is more rampant than in the past, where there was more focus on appreciating the depth in the design of a game and not technobabble which may or may not have an end effect to enhancing the gameplay in drastic ways. That's funny, given how the industry has become increasingly reliant upon big-name sequels, and new game ideas are avoided like the plague by consumers.The incentive for most people isn't a new game. It's a new rehash of the same old game. I disagree, see tomb raider or crash bandicoot as past examples. Look even at metal slug. This only survives because it has no competition. Even popular franchises can turn people off (I have no more interest in japanese rpgs anymore) once they get sick of the same stuff over and over again. Eventually what happens is people see the same engine, the same type of things and they become desensitised to it all. This is no different to people seeing sequels to bond style FPS and knowing what to expect because it becomes a staple part of the diet. (they go with what they know cuz its there, its convenient and there is little risk. but disregardng the falling quality.) Maybe they just have little time to research something else? Remember when FPS were the poo because of DOOM and how many clones of it were made? Now people are demanding much more from the FPS because these days they have evolved to create more new experiences and deeper gameplay. It's not just technologically either, but new ideas (through mods) are what spark renewed interest in flooded genres. Just because people do buy something it doesn't mean they are not sick of seeing the same stuff. They buy it not because they want it, they buy it because the market is flooded with it and as creatures of habit they go with what they know. It's like how critics of a bad star wars movie will actually see all the movies just so they can complain how crap they are. They might even buy the dvds or action figures or whatever but still reserve the right to complain. And people bought the GBA and complained didn't they? It's a misconception to think that just because people criticise something for lack of originality they won't still buy it. This is no different from people who use a microsoft product and complain about how bloated and buggy the software is but still tolerate it enough to use it. Using it and tolerating it, and even paying for it does not mean they necessarily love MS. But that's ALWAYS how it's been.I linked the Intellivision ad earlier. Mattel's ENTIRE campaign was screenshots of 1st-gen 2600 games VS latest-and-greatest INTV games. but is it on the same scale as today? As gaming has become more mainstream and less of a kid's niche interest and as the market has grown, its gotten worse and more widespread. Whereby people won't even consider another system because they want the safety of getting what others are going to be getting. People are less focused on individual games and more on whose ads are cooler, who made more noise at a show, the image of the brand (how nice the outer casing looks, and how sophisticated they will be in front of others who watch them with one: even the color of the casing matters) and specs. (there is a word for these people: graphic whores who salivate at tech demos that aren't even full games) Not so much looking at the games themselves. The balance is shifting more away from each manufacturer focusing on itself, to one of putting all its energy on watching what the other is doing and this is going to cost them. People don't want to be decieved into believing something that is not true. Ever heard the boy who cried wolf? Hyping something out to be better than it is, is a double edged sword. But its annoying to not be able to tell someone thier system sucks for various reasons and not have them get defensive or abusive. Criticism is taken as a personal insult, not a truth about the weakness of one platform to another. You can't for example say how underpowered the GBA is, without having fanboys think you are a troll. Previously you couldn't complain about the price of cartridges (neogeo fanboys. Not neogeo fans; but fanboys) without someone trying to defend the actions of the company (as if they were an employee of it themselves) and attacking you back. Instead of being seen as a voice of reason, and constructive, and helpful, you are seen as an enemy! When in fact the advice (say for example advice on ditching a silly feature or arguing aginst poor design) can only bring good. I remember early on during the GBA launch, all those people complaining about the GBA's lack of light as being labelled anti-nintendo trolls on game boards but now the feature to include one is welcomed by all. (even the people formely bashing the critics of the faults) Do you see what I'm saying? Without honest objective criticism anymore, we can't move forward. But fanboyism I think has gotten much worse than in the past. I'm not saying it didn't always exist, but due to the change in power and the size of the industry it just isn't the same as the old 50/50 rivalry in the sega/nintendo years. The one thing sega had was that they came first (cpaturing makret) and so it was natural for nintendo to release a system with more colours, fx, better sound chip etc. So there was a kind of equilibrium at least and some respect by game fans for the quality on either side as developers could exploit and maximise each system's strength and bring out the best in each other to try harder. People who played sonic would likely not stop themselves from liking a mario game, and people who liked zelda would not ignore the wonderboy games. There was a respect for the game titles themselves, and hardware wasn't as big a deal. Fans who played the genny version of Street fighter knew they had a better controller than the snes people, and the snes people got slightly clearer picture due to increased amount of colours on screen. IMO, you're just hearing a lot more from the loyalists. They're the ones that talk about it mostly. The people that play everything just pay their cash and go about their business. Yeah I suppose that's possible. Actually, it has more to do with Sony's PS1 marketing techniques than it does fanboys equating penis length with hardware power. Sony drew a LOT of new people into the game market that, even if they didn't become hardware loyal, fervently believed that 3D = better, because it's what Sony used to convince them that they needed a PS. It's hard to sell a sprite-based game because they're viewed by most of the market as old and crappy. Sony's taken video games totally mainstream. Which means that they're now catering to the same idiots driving the movie, TV, and music industries. This is true, maybe due to saturn's strength in 2d. By not showing or encouraging development for any 2d games for PS1, people then can't say how much weaker the ps is to the saturn. But this brings us to the chicken and egg thing: do fanboys who believe it, choose to agree with sony because that's what they always believed and are helping to spread the hype by being vocal? or were they persuaded to believe this idea by the sony hype itself which cuased a chain reaction? To me it makes no difference because those who hate 2d for no other reason that they believe the gameplay is shallow will continue to create this demand by developers for more 3d games due to the fact that they are fanboys being vocal about this silly idea, which developers are pressured to respond to. Both types have potential but there is a huge imbalance and death of one type that makes people who want more of that missing type, have to suffer. I think that had the GBA not come out there would be no outlet for the 2d fans, and even then many of the gba 2d games pale in gameplay to what was available in the golden years of the 16bit era. It's hard to say what really caused the move away from 2d. (I believe the need to have perfect ports of arcade games was the cause and popularity of FPS by pc gamers - before that mainly flight sims were 3d) Had history been different and saturn was the dominant one, (assume sega had the marketing techniques for a second) maybe we would have seen advancements in 2d in all modern games the way it happens with 3d? (kind of like the jump that we saw in street fighter II to Street Fighter III in terms of quality sprite animation.) Edited August 22, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
yellowlightman Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 In all seriousness, what is there left to do? I don't mean that sarcastically or rhetorically, but what subjects or ideas haven't been touched on in some way? JB0, Mike, 1/1, Gaijin... anyone? What have I missed? 322249[/snapback] Innovate. Refine. Make mo' money. All depends on where you look, really. Katamari Damacy is a great example of an new original idea, executed well, met with exception critical praise and managed to do fairly well. There are certainly more opportunities out there for new game design, it just needs to be encouraged. Not limiting your purchases to the mainstream, annually regurgitated titles Madden and Grand Theft Auto helps out a lot. Not to mention there's a lot of room left to perfect what we've already seen. Halo2 is good example of this, nothing about the game is particularly revolutionary but everything is refined and polished to an amazing degree. The online interface of the game is pretty much the same format we've seen for years, it's just been streamlined and designed so well it feels like it's new. On a semi-related tangent, here's a quote from Peter Molyneux regarding the Nintendo Revolution controller that I found a little encouraging: "There is a line at the end of the book 'Game Over' and it is: 'Never underestimate Nintendo'. That is all I can say about the controller." http://www.revogaming.net/html/modules/new....php?storyid=73
Skull Leader Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 I've yet to understand why Nintendo has been so hush-hush about their controller. my cynical side dictates that regardless of their intentions, it's highly doubtful that it will be as impressive as they're making it out to be.
JB0 Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 (edited) I've yet to understand why Nintendo has been so hush-hush about their controller. my cynical side dictates that regardless of their intentions, it's highly doubtful that it will be as impressive as they're making it out to be. 322280[/snapback] They haven't made it out to be very impressive, really. Just a new idea. Most credible rumor right now is the pressure-sensitive handles, but it's still just rumor. I do think it'd be nice if they'd show the damn thing. Edited August 23, 2005 by JB0
Skull Leader Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Unless it makes my coffee for me in the morning and keeps me from being lonely on a saturday night (the bad part about having a girlfriend who works on the weekend... ), then I'm not really that anxious to see.
JB0 Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Unless it makes my coffee for me in the morning and keeps me from being lonely on a saturday night (the bad part about having a girlfriend who works on the weekend... ), then I'm not really that anxious to see. 322480[/snapback] I'm curious. I doubt it'll live up to my expectations of a liquid-metal controller that reforms to fit your hands and the game, but I AM curious.
Gaijin Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Everyone's curious about it. That's the main draw for the Rev right now. It will either be genius or gimmicky (Virtual boy/DS).
JB0 Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Everyone's curious about it. That's the main draw for the Rev right now. It will either be genius or gimmicky (Virtual boy/DS). 322664[/snapback] Both of which are fine systems. The VB in particular is a system that desreves far more respect than it gets.
Kin Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 anyone seen news about the smallsize GBA... ala nes 8 bit controller style? Or is it old news?
Gaijin Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Everyone's curious about it. That's the main draw for the Rev right now. It will either be genius or gimmicky (Virtual boy/DS). 322664[/snapback] Both of which are fine systems. The VB in particular is a system that desreves far more respect than it gets. 322668[/snapback] Gimmicky doesn't mean horrid. But neither are genius. The VB hurt my eyes though.
JB0 Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Everyone's curious about it. That's the main draw for the Rev right now. It will either be genius or gimmicky (Virtual boy/DS). 322664[/snapback] Both of which are fine systems. The VB in particular is a system that desreves far more respect than it gets. 322668[/snapback] Gimmicky doesn't mean horrid. But neither are genius. The VB hurt my eyes though. 322672[/snapback] I'm quite a fan of the VB. IMO it's early demise was one of gaming's great losses. Having said that, the screen DOES have a nasty refresh problem. It's an active display like a CRT instead of a passive one like an LCD. The pixels are directly created by light(in this case from LEDs, in a CRT's case from phosphors being struck by electrons. </tech-lesson>). Because of this, there's a "flicker" between frames. And the VB is at a 50Hz refresh, which any european can tell you sucks, even on a "slow" display like a TV screen. On a faster-responding display, you can usually see the flicker at 60Hz(the official minimum for flicker-free vision). The VB is one of those faster displays, as the LEDs used are only illuminating a given pixel for a fraction of the screen time(it uses a single column of LEDs and a vibrating mirror to change what part of the image they're pointed at, resulting in very brief pixel illuminations. CRT phosphors have a "sustain" so the brightness drops off relatively slowly, but VB pixels are instantly black when the mirror moves on.). The problem can be minimized by reducing the brightness, for reasons I don't know(I'm a techie. I know hardware, not biology.). But personal experience says it works. Another problem(not directly related to the tech used) was the depth of the display. Too deep of an image can cause headaches, which is why most of the software offers brightness AND depth controls. The VB is unique in that the display HAS to be adjusted for a comfortable play experience, whereas most other systems require little to no adjustment of the display. But when properly tuned it has the most immersive gameplay around, even if it is monochrome. It's one of the very few systems to ever offer true 3D graphics as opposed to a 3D illusion on a 2D display, and is the only one to create a totally immersive environment for it(the Jaguar 3D goggles never making it out as far as I know). The fact that it died so fast was very disappointing, as it never even got all of it's 1st-generation software out, much less the 2nd- and 3rd-gen stuff. Mario Clash, Vertical Force, and WarioLand are nice uses of the tech, but I don't really think any of them are system-sellers. Red Alarm, for all its praise, is a tech demo that is plagued with too many problems to be considered a finished game, IMO.
Jolly Rogers Posted August 25, 2005 Posted August 25, 2005 Xbox 360 brochure leaked - pictures & MSRPs here
Recommended Posts