Post by: The Doc on June 18, 2003, 12:00:18 PM
The Doc
Post by: AgentSeven on June 18, 2003, 12:21:48 PM
Still, Doc, I do understand your frustration. There are a legion of ignorant fans out there, buying mindless games they can't even be bothered to finish. Too many followers and not enough leaders. Hopefully though, there are enough, strong willed, intelligent, independant thinkers out there to combat this ignorant mass. Blindly following the flock leads only to despair. Thinking for ones self is the best thing you can do. Plus, those who take the lead and think for themselves reap all the rewards, while the flock goes hungry.
Post by: AgentSeven on June 18, 2003, 12:23:11 PM
Post by: The Omen on June 18, 2003, 12:31:26 PM
Post by: Round Eye on June 18, 2003, 01:07:49 PM
Seriously though,
I think only people living on their own should be able to purchase games and consoles. Only when you have to balance a budget do you seriously start looking into spending your hard earned money on quality games only.
If you live at home you just have too much money to blow and you can buy all the crap that you want, with no worries.
Chim chiminey chim chiminey chim chim charoo.
Post by: WhoDey on June 18, 2003, 01:31:46 PM
First, when we were young what games did we buy? We bought the popular Atari and NES games. What made them popular? Either they looked better that most other games out there or we heard about them through our friends. Just like today's youth, we didn't buy games soley because they had good gameplay. I'm sure there are plenty of quality NES games I missed out on because I didn't realize these games were good. Take the NES game Balloon Fight for example. I never remember hearing about that game back then and only recently played it with Animal Crossing. I found it's a lot of fun and certainly better than a handful of NES games that I did buy back then.
Second, whose to say the older crowd knows what good games are? I'm sure you do and probably most of the people that visit these gaming sites on a regular basis. But are they representative of the older crowd? I doubt it. I know 20 and 30 yr olds that buy games because they have cool realistic graphics and don't think twice about gameplay. It's because they aren't in to the gaming scene enough to realize how much of a difference good gameplay can make in a game. They haven't played 100 other games in order to judge and compare. They are casuaul gamers and many of them are the older gamers.
Finally, it's funny that you criticize the yonger crowd for liking games only because of good graphics. I've got a 10 yr old daughter that can sit down and play Super Mario Bro's for an hour and love it just as easily as she can a more glamorous Super Mario Sunshine. Meanwhile it's me that gets bored with the games with the outdated graphics after playing them for 10 minutes.
We were all young once. We all made mistakes but have learned from them. Younger gamers need time to learn their likes and dislikes, just like all of us did. And the industry definitely needs younger gamers to keep it thriving.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 18, 2003, 01:42:17 PM
The "problem" stems a lot from what people are "raised" with. Those of us who grew up with Nintendo or Sega systems have learned to value the quality of games because that's what the console makers pushed. Nintendo and Sega were quality game makers so they taught us to like quality games (ie: their own games). Sony on the other hand isn't a quality game maker. That's such a common opinion it's practically fact. Sony obviously couldn't raise their gamers on quality games because they didn't have any to offer (at least with the first party games). Therefore they had to take a different approached and instead promoted games that were cool. They raised their gamers on sports games and games games that have cool characters and themes. Now there were still good games on the Playstation but I think they became more popular because they were cool and the fact that they were good just increased their popularity. Games like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy VII, and Metal Gear Solid were both cool games and good games so they sold best. However the order of importance is cool, good.
That's why GTA is so popular. It's a cool game AND it's good so it sells really well. The themes in it however are such that even if it sucked it probably still would sell alright (see State of Emergency).
Post by: Grey Ninja on June 18, 2003, 01:45:57 PM
I just hope that one day when they grow up they will realize just what games are, and why the good ones should be protected.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 18, 2003, 02:27:43 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on June 18, 2003, 02:31:33 PM
I have a cube, and a friend brought Enter the Matrix to play.
My friends' who bought Matrix said that game is better than Metroid Prime. They even said it's better than Animal Crossing.
I seriously disagree, the attention to detail on everything alone in Metroid's case, and the innovation in AC, before I even consider the storyline in either game, is enough to leave me in awe.
That said, my friends who bought Enter The Matrix, largely bought movie-franchise games.
Hulk, Nightfire, bla bla, and said they're all good.
Before you criticise all of us our age, there is a small market of educated teenagers who buy games not to their name, but to all the other factors involved. Coincidentally, those living around here all own a gamecube.
Post by: gcnfreak on June 18, 2003, 02:40:25 PM
Post by: Matt on June 18, 2003, 02:55:04 PM
Example: Headphones now go behind your head, not over the top.
Example: Notebook PC's are now coming with cool silver chrome colors.
Nintendo's problem was the GCN didn't get a cool sleek look (compared to PS2/Xbox). Rather it got a cube which isn't as appealing. That turns off many.
Post by: Bartman3010 on June 18, 2003, 04:34:29 PM
Ah well I bought an indigo one just because its the system's 'standard' color. At least way back when the console was released. I wanted to have matching colors with the other pieces, but I guess I wont with my BLACK broadband adapter and my BLACK Game Boy Player.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 18, 2003, 05:02:54 PM
The animations and the graphics could have been better, but the game is pretty cool. I played the PS2 version, and haven't played the GCN version yet. Are the graphics on the GCN version good as Metroid?
Stupid question, i know, but i have to ask.
I, on the other hand, didn't really grow up with the NES, since I didn't own consoles until 1995 with the SNES. But it was the NES that sparked my love of games - quality ones too, cause my uncle had one.
Moreover than not, teh NES was cool back then, so we all got one. THe catch was that basically all the games we played were really good ones.
The PSX/PS2 are cool, and that's why every kid has one. Catch is, most of the games are crap.
I commend them, however, that they lik games with inferior graphics and like the 'gameplay', but when that gp "PS2 graphics are better than Gamecube", that's the icing on my temper cake, and I'll bash the nearest PS2 (or PS2 lover).
Post by: aoi tsuki on June 18, 2003, 06:10:15 PM
The maturation process also applies to indepent thought, as someone pointed at earlier. As we get older, ideally we're more aware of advertising and less susceptible of it, due in part because we can confidently form our own opinions. Heck, i preordered Mortal Kombat on Genesis to get it on Mortal Monday after having played it a few times at the arcade. i returned it a few days later, after beating it repeatedly without much effort, and discovering several bugs. i fell for the hype then, but never again.
Termin8Anakin, it's hard to say which game looks better because they're two completely genres and don't even share the same style camera. The environments in Metroid look much more convincing, although the character models in ETM look pretty good. i'd give the nod to Metroid overall though; ETM as a whole wasn't as graphically satisfying.
Post by: The Doc on June 18, 2003, 06:13:43 PM
The Doc
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 18, 2003, 06:50:56 PM
Post by: fire73chic on June 18, 2003, 06:53:05 PM
Post by: KrazyJ1098 on June 18, 2003, 07:26:19 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on June 18, 2003, 08:14:18 PM
Post by: joeamis on June 18, 2003, 10:00:14 PM
I consider myself an old gamer despite the avg game players age now being 28...(I turned 23 on June 18th...hours ago) I've played since the Atari 5200...and owned virtually every single system since the NES came out... I think one factor (mentioned already somewhat) in the games kids/teens/adults buy is how much money they have. For instance when I owned the NES I had no money of my own, so my parents bought me games... sometimes they decided and surprised me on birthdays/christmas...other times I picked the games. I was very young then and that really has nothing to do with the point I'm getting at but once I got the SNES (around age 12), the only time my parents got me games was when it was a holiday...so that left it to me to buy my own games... so I chose wisely and bought quality titles. My two friends on the other hand lived in rich families and they recieved games from their parents all the time, and they were often very mediocre at best. (they chose them not their parents)
Another thing I'd like to say is that you can't really expect young game players to know/understand/and buy or ask for quality titles. They're young and when it comes down to it, they just want to play games that seem cool to them or are fun for them to play. Most don't know about any gaming sites on the internet and especially not forums, I stress only most...because some do know about sites/forums. I'd say about a third of young gamers get a gaming magazine/or read one at stores each month, so that's yet another factor against them knowing about quality titles (we all know where we go to learn about what quality titles are coming or just released).
So really I'd say the one main factor that actually gets young gamers to learn about quality titles with great gameplay is when they actually get to play one for a decent amount of time. I remember when I was about 6 years old I went to a Lechmere (its like Walmart but more upscale and it went out of business) they had a NES there with a cartridge that had roughly 30 FULL (not demos) games on it for people to try. My previous experience was with only my two Ataris (5200 and 7800). Well my bro and I played game after game trying out each one, but the one and ONLY game there that I was actually GA GA over was this weird game with a bunch of bricks everywhere and little mustached people running about... so as my bro cycled through all the games asking me which one I wanted to play again, I would keep yelling "THE ONE WITH THE BRICKS!, THE ONE WITH THE BRICKS!"
Basically what I'm saying is that not until a young kid experiences a quality game do they actually learn what good games are. After that, they will still get the games that are "cool" and not so good, but they will also begin to ask for games that are good and a little less cool. As time goes by, they will begin to make the trend from "cool" games to quality games, until they reach an age where they finally just buy games that are quality. I guess you could call it "growing up", mentally "maturing", or simply the evolution of a gamer! (casual gamers are less likely to experience the "evolution" to quality games however lol, their loss not mine)
Post by: Plugabugz on June 19, 2003, 01:21:57 AM
That 90 largely havce an Xbox or PS2 anbd buy a game simply coz it's "in fashion".
Halo, GTA, both examples of games that into this 'icon status'. A buys game, WOW its cool!, tells B, WOW it's great!, tells C, bla bla bla.
I bought Animal Crossing, and I got called mad for buying it. No problem with me!
It's incredibly naive of people to assume that teenagers are all the same. Fair enough, I'm human, and the only mistake I have made was to buy Crash Bandicoot.
But within that huge void of teenagers who buy fashion titles, there is a group who know what we're doing, and buy to a more rounded reason rather than "My friend says its got good graphics!".
Post by: PIAC on June 19, 2003, 02:06:33 AM
i remember a time ago (im only 18 so wasn't that long ago) when i was deciding which console to get, Snes or Mega Drive (having never owned a console prior) and what sold me was partially which look liked it had more/better games and also proir experiances with consoles (played a fair bit of shinobi and sonic on sega and enjoyed, also played a fair bit of mario 1 and 3). as a young uninformed gamer i could have read some magazines but i just didn't know about any(i ended up getting a snes). that little story has no real point, but some newer gamers are probably going though such a decision right now, give them time to grow and gain some experiance and they will see good games over hype games (though those two words can rightfully belong togeather (ie wind waker))
also happy birthday Joeamis ^_^
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 02:13:21 AM
I honestly dont think more than 1% of consumers even think about the "industry" when they buy a console. They are simply buying a machine/toy to play video games on.
I am 32 years old and have been gaming since the vic 20 days, and could care less about the industry. I dont base my purchases on what is the better choice for the industry, hell I dont even think that is really possible.
Who's to say buying the gamecube is the better choice anyway?
The gaming industry is in the midst of its biggest boom in history, the industry is doing just fine, in fact it is smoking.
To many here believe the "industry" is in trouble simply because Nintendo is not doing as well as they like. Their assumtions about peoples choices are flawed because those choices dont coincide with their own.
Ninja said
Quote
I see a bunch of kids buying Xboxes because it's more "mature", or the graphics are better, and I just want to puke.
why should you care? how do you that these were their reasons? Maybe they like the games better?
Why is it so hard to believe that a lot of people just dont like what nintendo has to offer anymore, including their first party titles?
As far as I am concerned Sony has been the biggest benifit to the industry, they have opened the door to the general public, they are the reason you see so many third party developers, they are the reason their are so many games.
The mainstream video playing crowd is not stupid, they dont just walk around blind folded buying games that smell like blood, they buy games that they will like to play. They just dont care about gaming as a whole they way some here do, and there is nothing wrong with that. I drive a car and dont care about that industry either.
The problem is that gaming use to be a geek only hobby, only gamers played games. Many now seem bitter that that has been taken from them, especially when the mass consumers dont agree with their choices, so they blame the industry, the media, who ever they can to help them feel justified.
I say who cares, all is well on this side of the fence.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 19, 2003, 02:48:41 AM
Of course there's nothing wrong with not caring about the industry. It's just that too many developers are focusing only on the mainstream that they usually forget what making a game is about. We are not angry/bitter because our "geek-only hobby" has been taken away from us into the mainstream.
Man, I'm too tired to rant and complain more. I'm in a sarcastic mood today. I've got so much more fanboy thoughts for this post, but I just can't be bothered. I'll let Mario, Infernal, Grey Ninja, and any other million word posters take care of this.
Post by: alvinaloy on June 19, 2003, 02:51:59 AM
What I think is that when I was young and playing the Atari or NES, it was the coolest thing around. Hell, it was the only few gaming console available. So when I grew up, I'm rather used to Nintendo's style of games.
However, our younger were not exposed to the NES. Only to PS2 and Xbox, with their massive advertising. Nintendo, on the other hand, is largely quiet and I won't be surprised if I asked any passerby on the road about Gamecube and they would give me a blank stare. But of course, that's because Nintendo is a gaming company, they don't have other businesses like Sony or Microsoft and hence, doesn't have the luxury of setting up an office over here (in Singapore).
But, I would believe that our currently young gamers would also eventually grow old, and new systems would come along, then one of them would again post something like this, "The younger gamers now don't know a good game if it came along and bit them in the leg." And they would also reminiscent about their days with PS2 and Xbox.
What I'm saying is that different generations enjoy different things. They look at things different. You can go back to the Ice Age and the cavemen's closest and best gaming experience would be using a club to bash on the head of a nearby dino. They'll think that us modern men don't know sh*t about enjoying ourselves.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 19, 2003, 03:00:48 AM
cavemen.
Ooga Booga!
They wouldn't think that we're missing out on anything when they see our games...they would be sh*ttin' themselves scared.
Post by: evilnate on June 19, 2003, 06:32:36 AM
Since the age of gamers has increased, it follows that the content of games would mature as well. However, I think that video game companies are headed for the same type of trouble that movie studios found themselves in a few years ago, but I don't think that it's all their fault. The movie studios were making R-rated films, and intentionally marketing them to kids and young teenagers, a group which shouldn't have been allowed into the films at all. There were many memos released that prove this. It's similar in the case of video games, but I don't think that companies have to intentionally market "mature" games to kids. The fact that it's a video game makes it appealing.
Anyway, what I'm getting to is this: Younger gamers crave "mature" games for the same reasons that we older gamers craved movies like "Nightmare on Elm Street" or "Porky's" when we were kids. They're "forbidden", they're taboo, and they contained things that our parents didn't want us to see. That's what makes GTA or even BMX XXX appealing to these younger gamers.
One of the many reasons that I bought a cube was that I was starting a family, and I've built a collection of games that I would have no problem letting my children see or play (except RE and Eternal Darkness). It's up to the parents to control and monitor what the kids see and play, just like it was back when we were kids.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 07:11:29 AM
I agree 100% with you and would also add the numbing of society as whole as another contributing factor.
All the violence and graphic coverage of it on the news, in the movies, on TV and so on have led society as a whole to become much more accepting of it.
TV is a great example of how the public has been forced to become accustomed with graphic violence. When I was 20, only 12 years ago mind you, you never saw overly violent stuff on TV, or saw a set of boobs, or heard a swear word, unless you watched TV at 3 am.
Now you see all of this in prime time, it has so quietly become part of our new culture that many people havent even noticed.
On the simpson's, while watching TV, Marge said " FOX has become a hard core porn station so subtlely that I didnt even notice it", this is what is really happening to a lesser extent.
Kids are exposed to things at a much younger age than ever before, violence doesnt shock them anymore, it has to some extent become expected.
Most game makers are simply following the trends of society. To say that kids crave them because they are taboo is a little niave IMO, I think they simply think that it is normal for things like games and movies to be violent.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 07:12:32 AM
I agree 100% with you and would also add the numbing of society as whole as another contributing factor.
All the violence and graphic coverage of it on the news, in the movies, on TV and so on have led society as a whole to become much more accepting of it.
TV is a great example of how the public has been forced to become accustomed with graphic violence. When I was 20, only 12 years ago mind you, you never saw overly violent stuff on TV, or saw a set of boobs, or heard a swear word, unless you watched TV at 3 am.
Now you see all of this in prime time, it has so quietly become part of our new culture that many people havent even noticed.
On the simpson's, while watching TV, Marge said " FOX has become a hard core porn station so subtlely that I didnt even notice it", this is what is really happening to a lesser extent.
Kids are exposed to things at a much younger age than ever before, violence doesnt shock them anymore, it has to some extent become expected.
Most game makers are simply following the trends of society. To say that kids crave them because they are taboo is a little niave IMO, I think they simply think that it is normal for things like games and movies to be violent.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on June 19, 2003, 10:19:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
As far as I am concerned Sony has been the biggest benifit to the industry, they have opened the door to the general public, they are the reason you see so many third party developers, they are the reason their are so many games.
Whoa...that's a big statement. Not only did they "open the doors" they also brought into the light so many third party developers? Bull sh**! The Snes brought a whole bunch of third party companies, I have like 40 games that are not from nintendo. Not only were there many games, but there were many GOOD games. Hell, I still play them to this very day. Today that has declined greatly due to companies who want to profit off the PS2 quickly. This all started when casual gamers thought that a certain type of game is cool, even if it was under par....they kept on buying and buying, so many third party companies started to feed the demand and now we have our current situation.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 11:58:13 AM
I will give you that. Yes there were many 3rd parties in the SNES days. I actually didnt consider them that far back due to the lack of competition for Nintendo back then, but indeed they were there.
This i disagree with:
Quote
This all started when casual gamers thought that a certain type of game is cool, even if it was under par....they kept on buying and buying, so many third party companies started to feed the demand and now we have our current situation.
Who's to say it was under par? That is very subjective.
As for the current situation, what is wrong with it? The industry is booming, selection is at its all time best, tech is getting better all the time. I dont see a problem at all.
Post by: Round Eye on June 19, 2003, 01:01:19 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 19, 2003, 01:12:40 PM
It would probably be better if it was a closer race. With their huge lead Sony doesn't really have to try as hard and it's noticable. Though they have made some exclusive deals (like the GTA thing) they've had a very arrogant attitude this generation. They really come across as seeing themselves as invincible. Things will be better for us if next generation all three consoles launch at the same time so that everyone is on a more level playing field and one console won't have a major advantage. Then you'll start seeing something more similar to the SNES/Genesis days. Ever since Sony became number one they've never had a competitor really give them a run for their money. Something like that would really help the industry and would encourage Sony to design a better console and better first party games.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on June 19, 2003, 01:59:00 PM
Quote
Who's to say it was under par? That is very subjective.
As for the current situation, what is wrong with it? The industry is booming, selection is at its all time best, tech is getting better all the time. I dont see a problem at all.
Look having more competition sounds lovely for any consumer for any product, becuase it usually results in better quality with a cheap price tag. In TODAY'S situation for video games, having 3 consoles is a pain in the ass for those that have to choose, becuase each have there very own distinct types of games. That and the fact that third party companies are not puting what they can into a game so they can merely reap profits, makes me wish that things returned to the SNES and GENESIS days, where competition was a good thing. Today, not only do people fall into the hype and buy half ass products, but they do it, then advertise to there friends about it. Enter the Matrix is a perfect example, sure the game was alright but it could have been so much better, if they would of actually worked hard on it, like any "real" third party company does (Capcom for example). But still it sells 2.5 mill around the world. A good thing about competition is what you said, and is also forcing people to be more innovative. Nintendo is the Leader in innovation, but people look it over all the time to go buy the fad games. Poeple want more realism, better graphics, and more mature themes. Its hard to make a really innovative game with those as its bases, and sadly you find this all over the place.....
I hope Nintendo doesn't start going into mature themes just for the reason that other companies are doing it......
I hope they blow everyones mind with a completely original game that is not mature and is not realistic, basically to smack those that only think good games can come from those two themes. But I geuss they already did (WW anyone?
)
Post by: The Omen on June 19, 2003, 03:57:24 PM
Quote
i have been around for a while. i got started playing games on the atari 2600 with "river raid". i enjoy it to this day. but my point is. the cube isnt really that popular amongst adults either. the only demographic it really appeals to is the family groupings. or the ones who dont want to spend extra money on another console
Wrong. Nintendo is actually fine in the over 20 and under 12 crowd. They miss out on the teens, where the 'cool' factor comes in.
I think the industry is fine for now. But i believe the point is, older gamers do have a more discriminating eye for games. Obviously not all of them, but most. And its understandable, because all the advertising is aimed at the teen age group, and it works.
CubedCanuck, you must agree with this- when we were 10 yrs old playing our games, the games were the cool thing, not the system, where as now i think its the opposite. Plus there is the fact that games are such a part of the mainstream, and all the hype that comes with it.
Post by: joeamis on June 19, 2003, 09:23:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Round Eye
I agree with the Cubed about the industry being in fine shape. It is doing awesome right now. And with 3 consoles in the market competeing their asses off for our dollar, it is an ideal situation for us the gamer. It will be a sad day when Microsoft finally takes over the games industry, but by then I will be too old to care. And I will still have my game sphere to play with.
It's good and it's bad... but it's more good than bad... simply put more competition forces developers to make better games... the bad is that now to own the "must have games" you need to own every system.
I own PS2 and GC, and so I can get almost all of the must haves...cuz the M$ only has a very small amount of must have titles.
I know what I just stated was basically already said, but I thought I'd quickly reiterate that fact and I wanted to post this:
After the battle between the Genesis and the SNES, both destroying the Jaguar and 3d0...
and then the battle between the N64 and PS1 almost destroying the Saturn, EVERYONE in the industry said that 3 consoles couldn't go head to head, the industry could only handle a 2 console battle.... well it looks like the current situation has disproved this emphatically!
(please don't say hey the PS2 is destroying the GC and XBOX, there is no competition now, because there really is competition now... back when the SNES and Genesis were around they sold millions and the Jaguar and 3d0 sold very little at all. And right now we all know the figures, each console has sold roughly over 10 million or will very soon)
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 20, 2003, 02:03:26 AM
Quote
CubedCanuck, you must agree with this- when we were 10 yrs old playing our games, the games were the cool thing, not the system, where as now i think its the opposite. Plus there is the fact that games are such a part of the mainstream, and all the hype that comes with it.
When I started playing it wasnt cool at all. It was NEW. Arcades were cool places to hang out, because you had to be "OF AGE" to be in one. When the Atari 2600 came out it changed everything. I personally didnt really get into it untill I got a coleco vision a few later, I remember playing Donkey Kong for days at a time. The funny thing was, a friend of mine had an Intellivision, and we bickered over which one was better all the time.
So honestly I dont think much has changed, people will always try to justify their decisions, and as long as there are people who dosagree with them, we will have debate.
