Sega Haters, why?
Scott
rarely see any other company get beat on as much as Sega, and without Sega
where would gaming be right now? I will not reply to any "you just think
Sega made everything" replies, that is just a cop out. If you think
differently, show me why with reasoning or facts not with your opinion and a
blanket statement. And please read the entire thing and take all of my
comments in context if you reply, do not pull one sentence out and use it
against me. I am for competition and I do not hate Sony or Nintendo, I just
don't get this anti Sega crap.
Lets start in the 80s, what would the world have been like without the
Nes. Nintendo would not have ruled over the third parties and retailers
with an iron fist for five years and all of those third party games would
have come out for a system with 52 colors on screen and three times the
processing speed, the Sega Master System. Metal Gear, Mega Man, and all of
those other games would have shown up in upgraded form. Judgeing from
Sega's treatment of the market in the Genesis days, it seems fair to assume
that they would not have tried to corner the market like Nintendo did, thus
promoting competition and innovation.
Now, what would gaming be without Sega in the 80s? No Space Harrier,
Shinobi, Out Run, After Burner, Zillion, Zaxxon etc. Furthermore, the
Master System lasted five years on Sega's games alone, very little third
party support. People always give Square the credit for creating the first
console RPG, well then what was Phantasy Star? PS came out long before FF
and had all of the things that define the FF games and then some. PS
debatably started the Dungeon RPG as well as the traditional. Without a
Nintendo console we would probably still have Nintendo, so Mario and Zelda
and Metroid could have come out for the SMS too. Even if Nintendo did not
exist, the SMS had Alex Kid, Wonder Boy, Golvelious: Valley of Doom, and
Zillion, more than enough to get those genres started right fine. Now you
could argue that some of those games would not have been made if Nintendo
had not made the games it did, but you would probably have had some of the
minds behind those games in other companies, so something like them would
have showed up.
In Nintendo's own words they said that they were not going to make a
16-bit system for a long time, and even with the Genesis kicking the Nes's
but they still took till 92' to release the Snes. I don't know if the TG16
could take some credit for getting Nintendo moving into 16-bit because I
have no reliable info on what happened with it in Japan. It seems though,
that if Sega did not release the Sega Genesis in 89' we would have waited a
long time for games to advance to better hardware and better gameplay.
Also, what would gaming be without Revenge of Shinobi, Shinobi 3, Phantasy
Star 2-4, the Sonic the Hedgehog series, Golden Axe, Streets Of Rage 1-3,
Toe Jam and Earl and the countess other hits made by Sega in the early 90s?
Nintendo offered Mario, Zelda, Super Metroid, Super Punch Out, and Donkey
Kong as the bulk of its games, with Mario Kart and StarFox taking up some of
there more innovative games. We would have had Galaxy Force 2 to carry the
3D shooter genre just fine, Mario Kart would have been a loss in my opinion
though. But would any of these games have been made by now if Sega wasn't
there breathing down their necks all of the time, and inspiring some of
these games with their arcade games.
If it wasn't for Sega releasing the Sega CD, Nintendo would likely have
never started working on the Snes CD with Sony. Nintendo's own desire to
hold back CDROM gaming sparked the end of Nintendo's contract with Sony,
starting the adversity between Sony and Nintendo that spawned
every-one-but-mine's favorite PSX. Sega was already well into development
on the Saturn when the Sega CD came out, so that would have come out too.
Granted, it might have been without the 3D abilities, but it might have
been with them as well with arcade games like Virtua Racing, Daytona, and
Virtua Fighter 1-2 coming out in the arcades and Sega loves to convert its
arcade games to the home. Some might say that Namco still would have
carried the 3D flag without Sega, but they are using Sega's code, that is
now patented, to make all of those games, and besides, without the PSX those
games would have just come out on the Saturn along with all of the other
third party games that came out on the PSX. What has Sony offered the
gaming market really, Crash? I don't think so. If it wasn't for the PSX
the third parties would have learned how to use the Saturn and we would have
seen the same games, if not a little better, on the Saturn. It took all of
the third parties, and Nintendo combined against Sega to kill the Saturn
after three years! That is not a bad run at all for one company to make
pretty much on its lonesome.
Now you might be able to say that Nintendo invented the 3D platform
genre, but Nights came out at the same time and had the same gameplay as
Mario 64 when you were walking, not to mention Tomb Raider.
I have to ask, Sony advocates, what do games like Resident Evil, FF7,
Tekken, Soul Blade, and Gran Turismo really offer the gaming market over old
school games like Alien Syndrome (RE), or newer games like Shining the Holy
Arc, Shining Force 3, Panzer Dragoon Saga(FF7), VF1-2 (Namco), Daytona, Sega
Rally, Touring Car Championship(GT). Where I am going here is, did any of
the PS favorites enhance gaming so much that they could not be done without
or are they just rehashes of games that have already been made?
Now Destruction Derby, Twisted Metal and a few others actually did define a
genre, would they not have been made on the Saturn in the absence of the PS
from the market? Sony Imagesoft was making games long before the PS, so we
likely would have seen versions of 989 games on other systems without the
PS.
Now we have the Dreamcast. Without it Sony would not have released the
PS2 until later than next year for sure, and Nintendo is just starting on
its new system now and it wont be seen until at least 2001. I always say
that competition is good, without it we may not have gotten the Saturn or DC
when they came out, but without Sega what happens to the gaming market?
Look at the last two years. What has come out on PSX and N64 in the last
few years that has not been done already? I'm sure a few can be argued, but
I have not seen a good argument to support that Sega is anything else than a
gaming powerhouse that drives innovation in gaming more often than any other
company. Many games have been made by Sega that defined a new genre or
redefined an existing one. The much debated Sonic Adventure is a prime
example, how long would it have been until we could have played a 3D
platformer that could truly be called an action game? Speed is of the
essence in the word action, not big explosions.
A lot of this is just my opinion, but I try to base my opinions on facts
and will gladly change my opinion if I am proven wrong with a good source.
Prove to me that Sega does not drive the market more than any other
individual company. Prove to me that we would even be playing 32-bit games
without Sega's drive for the next level of gaming in the home. Prove to me
that gaming would even exist without classics like After Burner, Space
Harrier, Zaxxon, Galaxy Force, and G-Loc, or newer games Virtua Racing,
Virtua Fighter 1+2, Virtual ON, Daytona and Virtual Cop 1+2. I have an open
mind, just be reasonable about it and use documented facts or good reasoning
in your points, not just your opinion. I can already see some good holes in
my argument, especially on the PSX, but my primary goal is to stop all of
this Sega bashing not kill the other companies.
Jason E.K. Brown
Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com says...
>
>I argue for Sega more than any other company because of two reasons
I generally argue against fan-boy-ism, no matter the make/model.
>I rarely see any other company get beat on as much as Sega
lol, just follow the Sega NGs, you'll see PLENTY of Sony bashing! Not to much
trash is talked about Nintendo there though...I guess sega fan-boys dont fear
them as much these days.
>, and without Sega
>where would gaming be right now?
We'd live in a world without Sega games, other than that, we'd be in the same
spot we are now...
>I will not reply to any "you just think
>Sega made everything" replies, that is just a cop out.
Only if thats not your opinion!
>Lets start in the 80s, what would the world have been like without the
>Nes. Nintendo would not have ruled over the third parties and retailers
>with an iron fist for five years and all of those third party games would
>have come out for a system with 52 colors on screen and three times the
>processing speed, the Sega Master System. Metal Gear, Mega Man, and all of
>those other games would have shown up in upgraded form. Judgeing from
>Sega's treatment of the market in the Genesis days, it seems fair to assume
>that they would not have tried to corner the market like Nintendo did, thus
>promoting competition and innovation.
I think Sega didn't "treat 3rd parties like Nintendo did" because they
couldn't, not because they didn't want to. Every console manufacturer wants to
have good exclusives etc, it only makes good business sense.
>Now, what would gaming be without Sega in the 80s? No Space Harrier,
>Shinobi, Out Run, After Burner, Zillion, Zaxxon etc.
Maybe I'm the only one...but I never did like any of those games!
>Furthermore, the
>Master System lasted five years on Sega's games alone, very little third
>party support. People always give Square the credit for creating the first
>console RPG, well then what was Phantasy Star?
I dunno who these "people" are...
>PS came out long before FF
>and had all of the things that define the FF games and then some.
Does it really matter if PS was first? I mean, who cares? To say that the FF
games are just cookie cutter games based on PS games seems pretty poorly
supported, and if you aren't sugesting that, just what are you saying?
>Without a
>Nintendo console we would probably still have Nintendo, so Mario and Zelda
>and Metroid could have come out for the SMS too.
You could say the EXACT same thing if Sega never made a console..."they just
woulda had PS on Nintendo...yada yada"....
>Now you
>could argue that some of those games would not have been made if Nintendo
>had not made the games it did, but you would probably have had some of the
>minds behind those games in other companies, so something like them would
>have showed up.
Sega has made innovative games, but they hardly have a monopoly on them. Sure,
in an alternate dimension where Sega never existed, certain genres MIGHT be
different today, but there is a lot going on in console development outside
Segas walls...and they influence each other back and forth. I don't think
anyone could suggest that Sega would have been pushed to produce better and
better aracde stuff if it wasn't for Namco constantly nipping at their
heels. It works both ways.
>In Nintendo's own words they said that they were not going to make a
>16-bit system for a long time, and even with the Genesis kicking the Nes's
>but they still took till 92' to release the Snes.
So what? Would the world have come to an end if the Genny hadn't been there to
bridge the gap between NES and SNES? I like the Genny well enough, but I dont
think that much rests on its shoulders.
>I don't know if the TG16
>could take some credit for getting Nintendo moving into 16-bit because I
>have no reliable info on what happened with it in Japan.
The PC Engine was the top 16-bit system in Japan for a LONG time. They made
games for it for nearly a decade. As far as units sold, I think, in Japan, the
SNES finally over came it, but the Genny was a DISTANT 3rd in that battle.
>It seems though,
>that if Sega did not release the Sega Genesis in 89' we would have waited a
>long time for games to advance to better hardware and better gameplay.
I think if Genny hadn't been around the Turbo would have done better, and done
the same thing you are saying here...
>Also, what would gaming be without Revenge of Shinobi, Shinobi 3, Phantasy
>Star 2-4, the Sonic the Hedgehog series, Golden Axe, Streets Of Rage 1-3,
>Toe Jam and Earl and the countess other hits made by Sega in the early 90s?
Shinobi is OK, I didn't like Shin 3 though. Sonic? Yuck! Golden Axe is cool,
but they have since destroyed the series with a bad sequel and a sorry 2d
fighter. Streets of Rage never impressed be as much as Final Fight, but thats
just MO. My fav games for the Genny weren't even made by Sega, so I could have
lived without them. Gunstar, Castlevania etc are what make the Genny cool. Of
course all game preferences are objective, and tons of people like Sega
games...I'm just not one of them. Considering Segas slide into near-death
(prior to DC) it seems that others werent all THAT attached to them either...
>Nintendo offered Mario, Zelda, Super Metroid, Super Punch Out, and Donkey
>Kong as the bulk of its games, with Mario Kart and StarFox taking up some of
>there more innovative games. We would have had Galaxy Force 2 to carry the
>3D shooter genre just fine, Mario Kart would have been a loss in my opinion
>though. But would any of these games have been made by now if Sega wasn't
>there breathing down their necks all of the time, and inspiring some of
>these games with their arcade games.
As I said before, it works both ways....
>If it wasn't for Sega releasing the Sega CD, Nintendo would likely have
>never started working on the Snes CD with Sony.
Well, I don't know the thinking within Nintendos big whigs, but the PCE/Turbo
had the first CD Rom drive...
>Some might say that Namco still would have
>carried the 3D flag without Sega, but they are using Sega's code, that is
>now patented, to make all of those games, and besides, without the PSX those
>games would have just come out on the Saturn along with all of the other
>third party games that came out on the PSX.
That is a silly arguement. You could flip it around just as well. "If Sega
hadn't made the Saturn, all its good games like VF2, Nights etc would have
just been made on PSX". I hope you can see why that line of reasoning has no
usefulness what so ever...
>What has Sony offered the
>gaming market really, Crash? I don't think so.
No, Sony has provided the game developers with a system that is easy to
program for, and has VASTLY superior marketing behind it than anything else.
Sony does have in house stuff, but the system is defined by 3rd parties. Some
might call that a weakness, but when you can get any 3rd party you want, why
would it be?!!?!?!
>If it wasn't for the PSX
>the third parties would have learned how to use the Saturn and we would have
>seen the same games, if not a little better, on the Saturn.
Again, a pointless arguement...
>It took all of the third parties,
Believe me, the 3rd parties went willingly. They weren't dragged off at gun
point and ordered to program PSX games.
>and Nintendo combined against Sega to kill the Saturn
>after three years!
Nintendo doesn't "combine" with anyone, they watch out for their own bottom
line...period.
>Now you might be able to say that Nintendo invented the 3D platform
>genre, but Nights came out at the same time and had the same gameplay as
>Mario 64 when you were walking, not to mention Tomb Raider.
All kinds of genres have been "invented" by people other than Sega... so what?
>I have to ask, Sony advocates, what do games like Resident Evil, FF7,
>Tekken, Soul Blade, and Gran Turismo really offer the gaming market over old
>school games like Alien Syndrome (RE), or newer games like Shining the Holy
>Arc, Shining Force 3, Panzer Dragoon Saga(FF7), VF1-2 (Namco), Daytona, Sega
>Rally, Touring Car Championship(GT)
RE vs Alien Syndrome?!?!!?! LOL...I'm sorry thats just too funny! As far as
the others go, to many people, the PSX stuff is simply more fun. I like Tekken
over VF, GT/RR4 over Daytona/TCC (not even close!) etc. You need to grasp the
idea that people have different and LEGITIMATE opinions on what a fun game is.
> Where I am going here is, did any of
>the PS favorites enhance gaming so much that they could not be done without
>or are they just rehashes of games that have already been made?
IMO, TM, RE, and MGS-esque games redifined or invented genres, so yes, they
did "enhance gaming so much that they could not be done without"...
>Now Destruction Derby, Twisted Metal and a few others actually did define a
>genre, would they not have been made on the Saturn in the absence of the PS
>from the market?
Why do you keep saying things like this? In the absence of Saturn all Segas
games would have been on PSX. See how this could go round-and-round?
>Sony Imagesoft was making games long before the PS, so we
>likely would have seen versions of 989 games on other systems without the
>PS.
Uhhh...no. At some point Sont decided to venture into consoles. Thats when
they started snagging up things like...Psygnosis etc, so they could make
games.
>Now we have the Dreamcast. Without it Sony would not have released the
>PS2 until later than next year for sure, and Nintendo is just starting on
>its new system now and it wont be seen until at least 2001.
Competition is the only thing that brings about system releases.
>I always say
>that competition is good, without it we may not have gotten the Saturn or DC
>when they came out, but without Sega what happens to the gaming market?
>Look at the last two years. What has come out on PSX and N64 in the last
>few years that has not been done already?
<sigh> What has come out for DC that hasn't been done already? HotD2? NFL2k?
Hydro? Soul Caliber? TNN? Get Bass? I think you see my point. Revolutionary
games are rare...most of the big companies have had their share, including
Sega/Ninny/Sony.
>I'm sure a few can be argued, but
>I have not seen a good argument to support that Sega is anything else than a
>gaming powerhouse that drives innovation in gaming more often than any other
>company.
Wow, what a mouthful. Considering their marketshare however, I think "more
than any other company" is foolhardy at best. We are talking console gaming
right? Not arcade stuff?
>Many games have been made by Sega that defined a new genre or
>redefined an existing one. The much debated Sonic Adventure is a prime
>example, how long would it have been until we could have played a 3D
>platformer that could truly be called an action game? Speed is of the
>essence in the word action, not big explosions.
SA is a fast 3d game, but hardly revolutionary...its evolutionary surely.
>A lot of this is just my opinion, but I try to base my opinions on facts
>and will gladly change my opinion if I am proven wrong with a good source.
>Prove to me that Sega does not drive the market more than any other
>individual company.
You haven't proven that is does...
>Prove to me that we would even be playing 32-bit games
>without Sega's drive for the next level of gaming in the home.
lol. If you can't see that you're blind! Do you think Nintendo would have just
stoped at 16-bit for all time and never gone ANY further unless Saturn was out
there? Give me a break.
>Prove to me
>that gaming would even exist without classics like After Burner, Space
>Harrier, Zaxxon, Galaxy Force, and G-Loc, or newer games Virtua Racing,
>Virtua Fighter 1+2, Virtual ON, Daytona and Virtual Cop 1+2.
Gaming existed before Sega...and likely will afterwards. They have made some
good stuff, but you are blowing their significance WAY out of proportion.
>I have an open
>mind, just be reasonable about it and use documented facts or good reasoning
>in your points, not just your opinion.
There hasn't been a "documented fact" in your entire post...are you aware of
that? A bunch of opinions on what good games are, but thats all opinion, and a
few over-the-top Sega-glorification statements there at the end...other than
that its all been fluff.
>I can already see some good holes in
>my argument, especially on the PSX, but my primary goal is to stop all of
>this Sega bashing not kill the other companies.
I doubt it will happen, but good luck. I dont think suggesting "gaming today
would not exist if it wasn't for Sega" is a good way to go about it though...
J
--
Join these today! Make money, JUST for surfing the www!
http://www.gotoworld.com/getpaid/default.asp?rid=1017072207
http://www.epipo.com/signup_form.asp?jekbrown
Want up to 25% CASH rebates on purchases you make online?
http://www.ebates.com/index.jhtml?referrer=jekbrown
Some-one
Nintendo). Even when Super NES came out i was a nintendo fan. After watching
SEGA bomb countless of times I knew they sucked. They just didn't have what
it takes to be good. The saturn was so bad and got discontinued really fast.
NES and SNES were the best. Then came N64 which put shame on Nintendo's
name. Then Sony (HUGE compnay compared to sega) came out with all its s***
and dominanted the market. So in conclusion, sega sucks, ninendo now sucks,
and sony rules. But tis not true... for SEGA (in my opinion as well as
facts) is the ONLY compnay with the balls to test new things. It seems like
other companies are learning from SEGA's mistakes. So SEGA is the REAL major
impact on the video gaming industry. They shape it with their NEW ideas and
great games. If they bomb, Nintendo and Sony pick up on it. It seems unfair
that SEGA is like a guinea pig. But SEGA can handle it. And with DREAMCAST
sega is kicking ass (for now). I just hope LOTS of games are released so it
doesn't share Saturn's faith. Sega rules.
Darth Miller
news:7v0ic6$o0h$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> do not pull one sentence out and use it against me.
HEY! YOU SHOUYLDN"T SAYS THAT!!
Fred The Omnipotent
I would usually have some kind of lecture going for this topic, but
after reading this, I have figured it's already been said. My hats off
to Scott for this argument. Now, I'm off to find a moderately priced
used N64...
-Freddy B.
Geoffrey Leask
in life are a derivative of the material goods which they own. If
they have the best of whatever items they own, then they are therefore
more successful and happier. In order to reinforce this belief they
very naturally attack anything which could negate or discredit the
belief, their item, their happiness, their existence.
The facts of this case in particular are as plain as day. Sega is
undoubtedly one of the greatest videogame creators in terms of
proliferation and quality. They are extremely innovative as far as
Japanese companies go (although really no match for the Americans and
Euros in that department!). There are such a tremendous number of
game makers out there who do such great work though... it's too bad
that we cannot have Sega and Nintendo and DMA and Firaxis, Namco,
Maxis, etc. making games for one system only. That would really be
the greatest benefit to consumers---no multiple console
purchases---maybe only one per six or seven years with no worries
about hardware becoming outmoded. Companies would compete in a far
larger arena which would serve to even further promote quality and
innovation. But realistically speaking, the current system is working
very well (although I think more Western companies should be making
videogames), and any Sega or Sony or Nintendo fanatics who scream
about their brand being best aren't going to make much of a difference
in the long run. Whichever companies succeed will do so because they
are able to produce a quality product and market it well.
Moreso than fanatics, I have a problem with people who buy rehash
after rehash of the same three games and discourage game makers from
innovating.
Jonathan Singletary
> I argue for Sega more than any other company because of two reasons, I
> rarely see any other company get beat on as much as Sega, and without Sega
> where would gaming be right now? I will not reply to any "you just think
> Sega made everything" replies, that is just a cop out. If you think
> differently, show me why with reasoning or facts not with your opinion and a
> blanket statement. And please read the entire thing and take all of my
> comments in context if you reply, do not pull one sentence out and use it
> against me. I am for competition and I do not hate Sony or Nintendo, I just
> don't get this anti Sega crap.
i have always liked sega better than anyone else... even when the master system
came out, i always wanted one more than a NES, because i thought the system and
games were higher quality (the master system had better graphics and the games
didn't glitch!)... i ended up getting neither one, though.
but when the 16 bit systems came out, man i grabbed a genesis because of sonic
and streets of rage. those games were cooler than anything on SNES, i thought.
i feel that sega makes better in-house games than anyone else, but the other
companies always have more third-party support.
i dunno, it always seems like Sega just has more of an artistic sense of style
than other companies. sega always takes chances and makes cool , daring games
that no one else would ever come out with. like when saturn and PSX came out,
PSX immediately cornered the money-making sports games market, because they knew
it would sell. they knew that American men like sports games, and that those
games would make the PSX fly off the shelves, and that's what happened, and
that's how PSX got the advantage in the US. i worked in a video game store
between 1994-1996, so i saw it happen.
at the same time, Sega was making more artistic, beautiful games with their
saturn, like panzer dragoon and astal. sometimes it's as if sega isn't even
the least bit interested in profits. and even after saturn started to die, and
my friends all laughed at me for having one, i didn't care- i was happy that i
could play sega's excellent AM2 arcade games at home. you couldn't do that on
any other system. sega rules the arcades.
admittedly, sega does make dumb decisions, though. they have problems with
abandoning support for systems (i have a 32X :P) and also sega made a mistake
in not capitalizing on the head start they got in releasing the saturn. (saturn
was released in may '95, PSX was released in Sept. '95.) but still, i love
their games, and especially those from the arcade, so much, that i will always
be a sega fan. one day, i will get a Dreamcast.
__
Jon
icq: 21047350
jwsi...@uiuc.edu
http://surf.to/jon144k {{{{{my artwork online}
http://zip.to/employment {{{{{get a job}
http://zip.to/make.money {{{{{get paid to surf the web}
__
Scott
but you missed my point entirely so I will not bother with a point for point
rebuttal. I am not saying that Sega is the end all be all of game
companies, and if you have followed the market you would not need documented
facts for the points that I made, it would be a pain to try and pull out
those old mags anyway. My point is that Sega does not deserve all of this
flack, it is a great gaming company. I don't care what you like or dislike,
I am talking about which individual companies made the greatest number of
innovative, revolutionary, evolutionary, or whatever you want to call them,
games first. And it looks like Sega to me, unless you can point out any
other individual company that has made more games that were as original as
the games that I listed, whether you liked them or not is not part of the
point.
Jason E.K. Brown <jekb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3813e...@news.pacifier.com...
rukawa
sss
>
> I would usually have some kind of lecture going for this topic, but
> after reading this, I have figured it's already been said. My hats off
> to Scott for this argument. Now, I'm off to find a moderately priced
> used N64...
>
> -Freddy B.
>
That is very funny. A used N64 sells for arounf $40 on the market, cheaper than a used Gameboy Color. This is the also the only game console created within the last 4 years that I do not possess. I wonder why that is. If all Sega Hater want to buy a used N64, then these people must all be very bright.
SS
Scott
least this article will be usefull to my killfile.
Darth Miller <mil...@kissamabutt.com> wrote in message
news:sITQ3.13650$zp.1...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
> Scott <Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:7v0ic6$o0h$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > do not pull one sentence out and use it against me.
>
Benjamin
>
> I argue for Sega more than any other company because of two reasons, I
> rarely see any other company get beat on as much as Sega, and without Sega
> where would gaming be right now? I will not reply to any "you just think
> Sega made everything" replies, that is just a cop out.
You just think Sega made everything!
> If you think
> differently, show me why with reasoning or facts not with your opinion and a
> blanket statement. And please read the entire thing and take all of my
> comments in context if you reply, do not pull one sentence out and use it
> against me. I am for competition and I do not hate Sony or Nintendo, I just
> don't get this anti Sega crap.
System advocacy, scape-goating, or kids I'd wager.
> Lets start in the 80s, what would the world have been like without the
> Nes. Nintendo would not have ruled over the third parties and retailers
> with an iron fist for five years and all of those third party games would
> have come out for a system with 52 colors on screen and three times the
> processing speed, the Sega Master System. Metal Gear, Mega Man, and all of
> those other games would have shown up in upgraded form.
Hmm... Are you sure that's an argument you want to make? I could just as
easily reverse it and say that thanks to Sega's Genesis, I had to live
with less colors and worse music in games which may have been better
suited for the SNES; thanks to Dreamcast, I'm forced to play games which
could be better on Playstation 2; and so on.
Nintendo deserves credit for resurrecting the dead game market. They
made great choices (albeit some illegal) in marketing their system and
developing for it. Sega, instead of making games for the _home_ market,
began and continued to produce shoddy arcade ports for its Master
System. Home product and marketing would have secured the NES's number
one position, with or without exclusivity contacts.
> Judgeing from
> Sega's treatment of the market in the Genesis days, it seems fair to assume
> that they would not have tried to corner the market like Nintendo did, thus
> promoting competition and innovation.
Sega had no choice. The Master System and the early Genesis did not have
enough clout to make the same deals Nintendo had.
> Now, what would gaming be without Sega in the 80s? No Space Harrier,
> Shinobi, Out Run, After Burner, Zillion, Zaxxon etc. Furthermore, the
> Master System lasted five years on Sega's games alone, very little third
> party support.
Poor arcade ports. I know I'd rather play Zelda than After Burner.
Nintendo's games -- all made _specifically_ for console use -- generally
offer more gameplay and last longer than Sega's arcade ports. Shinobi is
a great game, sure, but I'd much rather play any of the Ninja Gaiden
games.
> People always give Square the credit for creating the first
> console RPG, well then what was Phantasy Star? PS came out long before FF
> and had all of the things that define the FF games and then some. PS
> debatably started the Dungeon RPG as well as the traditional. Without a
> Nintendo console we would probably still have Nintendo, so Mario and Zelda
> and Metroid could have come out for the SMS too.
Of course, the typical argument (or Next Generation "fact") is that it's
_Sega_ that should be producing games for other systems. Sega's
reputation is earned on the quality of their games and not its hardware.
> Even if Nintendo did not
> exist, the SMS had Alex Kid, Wonder Boy, Golvelious: Valley of Doom, and
> Zillion, more than enough to get those genres started right fine. Now you
> could argue that some of those games would not have been made if Nintendo
> had not made the games it did, but you would probably have had some of the
> minds behind those games in other companies, so something like them would
> have showed up.
Alex Kidd is just a caucasian Super Fly with gameplay which pales in
comparison to the Super Mario Bros. series. Wonder Boy I like, but
that's not made by Sega. Zelda II is more or less similar to a Wonder
Boy title. I have yet to play Golvelious much, and Zillion is "just a
shooter," comparable to Zanac on NES.
> In Nintendo's own words they said that they were not going to make a
> 16-bit system for a long time, and even with the Genesis kicking the Nes's
> but they still took till 92' to release the Snes. I don't know if the TG16
> could take some credit for getting Nintendo moving into 16-bit because I
> have no reliable info on what happened with it in Japan.
The PC Engine (TurboGraphx-16) came out first. Nintendo seems to be a
company which needs to be forced to innovate or release something new.
Sega probably made the Genesis since the Master System just wasn't going
anywhere.
> It seems though,
> that if Sega did not release the Sega Genesis in 89' we would have waited a
> long time for games to advance to better hardware and better gameplay.
> Also, what would gaming be without Revenge of Shinobi, Shinobi 3, Phantasy
> Star 2-4, the Sonic the Hedgehog series, Golden Axe, Streets Of Rage 1-3,
> Toe Jam and Earl and the countess other hits made by Sega in the early 90s?
> Nintendo offered Mario, Zelda, Super Metroid, Super Punch Out, and Donkey
> Kong as the bulk of its games, with Mario Kart and StarFox taking up some of
> there more innovative games. We would have had Galaxy Force 2 to carry the
> 3D shooter genre just fine, Mario Kart would have been a loss in my opinion
> though. But would any of these games have been made by now if Sega wasn't
> there breathing down their necks all of the time, and inspiring some of
> these games with their arcade games.
Would Sonic have been made if it were not for Mario? Would Golden Axe
and Streets of Rage have been made if it were not for Final Fight? Would
Out Run have been made were it not for Enduro? Would Sonic R exist
without Mario Kart? It's pointless to play these kinds of guessing games
in my opinion.
<snerp>
> Some might say that Namco still would have
> carried the 3D flag without Sega, but they are using Sega's code, that is
> now patented, to make all of those games,
Could someone _please_ show me a source on this? I've seen enough people
refer to this and would love to know where this rumor/fact originates
from.
> and besides, without the PSX those
> games would have just come out on the Saturn along with all of the other
> third party games that came out on the PSX.
Without the Saturn Virtua Fighter and Daytona USA could have been ported
to the Playstation without all the ugly glitches and clipping on the
Saturn version. Your point?
> What has Sony offered the
> gaming market really, Crash? I don't think so. If it wasn't for the PSX
> the third parties would have learned how to use the Saturn and we would have
> seen the same games, if not a little better, on the Saturn. It took all of
> the third parties, and Nintendo combined against Sega to kill the Saturn
> after three years! That is not a bad run at all for one company to make
> pretty much on its lonesome.
No, it took the idiocy of Sega to kill the Saturn. The Saturn _could_
have easily been a huge success, but Sega fumbled and lost.
> Now you might be able to say that Nintendo invented the 3D platform
> genre, but Nights came out at the same time and had the same gameplay as
> Mario 64 when you were walking, not to mention Tomb Raider.
Walking is not anywhere near the gameplay as NiGHTS. It's a ridiculous
comparison. It was Bug! that invented the 3-D platform game unless there
is some other game I'm not aware of which predates it.
> I have to ask, Sony advocates, what do games like Resident Evil, FF7,
> Tekken, Soul Blade, and Gran Turismo really offer the gaming market over old
> school games like Alien Syndrome (RE), or newer games like Shining the Holy
> Arc, Shining Force 3, Panzer Dragoon Saga(FF7), VF1-2 (Namco), Daytona, Sega
> Rally, Touring Car Championship(GT). Where I am going here is, did any of
> the PS favorites enhance gaming so much that they could not be done without
> or are they just rehashes of games that have already been made?
> Now Destruction Derby, Twisted Metal and a few others actually did define a
> genre, would they not have been made on the Saturn in the absence of the PS
> from the market? Sony Imagesoft was making games long before the PS, so we
> likely would have seen versions of 989 games on other systems without the
> PS.
Sega makes arcade racers; Gran Turismo is a simulation. Panzer Dragoon
Saga came out when the Saturn was dead and thus not a factor. Many
people don't like the Virtua Fighter series at all and prefer to play
with the bears and clones of Tekken. Shining the Holy Arc and Shining
Force III added little to nothing over their previous incarnations or
similar games. I think you really should consider things from the other
side in a proper time frame and realize that everyone has his or her own
preferences.
<snerp>
> A lot of this is just my opinion, but I try to base my opinions on facts
> and will gladly change my opinion if I am proven wrong with a good source.
> Prove to me that Sega does not drive the market more than any other
> individual company.
No one should support a company simply for getting other manufacturers
and developers in gear.
> Prove to me that we would even be playing 32-bit games
> without Sega's drive for the next level of gaming in the home.
Virtual Boy. :^)
> Prove to me
> that gaming would even exist without classics like After Burner, Space
> Harrier, Zaxxon, Galaxy Force, and G-Loc, or newer games Virtua Racing,
> Virtua Fighter 1+2, Virtual ON, Daytona and Virtual Cop 1+2.
Prove to me that Sega would exist without the classics of Nintendo,
Namco, and Midway among _many_ others.
> I have an open
> mind, just be reasonable about it and use documented facts or good reasoning
> in your points, not just your opinion.
That's all you've done, though... Your reasoning is not sound since you
base _all_ of it on your own unsubstantiated opinion.
> I can already see some good holes in
> my argument, especially on the PSX, but my primary goal is to stop all of
> this Sega bashing not kill the other companies.
Oh no! But what if you somehow accidentally kill the other companies!?
:^) Seriously, the Sega bashing will continue as long as kids can't
afford multiple systems, Sega is unable to reach the same consumer base
which has carried other systems, and their own stupid management
occasionally rears its ugly head.
Benjamin
wart...@my-deja.com
nothing.
In article <7v0ic6$o0h$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Scott" <Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I argue for Sega more than any other .
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
wart...@my-deja.com
wart...@my-deja.com
Crazeyface
the only problem I had with sega in the past was that they tended to rush
things.They seem to want to be the first at releasing things. now as for
snes vs genisis could you ever see a Donkey Kong country on genesis lok as
good as it did on SNES. That game lookes better the those half assed 32 bit
games now i know psx is better then snes and saturn was slightly better
because of a few games. as for master system and nes i had both because of
the diffrent games.. which could be only found on "their system".
i had the genisis but realy didnt like it as much as snes. because first of
all it was rushed . the sound of most games were awful the graphics lacked
color quality. but then again i likes toe jam and earl. and of course
sonic. the system was worth the buy and time. but i likes snes more. what
else killed the genisis was those silly addons snes would of died just as
fast if they made an add-on. saturn i cant say because by the time i had
money to get in the 32 bit gaming system it was already dead.
now that sega had big time help with this new system and they took their
time developing it as yoiu can see its a real solid system. that will last.
as for the up coming psx2 and dolphin sega will loose sales during the first
few months of their release because of the "newness" of these system... but
they will be far from out of competition. its just new things always sell
good from respected companies. Most adults buy Nintendo because its Kid
safe. Nothing wrong with that either some one has to make little kid games !
and if Nintendo wants to corner the market let them. they are close anyways.
as for mature games violent games well psx2 and the dc will duke it out
dolphin may get into it but i think they will stay to the less violence
path. one game being released after another topping each other. which will
mean a ton of great games and some one who dont own at least 2 of the 3 are
going to miss great games made only for one system.
i hated sega's decisions not the company. They dropped the ball
manytimes..they dropped the ball on the dc release with those bad burns on
their gds but atleast they recovered their own fumble!
Matthew Simms
> I don't care what you like or dislike,
>I am talking about which individual companies made the greatest number of
>innovative, revolutionary, evolutionary, or whatever you want to call them,
>games first. And it looks like Sega to me, unless you can point out any
>other individual company that has made more games that were as original as
>the games that I listed, whether you liked them or not is not part of the
>point.
Sinclair
Jason E.K. Brown
Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com says...
>You made some good points in here in spots that I saw needed improvement,
>but you missed my point entirely so I will not bother with a point for point
>rebuttal.
LOL...
>I am not saying that Sega is the end all be all of game
>companies,
Thats funny, 'cause that is exactly what your post said! What else do you
think people are going to think when you say things like "Prove to me
that gaming would even exist without classics like After Burner...yada yada".
That sounds to me like you ARE saying they are the end all and be all of game
companies. By the way, if you want "proof" on that particular point all you
have to do is be aware that console gaming existed prior to Segas influence...
>and if you have followed the market you would not need documented
>facts for the points that I made, it would be a pain to try and pull out
>those old mags anyway.
"you MUST document everything you say, but its ok for you to assume everything
I say is a fact and common knowledge...." Interesting "rules" you've imposed
on any potential response. Did you even want one at all? And if not, why even
post?
>My point is that Sega does not deserve all of this flack
Well, we completely agree there. If that is your point, just say it, all the
other "points" you tried to make just looked fan-boy like.
>it is a great gaming company.
Thats an opinion...
>I don't care what you like or dislike
Then why do you assume anyone cares what you like? Additionally, its hardly
just -my- opinion. Its pretty clear that Tekken is more popular (in the US)
than VF, GT over Daytona, yada yada. Everyone has their opinions on which
games are better.
>I am talking about which individual companies made the greatest number of
>innovative, revolutionary, evolutionary, or whatever you want to call them,
>games first.
Is that all you want? OK, how about Capcom. Invented (or atleast
revolutionized) several genres, started trends etc etc. I think Mega Man,
Strider, RE, SFII (and all its incarnations), SFZ, Gunsmoke, the Darkstalkers
games, Mercs, the Vs games, Dino Crisis, the 194x games, Power Stone, Ghouls
and Ghosts, etc etc stack up VERY well against the things put up by Sega (and
there are a ton of games I'm forgetting I'm sure). Square has had a lot of
good stuff, as has Konami, or Treasure. If you want arcade games and 3d stuff
one could always mention Namco as well. Maybe not revolutionary most times,
but if the games are fun to play, who -really- cares?
Jason
Jason E.K. Brown
says...
>
>I never did like Sega. I despised teh Genesis. (Probably cause i owned a
>Nintendo).
Well, atleast you can admit your bias! Most people TRY to act like they aren't
and end up looking silly. I applaud your honesty.
>Even when Super NES came out i was a nintendo fan. After watching
>SEGA bomb countless of times I knew they sucked. They just didn't have what
>it takes to be good.
Well I dunno if I'd go that far....
>The saturn was so bad and got discontinued really fast.
How many good Saturn imports have you played? I have a couple of hundred
myself and can honestly say it is the best console ever for 2d shooters and
fighters. If you like those types of games, and dont have a Saturn its almost
criminal! =)
>NES and SNES were the best. Then came N64 which put shame on Nintendo's
>name.
The ONLY think between Nintendo and continued success was the decision to go
with carts. They would have been OK if it wasn't for that...
>Then Sony (HUGE compnay compared to sega) came out with all its s***
>and dominanted the market.
Well.."s***" maybe your opinion, I like a lot of PSX games...
>So in conclusion, sega sucks, ninendo now sucks,
>and sony rules.
Considering ONLY the US market...and the current market share, the above
statement is true-for the 32/64 bit gen.
>But tis not true... for SEGA (in my opinion as well as
>facts) is the ONLY compnay with the balls to test new things.
Which new things are you refering to? Using CD as a medium? Sorry Turbo had it
first. Having a modem? I suppose, but they had SNES versions of the Xband (or
whatever it was called) around the same time. I suppose you could say the 32x
"took balls" to make. Please be more specific.
>It seems like
>other companies are learning from SEGA's mistakes.
Have faith that this works both ways...
>They shape it with their NEW ideas and
>great games.
Oh sure, the only game company capable of new ideas is Sega. Everyone else is
just sitting on their hands waiting to see what they do so they can copy
them...oooooooo-K.
>And with DREAMCAST
>sega is kicking ass (for now). I just hope LOTS of games are released so it
>doesn't share Saturn's faith.
Lets hope. I like the DC stuff thus far, I just wish Castlevania, Vigilante 8,
and RECV would come out sometime soon...
J
Jason E.K. Brown
>That is very funny. A used N64 sells for arounf $40 on the market, cheaper
>than a used Gameboy Color. This is the also the only game console created
>within the last 4 years that I do not possess. I wonder why that is. If
>all Sega Hater want to buy a used N64, then these people must all be very
>bright.
>
>SS
LOL, I am gonna wait till they are $30. ;) I got an N64 on launch
day...after 6 months or so I realized it sucked, and sold it. That said, I do
plan on getting a bargain big N64 just to play Goldeneye, Turok1/2, Winback,
Perfect Dark, Castlevania 1 and 2, etc. =)
Jason
Nullman
Darth Miller
Scott <Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7v11iq$gs7$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Heheh, alright everybody I set the net and I'm catching the trolls. At
> least this article will be usefull to my killfile.
> Darth Miller <mil...@kissamabutt.com> wrote in message
> > > do not pull one sentence out and use it against me.
> > HEY! YOU SHOUYLDN"T SAYS THAT!!
Scott
> >I am not saying that Sega is the end all be all of game
> >companies,
>
> think people are going to think when you say things like "Prove to me
> that gaming would even exist without classics like After Burner...yada
yada".
> That sounds to me like you ARE saying they are the end all and be all of
game
> companies. By the way, if you want "proof" on that particular point all
you
> have to do is be aware that console gaming existed prior to Segas
influence...
That is why I said to take all of my statements in context, I knew that many
of my sentences could be taken out of the paragraph and misconstrued. That
last part was added because, while nobody can deny in light of the facts
that Sega is an important gaming company, it seems to me that they are more
important than just another multiplatform third party or hardware developer.
Try and find documentation on any gaming history, it is freaking hard. But
most gamers know that Sega comes out with the new stuff first more often
than any other company does. Again, my list of games and systems in the
original post should be used as reference to this comment.
>
> >and if you have followed the market you would not need documented
> >facts for the points that I made, it would be a pain to try and pull out
> >those old mags anyway.
>
> "you MUST document everything you say, but its ok for you to assume
everything
> I say is a fact and common knowledge...." Interesting "rules" you've
imposed
> on any potential response. Did you even want one at all? And if not, why
even
> post?
You don't have to document common public knowledge, don't exaggerate what I
said. I don't want people to qoute a source that says that Gran Turismo was
made by Sony or came out for the PSX, that is common knowledge. And so
should be the games and systems that I talked about. Anybody that doesn't
know enough about these systems to know what I am talking about should look
it up themselves before replying. Now a hard source to find, like on the
Sega patent thing, is a necessity, but all I know is that I read it on
Gamepro Online and Next Gen Online in the Spring of 98' or 97' and it has
since vanished from the face of the earth.
>
> >My point is that Sega does not deserve all of this flack
>
> Well, we completely agree there. If that is your point, just say it, all
the
> other "points" you tried to make just looked fan-boy like.
This is my whole point, all of the rest was just a tireless, drawn out
explanation of why, to all of the people that have this mental image of a
bad Sega that does not really exist. I swear if I hear another person say
Sega sucks because they loved (insert any game) I will go nuts.
> >it is a great gaming company.
>
> Thats an opinion...
http://www.sega.com/corporate/index.shtml
Any company that can say this has to be a great gaming company. If that,
and the games, and systems, that I mentioned in my original post does not
make a great gaming company than neither is any other company, because no
one else has done it. I said a great company, not the greatest.
> >I don't care what you like or dislike
>
> Then why do you assume anyone cares what you like? Additionally, its
hardly
> just -my- opinion. Its pretty clear that Tekken is more popular (in the
US)
> than VF, GT over Daytona, yada yada. Everyone has their opinions on which
> games are better.
Did I even mention what I like? I was talking strictly on the matter of
gameplay and genre when I listed those comparisons. Sega started the 3D
fighter and the 3D racer, that is a fact because they made the first ones VF
and VR. If you want to argue that your going to have to find a credible
source that agrees with you.
> >I am talking about which individual companies made the greatest number of
> >innovative, revolutionary, evolutionary, or whatever you want to call
them,
> >games first.
>
> Is that all you want? OK, how about Capcom. Invented (or at least
> revolutionized) several genres, started trends etc etc. I think Mega Man,
> Strider, RE, SFII (and all its incarnations), SFZ, Gunsmoke, the
Darkstalkers
> games, Mercs, the Vs games, Dino Crisis, the 194x games, Power Stone,
Ghouls
> and Ghosts, etc etc stack up VERY well against the things put up by Sega
(and
> there are a ton of games I'm forgetting I'm sure). Square has had a lot of
> good stuff, as has Konami, or Treasure. If you want arcade games and 3d
stuff
> one could always mention Namco as well. Maybe not revolutionary most
times,
> but if the games are fun to play, who -really- cares?
That is a good point, but most of those games were made in the 80s and those
were the kinds of games that were coming out then. Capcoms insistence to
rehash the same engine until it is way past dead seems to put it on the back
burner as far as innovative companies go, at least in my eye. Sure they
have made genre busters and new genres, but then they turned around and
rehashed it for as long as they could, that is a spotty track record that
can't be ignored. Sega usually upgrades the engine of any sequel to a
popular game of theirs, and they are always making new kinds of games at the
same time. That is what I call innovation, what is your definition?
Joel Sidwell
--
Joel Sidwell
Resident Assistant
Ohio University
--The Earth is a place. It is by no means the only place. It is not even a
typical place. --Carl Sagan
Jason E.K. Brown
Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com says...
>That is why I said to take all of my statements in context, I knew that many
>of my sentences could be taken out of the paragraph and misconstrued.
Your point was hardly subtle...you smacked the reader in the face with a
frying pan, and now your saying it was taken out of context? It seemed pretty
clear standing on its own and I dont think the original context dilluted it
any.
>That
>last part was added because, while nobody can deny in light of the facts
>that Sega is an important gaming company, it seems to me that they are more
>important than just another multiplatform third party or hardware developer.
Well, I guess thats your opinion. I think some of the BIG 3rd parties have a
greater capability to "change the face of gaming", simply because they are not
limited to merely one console. I thank the gaming-gods that games like
Castlevania etc are made by a good 3rd party and have been available on
multiple systems! (PCE Drac-X who-hoo!!!!)
>Try and find documentation on any gaming history, it is freaking hard.
No doubt...
>But
>most gamers know that Sega comes out with the new stuff first more often
>than any other company does.
Here's a hint...if "most people" were right...they'd be rich. The fact is the
majority is clueless, always has been, always will be. I don't think we can
base much on what "most gamers know" either. I can't think of a whole lot that
Sega has come out with first. Fighters? uhhh, no. Driving games? No. RPGs? No.
The list goes on, there is a LOT more evolutionary stuff than there is
revolutionary stuff (naturally), and to be honest I haven't seen a whole lot
from Sega on the later in the console realm. I dunno, maybe I missed some Sega
games...
>You don't have to document common public knowledge, don't exaggerate what I
>said. I don't want people to qoute a source that says that Gran Turismo was
>made by Sony or came out for the PSX, that is common knowledge. And so
>should be the games and systems that I talked about. Anybody that doesn't
>know enough about these systems to know what I am talking about should look
>it up themselves before replying. Now a hard source to find, like on the
>Sega patent thing, is a necessity, but all I know is that I read it on
>Gamepro Online and Next Gen Online in the Spring of 98' or 97' and it has
>since vanished from the face of the earth.
Remember when Sega had to pay Atari a bunch of cash for infringing on some of
its old school patents? Sega HAS come up with new stuff, but to claim they are
a lone pioneer among developers is silly and obviously incorrect.
>This is my whole point, all of the rest was just a tireless, drawn out
>explanation of why, to all of the people that have this mental image of a
>bad Sega that does not really exist.
Well, I have a Genny, Nomad, 2 Saturns, and a DC (used to have a Game gear
too), so I dont think the "bad Sega" image exists with me. No doubt its out
there, but the 32x and Saturn have caused that in the US, and there really
isn't anyone to blame other than Sega unless you want to scapegoat.
>I swear if I hear another person say
>Sega sucks because they loved (insert any game) I will go nuts.
lol, put that man in the funny farm! A troll/fan-boy makes this comment daily!
=)
>> >it is a great gaming company.
>>
>> Thats an opinion...
>
>http://www.sega.com/corporate/index.shtml
>
>Any company that can say this has to be a great gaming company. If that,
>and the games, and systems, that I mentioned in my original post does not
>make a great gaming company than neither is any other company, because no
>one else has done it. I said a great company, not the greatest.
You didn't bother to quote it, so I will just so we can all see your "proof"
as to Segas greatness... (readers keep in mind this is writen by Sega...there
COULD be some bias there....)
"You've known us for years, but really (you may well ask) -- who the heck are
we? Let's clear up any confusion: Sega of America is a branch of Sega
Enterprises, Ltd., a Tokyo-based company worth around $3.0 billion."
Ok, so they are worth $3 billion. Surely a lot of money to you or I, but not
exactly gigantic or anything for a global company. Of course they fail to
mention apparently considerable debts. They have cash in the bank, but as far
as I know Ninny and Sony don't have similar levels of debt as Sega.
Considering that, they start to seem more and more mediocre. Additionally, a
great deal of Segas "worth" is no doubt in the arcade realm, this thread WAS
about consoles...
"That's what we'd call a kick-ass success in the gaming industry (and we're
damn proud of it!)."
"I'm great, let me tell you all about it!" Yeah...uh-huh. Like the
man-with-no-name in a western, if you are kick ass, you dont need to tell
people, they already know it...
"Sega of America develops, markets, and distributes Sega's state-of-the-art
videogame systems and videogames in the Americas."
As does any console maker, nothing outstanding here...
"Sega Enterprises is recognized as the industry leader in interactive digital
entertainment media. We're the only company that offers such trail-blazing
entertainment both inside and outside the home."
They MUST be talking about arcades, cause they haven't led -anything- in the
console realm for quite some time. Hopefully DC will change that...
"That's pretty cool. No wonder people like us."
Just ask us, we'll tell ya!
I didn't see to much greatness there...even though Sega may be a "great"
developer...
>Did I even mention what I like? I was talking strictly on the matter of
>gameplay and genre when I listed those comparisons. Sega started the 3D
>fighter and the 3D racer, that is a fact because they made the first ones VF
>and VR. If you want to argue that your going to have to find a credible
>source that agrees with you.
Adding 3d to an existing genre is mainly evolutionary, unless something in the
gameplay has never been done before. Did you consider the 3d arcade
Pac-man game they made revolutionary? I didn't, it was pacman rehashed
into 3d. Surely driving and fighting games existed before Sega. Additionally,
one might say, that without SF2, VF might never had existed...
>That is a good point, but most of those games were made in the 80s and those
>were the kinds of games that were coming out then.
Some, no doubt, but I fail to see how a games fun-factor is enhanced -purely-
by it being revolutionary. Cruisin USA is basically a VERY good looking Pole
Position, and yet, I think its a lot more fun than the revolutionary (if you
define it that way) VR...
>Capcoms insistence to
>rehash the same engine until it is way past dead seems to put it on the back
>burner as far as innovative companies go, at least in my eye.
So, RE and SF2 don't count simply because they made sequels? I dunno about
you, but when I have the choice (and I do!) of playing the original SF2, or
Marvel vs Capcom, I'm most likely to grab my DC controller...in spite of its
lack of "innovation".
>Sure they
>have made genre busters and new genres, but then they turned around and
>rehashed it for as long as they could, that is a spotty track record that
>can't be ignored.
So if you invent a genre, dont make a sequel!? Maybe you ought to go work for
Treasure, thats their philosophy. It is likely we will never see a sequel to
Gunstar or Radiant Silvergun for that reason. Wow, seems like a good
philosophy now. Additionally, do you know why they rehash games? BECAUSE THE
CONSUMER WANTS THEM TO. If we (the game buying public) didn't want rehashed
Capcom games, they would have quit making them a LONG time ago, because they
wouldn't be selling like crazy. Complain all you want, but they are simply
providing what the market demands.
>Sega usually upgrades the engine of any sequel to a
>popular game of theirs,
I dunno, but I think Marvel vs Capcoms engine is superior to SF2s...maybe you
just missed the "small" improvements there. =P I think a better way of
looking at games like RE, RE2, and RE3 or SF2, SF2CE yada yada, is this...they
are simply chapters in a book. If the platform remains the same, I dont expect
all that much graphical engine improvement, especially later in a systems life
where they have squeezed pretty much all they can get from it. Each chapter
isn't really a sequel at all, merely a continuation of the first one. Besides,
go ahead and TRY to convince me that Shinobi has been upgraded and improved!
Ever play the ghastly Saturn Shinobi game?!?!?!! yikes!
>and they are always making new kinds of games at the
>same time. That is what I call innovation, what is your definition?
I never said Sega wasn't innovative, merely that they hardly have a monopoly
on it, and console gaming WOULD exist without them...in fact, it did!
Jason
Scott
useless and DVD on the PS2 was very useful. You ignored all of the facts
that I gave you to prove that you were at least wrong about the modem, or
that DVD will not enhance games like the jump to CD did. I will not carry
this conversation beyond this reply so pay attention.
Jason E.K. Brown <jekb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3814f...@news.pacifier.com...
> In article <7v2nee$l2v$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com says...
> >That is why I said to take all of my statements in context, I knew that
many
> >of my sentences could be taken out of the paragraph and misconstrued.
>
> Your point was hardly subtle...you smacked the reader in the face with a
> frying pan, and now your saying it was taken out of context? It seemed
pretty
> clear standing on its own and I dont think the original context dilluted
it
> any.
Subtle does not grab the attention. I wanted to make a point, that Sega has
done things that could not be ignored, or slandered. I said that I was not
trying to make Sega look better than other companies, I was just trying to
point out exactly what things Sega has done that are good, in comparison to
what the other companies were doing in the same time frame. I can't think
of a better approach than to put a company up against its peers at the exact
same point in time in order to see what the company did for gaming compared
to others.
> >That
> >last part was added because, while nobody can deny in light of the facts
> >that Sega is an important gaming company, it seems to me that they are
more
> >important than just another multiplatform third party or hardware
developer.
>
> Well, I guess thats your opinion. I think some of the BIG 3rd parties have
a
> greater capability to "change the face of gaming", simply because they are
not
> limited to merely one console. I thank the gaming-gods that games like
> Castlevania etc are made by a good 3rd party and have been available on
> multiple systems! (PCE Drac-X who-hoo!!!!)
That is a good point, but which how many third parties make games outside of
one genre? Also, how many of those third parties evolve a genre or create a
new genre with just about every game they make? We could argue about which
company is better all day, my point is that Sega is not a bad company by any
stretch of the imagination. They don't commit illegal business acts to
corner the market, they don't bully the third parties, they don't make
unreasonable demands on third parties (you can only make 3D says Sony), they
do make games that evolve or create a new genre as often or more often as
any other company, they don't make excessive rehashes sequels, and when they
do make a sequel it is an entirely new engine that makes the original look
like a joke in comparison. There are not many gaming companies that do
this, and that is why I think that Sega deserves some respect from the
gaming community, especially since their drive to make something different
has hurt them more often than it has helped them because people like you
would like to play Doom 2, a 3D CD-ROM version of an 8-bit game, or a
prerendered version of an old Atari racing game, rather than games that
don't really fit into a genre or redefine the genre entirely making the
originals look pale in comparison.
> >But
> >most gamers know that Sega comes out with the new stuff first more often
> >than any other company does.
>
> Here's a hint...if "most people" were right...they'd be rich. The fact is
the
> majority is clueless, always has been, always will be. I don't think we
can
> base much on what "most gamers know" either. I can't think of a whole lot
that
> Sega has come out with first. Fighters? uhhh, no. Driving games? No. RPGs?
No.
> The list goes on, there is a LOT more evolutionary stuff than there is
> revolutionary stuff (naturally), and to be honest I haven't seen a whole
lot
> from Sega on the later in the console realm. I dunno, maybe I missed some
Sega
> games...
Your right, I should have said something like avid gamer or informed gamer,
or hardcore gamer. My point is that it is reasonable to assume that an open
minded gamer, which also happens to be the only kind I will reply to, should
probably have a good database of the same info on gaming history that I do,
right in their knoggin. It seems that I am right on this assumption since
so many people seem to be supporting what I said.
>
> >You don't have to document common public knowledge, don't exaggerate what
I
> >said. I don't want people to qoute a source that says that Gran Turismo
was
> >made by Sony or came out for the PSX, that is common knowledge. And so
> >should be the games and systems that I talked about. Anybody that
doesn't
> >know enough about these systems to know what I am talking about should
look
> >it up themselves before replying. Now a hard source to find, like on the
> >Sega patent thing, is a necessity, but all I know is that I read it on
> >Gamepro Online and Next Gen Online in the Spring of 98' or 97' and it
has
> >since vanished from the face of the earth.
>
> Remember when Sega had to pay Atari a bunch of cash for infringing on some
of
> its old school patents? Sega HAS come up with new stuff, but to claim they
are
> a lone pioneer among developers is silly and obviously incorrect.
I never said that they were the lone pioneer, once again this is why I said
take my statements in context. I did not feel like arguing for other
companies too so I simply stated what Sega has done right in gaming history,
and compared it to what its peers were doing at the same time. Can you
think of a better way? And I don't consider not bothering with it at all a
reasonable alternative.
> >This is my whole point, all of the rest was just a tireless, drawn out
> >explanation of why, to all of the people that have this mental image of a
> >bad Sega that does not really exist.
>
> Well, I have a Genny, Nomad, 2 Saturns, and a DC (used to have a Game gear
> too), so I dont think the "bad Sega" image exists with me. No doubt its
out
> there, but the 32x and Saturn have caused that in the US, and there really
> isn't anyone to blame other than Sega unless you want to scapegoat.
I blame the gamer, for supporting other companies. I don't see why not,
Sega stopped production on both of those systems after the public utterly
rejected them, showing no remorse or signs of eventually buying them.
It really does not matter, a variation on this statement is what every game
publication posts as a reference to what Sega is, it may be their words but
nobody with clout is disagreeing with them. The fact is you can't make
these statements about many other companies without growing a bigger nose,
if you can about any. If that does not make them a great company, there are
no great gaming companies at all.
> >Did I even mention what I like? I was talking strictly on the matter of
> >gameplay and genre when I listed those comparisons. Sega started the 3D
> >fighter and the 3D racer, that is a fact because they made the first ones
VF
> >and VR. If you want to argue that your going to have to find a credible
> >source that agrees with you.
>
> Adding 3d to an existing genre is mainly evolutionary, unless something in
the
> gameplay has never been done before. Did you consider the 3d arcade
> Pac-man game they made revolutionary? I didn't, it was pacman rehashed
> into 3d. Surely driving and fighting games existed before Sega.
Additionally,
> one might say, that without SF2, VF might never had existed...
No, pacman 3d was a rehash, Daytona was the first game to employ realistic
driving to the racing genre, VR was the first to employ 3S rendering models
to it, and that was a big deal back then, plus there were no games at the
time that played anything like VR so that made it unique as well. I recall
Sega making a 3D hologram fighting game long before SF2, but I have no
problem with acknowledging SF2 as the first fighter, but VF was the first
3D, and the most realistic fighter, and every sequel has only gotten better
in every way, the same can't be said for the other fighting sequels out
there. That makes VF innovative, I am not going to get into a Namco verses
Sega conversation either, those never end, mainly because VFs are more
realistic and Tekken is not and that is why people like it. Here let me
answer this one for you "Super high floating jumps are realistic, yeah right
give me a break." Show me a more realistic 3D fighter then.
> >That is a good point, but most of those games were made in the 80s and
those
> >were the kinds of games that were coming out then.
>
> Some, no doubt, but I fail to see how a games fun-factor is
enhanced -purely-
> by it being revolutionary. Cruisin USA is basically a VERY good looking
Pole
> Position, and yet, I think its a lot more fun than the revolutionary (if
you
> define it that way) VR...
Funfactor is different from one gamer to another. I will not play a game,
such as Cruisin, in which the only difference between it and other games is
the graphics. You obviously do not feel the same, and are somehow
entertained by the same gameplay as a game that you played ten years before
with better graphics. I can accept that, I have to because your POV is
similar to most gamers. I however demand something new, or at least a
significant advancement in gameplay, from a game if I am going to happily
spend my money on it. Though boredom has found me playing rehashes in the
past.
> >Capcoms insistence to
> >rehash the same engine until it is way past dead seems to put it on the
back
> >burner as far as innovative companies go, at least in my eye.
>
> So, RE and SF2 don't count simply because they made sequels? I dunno about
> you, but when I have the choice (and I do!) of playing the original SF2,
or
> Marvel vs Capcom, I'm most likely to grab my DC controller...in spite of
its
> lack of "innovation".
That is not what I said, that is the exact thing I was talking about when I
said not to take my sentences out of context. I said that Capcom made some
great games, and created genres, BUT I would hesitate from calling them an
innovative company because of how much they rehash. They rehash much more
than they innovate. Marvel Vs Capcom is not the same engine as SF2. Xmen,
Marvel Super Heroes, Xmen Vs Streetfighter, and MVC are all the same engine.
Just like SF2, SF2CE, SF2T, SSF2, and SSF2T are. Capcom is world renowned
for bleeding every engine they develop for every cent it can make before
moving on to a new one. Sega does not do this. Therefore, Sega is a more
innovative company than Capcom. But Capcom is still a great gaming company
because they make higher quality rehashes than anyone else.
> >Sure they
> >have made genre busters and new genres, but then they turned around and
> >rehashed it for as long as they could, that is a spotty track record that
> >can't be ignored.
>
> So if you invent a genre, dont make a sequel!? Maybe you ought to go work
for
> Treasure, thats their philosophy. It is likely we will never see a sequel
to
> Gunstar or Radiant Silvergun for that reason. Wow, seems like a good
> philosophy now. Additionally, do you know why they rehash games? BECAUSE
THE
> CONSUMER WANTS THEM TO. If we (the game buying public) didn't want
rehashed
> Capcom games, they would have quit making them a LONG time ago, because
they
> wouldn't be selling like crazy. Complain all you want, but they are simply
> providing what the market demands.
Innovation is not necessarily what makes a game sell. I know this and this
has nothing to do with my point.
> >Sega usually upgrades the engine of any sequel to a
> >popular game of theirs,
>
> I dunno, but I think Marvel vs Capcoms engine is superior to SF2s...maybe
you
> just missed the "small" improvements there. =P I think a better way of
> looking at games like RE, RE2, and RE3 or SF2, SF2CE yada yada, is
this...they
> are simply chapters in a book. If the platform remains the same, I dont
expect
> all that much graphical engine improvement, especially later in a systems
life
> where they have squeezed pretty much all they can get from it. Each
chapter
> isn't really a sequel at all, merely a continuation of the first one.
Besides,
> go ahead and TRY to convince me that Shinobi has been upgraded and
improved!
> Ever play the ghastly Saturn Shinobi game?!?!?!! yikes!
Did I say that MVC and SF2 used the same engine, no I did not, so why are
you saying I did. Context, read it. I would look at them as chapters in a
book if capcom did not charge the same price for the first on as they did
the last one. Surely Capcom as made their money back on the R&D for the
engine by now and could lower the price to reflect that they are just adding
to another game. Sega did not even bring over the Shinobi Saturn game, some
publisher did and it was pretty bad. I did not say that Sega never made bad
games either, your grasping at straws here. You just like to argue don't
you, have you ever changed your mind about anything or do you spend too much
time twisting peoples words to really hear them at all?
> >and they are always making new kinds of games at the
> >same time. That is what I call innovation, what is your definition?
>
> I never said Sega wasn't innovative, merely that they hardly have a
monopoly
> on it, and console gaming WOULD exist without them...in fact, it did!
Yeah, and I played all of the great games that came out when Sega was.
Guess how many I own, Tenchu, it was the only game that I enjoyed. It is
also innovative, this is what I like to see in games, not rehashes. I would
not have bought Sonic 2 if it looked just like Sonic 1 but had different
levels, I think that would have been stupid. Sega adds things to its
sequels that really make them a unique experience from the originals.
Shinobi does not play anything like Revenge of Shinobi just like Shinobi 3
has innovations in gameplay and graphics that just can't be passed up
because you own the prequel. My point once again is that Sega is a good
company, not a bad one.
Nick Zitzmann
this in article <7v0ic6$o0h$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
> People always give Square the credit for creating the first
> console RPG, well then what was Phantasy Star? PS came out long before FF
> and had all of the things that define the FF games and then some.
Wait. I thought Dragon Quest (Dragon Warrior) was the first
console-exclusive RPG, not Phantasy Star...
Nick Zitzmann ICQ: 22305512
To see my real signature, finger my E-Mail address.
Scott
DW also says that it was originally made/released in Japan in 86' and I
don't know when PS was made/released in Japan so you may be right. But PS
was first in the US.
Nick Zitzmann <nick...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:B43A53F2.154C%nick...@eskimo.com...
Gimpy
Matt
Stuart
Sega and take over the world!!!
Stuart
party developers would develop for Sega (notice you coveniently forgot to
mention NES' 1st party support). Without Sega, though, you mention only the
best games, conveniently forget the bombs Sega made people buy.
Face it, dipshit, Master System sucked!!! NES ran circles around it, OK??
Look now, how many emulators are there for SMS?? How about NES?
Nice try...
Scott
"Without a Nintendo console we would probably still have Nintendo, so Mario
and Zelda
exist, the SMS had Alex Kid, Wonder Boy, Golvelious: Valley of Doom, and
Zillion, more than enough to get those genres started right fine. Now you
could argue that some of those games would not have been made if Nintendo
had not made the games it did, but you would probably have had some of the
minds behind those games in other companies, so something like them would
have showed up."
I guess there goes *your* argument huh. Exactly how did Nes run circles
around SMS? Certainly not in hardware. You missed my point anyway, and
dullard? Is that you Louis? From the Japanese Dreamcast group? Oh yeah,
for more spanking of your well thought out speeches see my reply, and
everybody else's, to your Sick of Dreamcast post. I think someone did fart,
oh look we have a Stuart. Oh and your wrong about the emulation thing too,
unless you are counting non working emus, in which case the Saturn wins.
Stuart <s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7v3dj0$4dr$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Jason E.K. Brown
Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com says...
>
>Your the same guy that tried to convince me that the Modem on my DC was
>useless and DVD on the PS2 was very useful.
I didn't try to convince you of anything. I merely pointed out my perspective
on the two components. Hell, I -have- a DVD player already, and I -still-
think its a better idea than a "free" modem!
>You ignored all of the facts
What facts? More like what -you- thought...
>I will not carry
>this conversation beyond this reply so pay attention.
The freedom of speeches flip-side...the freedom to shut-up.
>Subtle does not grab the attention.
Perhaps not. You might try well thought-out statements instead. Most people
see bombast rhetoric as trolling..
>I wanted to make a point, that Sega has
>done things that could not be ignored, or slandered.
I can understand "slandered"...but "can not be ignored"? What? I already
agreed that Sega was significant in gaming. It was -my- point that they are
not the end-all and be-all of developers...nothing more, nothing less.
>That is a good point, but which how many third parties make games outside of
>one genre?
Most of them. Very few 3rd parties are genre specific. (Koei would probably be
the best example of one that pretty much was). Most people think "RPG" when
they hear of Square...but they have put out other stuff...Einhander?
>Also, how many of those third parties evolve a genre or create a
>new genre with just about every game they make?
Evolving a genre? I thought you didn't like rehashes of other games? AFA
"creating a new genre with just about every game they make"...isn't it clear
that that isn't true? What do you mean by "just about every"? Was Sonic 2 for
Genny creating a new genre? How about HotD? Daytona? VC? Shinobi? The list
goes on. Revolutionary games, and the creation of genres is a LOT more rare
than some people think. It doesn't happen often. Sega has had a hand in some
of these...but "with just about every..." is just poor word usage.
>We could argue about which
>company is better all day, my point is that Sega is not a bad company by any
>stretch of the imagination.
I wouldn't suggest anything of the sort!
>They don't commit illegal business acts to
>corner the market
They need to do something! Segas inability to maintain constant and good 3rd
party support killed the SMS, and Saturn, and didn't help the Genny much
either.
>they don't bully the third parties, they don't make
>unreasonable demands on third parties (you can only make 3D says Sony)
I think I'd rather have that, than a 3rd party relationship like Sega had with
the Saturn. (ie hording all the secrets for 3d programming etc so THEIR games
would look the best....)
>when they
>do make a sequel it is an entirely new engine that makes the original look
>like a joke in comparison.
VC1, VC2...hmmm...not exactly a massive improvement. If there was a new
engine, they didn't make it much better! Sonic 1, Sonic 2? Same thing. Golden
Ax? The first one was BETTER than the second! There are others. While in
general they improve things, it isn't a given that a Sega sequel has a new
engine, OR an improved look...
>There are not many gaming companies that do
>this, and that is why I think that Sega deserves some respect from the
>gaming community, especially since their drive to make something different
>has hurt them more often than it has helped them
Being revolutionary doesn't have much to do with success apparently. AFAIK
Treasure is doing OK, and most agree their games are pretty evolutionary...in
game-play and fun-factor, sometimes even revolutionary.
>because people like you
>would like to play Doom 2, a 3D CD-ROM version of an 8-bit game, or a
>prerendered version of an old Atari racing game, rather than games that
>don't really fit into a genre or redefine the genre entirely making the
>originals look pale in comparison.
Oh yeah, people like ME are just killing Sega. Us Genny+CD / Nomad / Game
Gear / Saturn (x2) / DC owners have been nothing but trouble for poor little
Sega! Other than buying all of their hardware I haven't done a dang thing for
them. Gimme a break. You have no clue, even as to what types of games I like.
FYI, I used to play the original Wolfenstein on my 'puter. It was cool. When
the updated it to 3d, it was cool, and subsequent 3d ID games have been even
cooler. Is there something wrong with that? For some reason you think if Sega
does this, they are the best thing since sliced bread, if another developer
does it (Id in this example) they suck. Don't you see a MASSIVE lack of logic
there? MOST of Segas games ARE simply rehashes of other peoples concepts. They
didn't incent the 1-on-1 fighter, the RPG, the driving game, etc. They have
made several ones that looked better than others at the time, but graphics
don't equal revolutionary. This is not to say Sega hasn't had rev. stuff.
Nights, etc I consider rev. I'm just saying they hardly corner the market in
that regard.
>Your right, I should have said something like avid gamer or informed gamer,
>or hardcore gamer.
Thats me.
>My point is that it is reasonable to assume that an open
>minded gamer, which also happens to be the only kind I will reply to, should
>probably have a good database of the same info on gaming history that I do,
>right in their knoggin. It seems that I am right on this assumption since
>so many people seem to be supporting what I said.
If "common knowledge" is in error (sometimes called a misconception), its
popularity hardly makes it the truth.
>I never said that they were the lone pioneer, once again this is why I said
>take my statements in context. I did not feel like arguing for other
>companies too so I simply stated what Sega has done right in gaming history
I agree.
>and compared it to what its peers were doing at the same time. Can you
>think of a better way? And I don't consider not bothering with it at all a
>reasonable alternative.
Think of a better way to what? Compare game developers? I compare them based
on how much I enjoy the games. Other bases for comparison dont seem to mean
much once you hit "start". (or "run" for us turbo players...)
>I blame the gamer, for supporting other companies.
What? A person who actually enjoys PSX games, and thus buys a PSX has done
something wrong? Why? Why do they deserve "blame"? If Sega or Ninny made games
that this given person liked more, I'm sure they would have bought their
systems. Fact is, (for this example), they didn't. The game companies only
mission is to provide the buyer with entertainment. If they can't do it,
shoppers go elsewhere, and thats the bottom line.
>It really does not matter, a variation on this statement is what every game
>publication posts as a reference to what Sega is, it may be their words but
>nobody with clout is disagreeing with them.
The words weren't very impressive, so if others are repeating them, it surely
isn't a good thing for Sega-ites...
>The fact is you can't make
>these statements about many other companies without growing a bigger nose,
>if you can about any.
The fact is I don't need too. -You- made the assertion that company X is vital
to gaming, that doesn't impose a requirement of coming up with a better
developer. (though I already had)
>No, pacman 3d was a rehash, Daytona was the first game to employ realistic
>driving to the racing genre,
Increased realism in a simulation = revolutionary? I guess each new simulation
is rev. then...they constantly become more accurate and complex with each new
one.
>VR was the first to employ 3S rendering models
>to it, and that was a big deal back then,
Eye candy. Funny how you call the transition from 2d to 3d for Id a rehash,
but for Sega its a big deal...
>I recall
>Sega making a 3D hologram fighting game long before SF2, but I have no
>problem with acknowledging SF2 as the first fighter
Yes, there were some other old school 2d fighter type games...but I think its
clear SF is revolutionary or atleast spawned a genre.
>but VF was the first 3D
3d = rev?
>and the most realistic fighter
Uhhh...I don't know about THAT! Have you ever tried to jump before? I assume
you noticed that you don't fly hella high and float on the way back down! VF
is a good fighter, however.
>and every sequel has only gotten better
>in every way, the same can't be said for the other fighting sequels out
>there.
Which ones are you refering to?
>That makes VF innovative, I am not going to get into a Namco verses
>Sega conversation either, those never end,
Fine.
>mainly because VFs are more
>realistic and Tekken is not and that is why people like it.
I don't see much parallel between real fighting and VF. Tekken isn't intended
to be realistic, which is good, because if a 98 pound weakling walks up to an
arcade game, he wants to "be" a big huge strong guy doing far-out special
moves. =) Fighters, IMO, shouldn't be realistic...which is good cause they
never have been. The dragon punch? Spinning pile driver? The turkey-gobbler
kick from MK? Not to realistic, but it makes a game cool.
>Here let me
>answer this one for you "Super high floating jumps are realistic, yeah right
>give me a break." Show me a more realistic 3D fighter then.
So high jumps are realistic, purely because other fighters aren't realistic?
Hmmm...
>Funfactor is different from one gamer to another. I will not play a game,
>such as Cruisin, in which the only difference between it and other games is
>the graphics.
So you have never played a 2d shooter since galaxian...a 2d fighter since the
original fighting street...a driver since pole position...a light gun game
since Cheyanne? Gimme a break! Graphics are not the ONLY factor in what makes
a game fun, but if you stick to ONLY rev. games and NEVER play an evolutionary
one you're not going to have much to choose from. Believe it or not,
evolutionary games can be fun to. Of course you know this, because assuming
you play games much at all, you enjoy them as well. I assume you have a DC,
perhaps you could tell me what rev. games you play on it..., of course, you'd
NEVER play a evolutionary game... (like SC, Hydro, PS, Sonic, HotD2,
Trickstyle, TNN, Get Bass, KoF, MvC....)
>You obviously do not feel the same, and are somehow
>entertained by the same gameplay as a game that you played ten years before
>with better graphics.
If you can't understand why someone that had played galaxian (or any other OLD
80s shooter) would want to play, say, Radiant Silvergun, I can't explain it to
you. There are probably a dozen (maybe!) truly revolutionary games in the
history of gaming, if that is all you want to play, thats cool with me. I
don't believe in limiting my options. If you do, that is completely your
choice.
>I can accept that, I have to because your POV is
>similar to most gamers.
I don't think myself and "most gamers" is a good match...most of them don't
have a SGX! I like some games that just happen to be popular. Then again I
cant stand Pokemon, I love my Saturn, and I like 2d shooters. All of which put
me pretty far from the mainstream!
>I however demand something new
FEW and far between...
>or at least a significant advancement in gameplay
Well that could mean anything. A person COULD think that DKC2 had "significant
advancement in gameplay" over DKC...
>from a game if I am going to happily
>spend my money on it. Though boredom has found me playing rehashes in the
>past.
Its ok, you can admit it.
>That is not what I said, that is the exact thing I was talking about when I
>said not to take my sentences out of context. I said that Capcom made some
>great games, and created genres, BUT I would hesitate from calling them an
>innovative company because of how much they rehash.
So no matter how many innovative games they made...they couldn't be an
innovative company simply because of how many SF or MM games there have been?
ooooooo-K
>They rehash much more than they innovate. Marvel Vs Capcom is not the same
>engine as SF2. Xmen,
>Marvel Super Heroes, Xmen Vs Streetfighter, and MVC are all the same engine.
>Just like SF2, SF2CE, SF2T, SSF2, and SSF2T are.
And great games they are! (and this from an SNK guy...heck Capcom is still in
2nd place to them IMO!)
>Capcom is world renowned
>for bleeding every engine they develop for every cent it can make before
>moving on to a new one.
Well, they give the market what it wants. No shame in that! Haven't you ever
wished company X would make a sequel of a game you REALLY like? Well, Capcom
does just that.
>Sega does not do this.
? Me thinks there have been more than a few Sega sequels...some WORSE than
their original...(as mentioned above)
>But Capcom is still a great gaming company
>because they make higher quality rehashes than anyone else.
Its just MO, but they are "good" because they make good rehashes...they are
"great" because of the game that spawned the rehashes!
>Did I say that MVC and SF2 used the same engine, no I did not, so why are
>you saying I did.
I didn't say you did. Merely that a rehash, in that case yielded a better
game....
>I would look at them as chapters in a
>book if capcom did not charge the same price for the first on as they did
>the last one.
I'm sure the Shenmu chapters will be increasingly inexpensive....
>Sega did not even bring over the Shinobi Saturn game, some
>publisher did and it was pretty bad. I did not say that Sega never made bad
>games either, your grasping at straws here.
Grasping at straws? lol. You said that when they made a sequel it had a better
engine, or improved game play. I provide an example which BLATANTLY
contradicts your "theory" and I'm the one grasping? LOL. You just make so many
blanket statements that there are bound to be holes in them...
>You just like to argue don't
>you,
Some times...
>have you ever changed your mind about anything or do you spend too much
>time twisting peoples words to really hear them at all?
Any given statement ought to be able to stand on its own, dont you think?
>Yeah, and I played all of the great games that came out when Sega was.
>Guess how many I own, Tenchu, it was the only game that I enjoyed. It is
>also innovative, this is what I like to see in games, not rehashes.
Well...there are probably thousands of PSX games you've never played, so maybe
you just haven't found the right stuff.
>My point once again is that Sega is a good
>company, not a bad one.
And with that, I completely agree! Why are we arguing?
crossfade
0.5. Mastertronic (best c64 game company of all time)
With classics like Spooks, Chiller, Magic Carpet, Kickstart (!) and Space
Walk they are by far my personal #1. I think this is OT in 4 groups now :)
And by the way, Interplay is a publisher, not a developer as is Activision
(now) and EA (I think). Speaking of Activision, anyone remember Gary
Kitchen's Game Maker for C64? I've still got some games I did on there that
might just be better than some of the current ones out there :)
xfd
Geoffrey Leask <ge...@nondetrop.com> wrote in message
news:38166d2f...@news.mindspring.com...
-snip-
> Since we're on the topic---here's my list of the greatest game
> companies of all time.
>
> 10. Delphine
> 9. Interplay
> 8. Blizzard
> 7. Electronic Arts
> 6. Nintendo
> 5. Sega
> 4. Atari
> 3. Id
> 2. Activision
> 1. Microprose
Geoffrey Leask
>>My point once again is that Sega is a good
>>company, not a bad one.
>
>And with that, I completely agree! Why are we arguing?
I don't know. But your guys' posts have become way too long to sort
through. If I remember the original post correctly, it expounded on
the virtues of Sega as a game company in order to call into question
the people who seem to attack them unfoundedly. Seems like a
reasonable thing to do considering how much attention is foisted upon
trolls in this ng. Is Sega the greatest game maker ever? Who cares?
They're unquestionably a great game maker that has been at or near the
forefront of console and arcade development for decades. No seasoned
gamer would argue with that.
Matthew Simms
>> just -my- opinion. Its pretty clear that Tekken is more popular (in the
>US)
>> than VF, GT over Daytona, yada yada. Everyone has their opinions on which
>> games are better.
>
>Did I even mention what I like? I was talking strictly on the matter of
>gameplay and genre when I listed those comparisons. Sega started the 3D
>fighter and the 3D racer, that is a fact because they made the first ones
VF
>and VR. If you want to argue that your going to have to find a credible
>source that agrees with you.
Wrong. Final Fight, for all its 2d graphics, was, essentially a 3-D fighting
game. As was Way of the Exploding Fist. Virtua Racing was basically Stunt
Car Racer with a higher polygon count. Stunt Car Racer was a proper 3-D
racing game that came out on the old C64's, Spectrums and Amigas way before
Sega developed their game. Get your facts straight and stop presuming that
good gaming only came along when Sega showed up.
Updating an engine is hardly innovative. Look at EA. Up until around five
years ago I'd say they were one of the most respected games publishers in
the world. But now all they do is get NBA, FIFA, Madden, NHL, Nascar, PGA
etc, develop a new game engine and sell the bloody things. The game industry
is now reaching an age where innovative games are harder and harder to find,
due to most ideas having already been discovered. However, great ideas can
always be improved upon. Gamers are fickle beings. We all find our niche,
games that we are either good at, or find most fun. There will always be
people buying Streetfighter games, because that's their idea of a good
beat-em-up, likewise, people will prefer games like Doom 2 over Duke Nukem,
Formula 1 over Indycar etc. Games are like cars. A great game, if enhanced
and improved upon over the years will always be bought. Take, for example, a
soccer management game which now sells over 3 million copies each year.
Championship Manager was first released back in 1992. It had EGA graphics,
horrible mouse pointers but the basic game engine was fast and accurate.
Over the years they've improved it, expanded the engine and built upon the
game. From what was once contained on a 720k dual density disk, it now takes
up around 500mb on a hard disk. And yet no one would call that innovative,
because it is essentially just a re-hash of an old game. For me, the most
innovative games makers all happened with the C64's and Sinclair Spectrums,
with people programming fun games from the confines of their own bedrooms. I
have yet to see a game on any console that matches the originality of Skool
Daze.
Skye
Jason E.K. Brown <jekb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38166...@news.pacifier.com...
Paul Summerhill
Phantasy Star, Sega GT, Baldurs Gate, Half Life, Bite the Bullet (I think that's
the name), games coming out next fall. The modem will pay off eventually,
probably by September 2k.
Skye
be worthless for a year (!!!), and lower the price of the DC. What a waste.
But then again, that's why they're Sega - Home of the Galactic Fuckups.
Paul Summerhill <psu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3817BAD3...@home.com...
> duh... to play games via the net.
>
> Phantasy Star, Sega GT, Baldurs Gate, Half Life, Bite the Bullet (I think
that's
> the name), games coming out next fall. The modem will pay off eventually,
> probably by September 2k.
>
> Skye wrote:
>
Paul Summerhill
- Upgrades never really fly... by having a modem built in, *EVERY* DC owner has
a chance to play online.
- for those who don't have computers and want net access, DC is a cheap way of
doing it.
Don't buy Dreamcast if you dislike the idea that it comes with a modem. I'm
sure not complaining... I just want some multiplayer games to arrive. March
will hopefully have the first... or sooner preferably.
Brute
Let me first start off saying that I like Sega as a company, as well
as I like Sony. I dislike Nintendo's business practices, so I'm not
even going to talk about them. I'm not going to slam Sega here,
either. I'm just going to point out some blatant errors in your
"facts".
> Your the same guy that tried to convince me that the Modem on my DC
was
> useless and DVD on the PS2 was very useful. You ignored all of the
facts
> that I gave you to prove that you were at least wrong about the
modem, or
> that DVD will not enhance games like the jump to CD did. I will not
carry
> this conversation beyond this reply so pay attention.
DVD drives aren't just for watching movies you know. Each game disc
is capable of holding 5 times the data than 1 Dreamcast CD is able to
hold.
Look at this example: Baldur's Gate for PC is on 5 CD-ROMs... the
DVD version is only on one DVD disc and has better quality cutscenes.
PlayStation 2 owners can buy a modem seperately if they think they'll
use it. 56k technology is basically free these days anyhow, and not
everyone is interested in using their video game console's modem.
However, I have doubts as to the existance of a video game player who
would not want their games on a DVD format. As for Dreamcast owners
upgrading to DVD, it's impossible. Sega's lack of DVD will hurt them.
> Daytona was the first game to employ realistic driving to the racing
genre
I guess you haven't ever heard of the game Hard Drivin'. Not only was
it the first polygon-based driving game that I remeber ever seeing,
but it was a hell of a lot more realistic than Daytona, which came
years later.
> I have no problem with acknowledging SF2 as the first fighter
I do. The first 1 on 1 fighting arcade game was called Yie-Ar Kung
Fu.
Street Fighter II wasn't even close to being the first fighter, hell
it wasn't even the first Street Fighter. Duh.
--
~Brute
Raymond McKeithen II
Brute <brute...@DIESPAMDIEearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7vee2b$k4f$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> DVD drives aren't just for watching movies you know. Each game disc
> is capable of holding 5 times the data than 1 Dreamcast CD is able to
> hold.
And this is so important how?
> Look at this example: Baldur's Gate for PC is on 5 CD-ROMs... the
> DVD version is only on one DVD disc and has better quality cutscenes.
>
Who cares how many discs it's on? FMV quality isn't about it being on DVD
format disc, it's about MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-1. I for one don't play games to
watch movies (FMV); I do it to actually play the game, so I don't really see
a big deal about "cutscene quality."
> However, I have doubts as to the existance of a video game player who
> would not want their games on a DVD format.
I don't particularly want my games on DVD. I really don't care. However if
you want to doubt I exist, feel free.
> As for Dreamcast owners
> upgrading to DVD, it's impossible. Sega's lack of DVD will hurt them.
>
In what way? How? Why?
I fail to see any advantage to the format aside from storage space. Since
most games fit on one GD just fine, I fail to see that as a big deal. And if
a game is multiple discs, so what?
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
Robert Chang
II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> I fail to see any advantage to the format aside from storage space. Since
> most games fit on one GD just fine, I fail to see that as a big deal. And if
> a game is multiple discs, so what?
I don't want to debate the merits of DVD here, but this reasoning is
flawed. I could just as well say that all of the N64 games seem to fit on
one cartridge just fine. The games fit because that is the limitation
imposed on the designers. There is a limit on how many discs you can use
before it becomes cost prohibitive and unwieldly.
-bob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= b...@soda.berkeley.edu = It is now pitch black. You are likely to =
= go...@uclink.berkeley.edu = be eaten by a grue. --Zork =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott
seeing replies to a sentence that I address in more detail later in the
post.
I did not go into the discussion that I had with this other guy because
he knew what I said, and after I said it he just started ignoring me on that
thread. The jump from Cartridge to CD is not the same as the jump from CD
to DVD would be. Cartridges limit all aspects of the game because you have
to put in more memory to add more details, this effects graphics, sound, AI
and every other aspect of the game because you have to spend more money on
memory to put more detail in. CD-ROM does not limit sounds, Graphics,
Textures, AI or any other aspect of the game except game length, and the
amount of Sounds and FMV you can use. A DVD game will not have more detail
in a scene or more sounds in a scene or anything else.
The argument that I had with whatshisname was primarily about the DC
modem which he claimed was useless because there were no games for it yet.
I asked him how the Internet is useless and explained that because the modem
is on all DCs support for it will be very tempting for all DC programmers
once the Sega Network is up, which is still going to happen 6months before
the PS2 is even out and at least a year before Sony starts working on the
same thing.
He said that the modem was still useless and that DVD was a medium and
not a peripheral and, despite the fact that most games fit on a CD just fine
and they only limit the game length and the amount of FMV and voice that are
in a game. Video/System Ram CPU speed and other aspects of the hardware
limit the quality of the graphics and sound now not the medium that we use
for the software.
I say that when almost every game goes onto multiple discs then we need
DVD drives for our games, by then they will be cheaper as well. Also, if
every game is long enough to need DVD, think about how long development
times will become and cost. How will smaller companies make games if
everyone expects DVD length games. Take Square for example, they take at
least a year to come out with another game, and the spend millions on each
one. In a gaming world like that, games like ToeJam and Earl, and
Subterrania would never have been possible, what gems would we miss out on
if DVD becomes the standard in console gaming? Just a thought, but I think
that was the extent of our conversation, he just ignored me though and kept
ranting about how he would rather watch DVD movies then have a modem. By
his definition of useless, the DVD in the PS2 will be just as useless as the
modem in the DC because very few games will be made for it for a while.
Robert Chang <b...@csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bob-ya02408000R3010990640280001@news...
Raymond McKeithen II
Robert Chang <b...@csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bob-ya02408000R3010990640280001@news...
> In article <fezS3.6577$hK6.3...@monger.newsread.com>, "Raymond McKeithen
> II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>
> > I fail to see any advantage to the format aside from storage space.
Since
> > most games fit on one GD just fine, I fail to see that as a big deal.
And if
> > a game is multiple discs, so what?
>
> I don't want to debate the merits of DVD here, but this reasoning is
> flawed. I could just as well say that all of the N64 games seem to fit on
> one cartridge just fine.
Yes and no. It's clear to see that bigger carts would help on various N64
games (better music, less texture repitition, etc.).
> The games fit because that is the limitation imposed on the
> designers.
If the games were actually so large that they were approaching the size of a
GD (or even CD) yes, but since most aren't, I don't buy this as a
limitation. About the only games that takes multiple discs (whether CD or
GD) or the FMV-filled things. My POV is that we don't need *more* FMV, we
need *less*.
> There is a limit on how many discs you can use
> before it becomes cost prohibitive and unwieldly.
>
Of course. But I don't see this limit being reached currently.
If we extend that argument, DVD isn't big enough either, *nothing* will ever
be big enough.
Robert Chang
II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> Robert Chang <b...@csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:bob-ya02408000R3010990640280001@news...
> > In article <fezS3.6577$hK6.3...@monger.newsread.com>, "Raymond McKeithen
> > II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I fail to see any advantage to the format aside from storage space.
> Since
> > > most games fit on one GD just fine, I fail to see that as a big deal.
> And if
> > > a game is multiple discs, so what?
> >
> > I don't want to debate the merits of DVD here, but this reasoning is
> > flawed. I could just as well say that all of the N64 games seem to fit on
> > one cartridge just fine.
>
> Yes and no. It's clear to see that bigger carts would help on various N64
> games (better music, less texture repitition, etc.).
>
> > The games fit because that is the limitation imposed on the
> > designers.
>
> If the games were actually so large that they were approaching the size of a
> GD (or even CD) yes, but since most aren't, I don't buy this as a
> limitation. About the only games that takes multiple discs (whether CD or
> GD) or the FMV-filled things. My POV is that we don't need *more* FMV, we
> need *less*.
Why should you care about the quanitity of FMV? You aren't one of those
people that thinks FMV = poor gameplay are you?
> > There is a limit on how many discs you can use
> > before it becomes cost prohibitive and unwieldly.
> >
>
> Of course. But I don't see this limit being reached currently.
>
> If we extend that argument, DVD isn't big enough either, *nothing* will ever
> be big enough.
Well, the point I was making is that bigger is better. We don't know what
people will produce with vastly increased storage space available until we
give it to them.
Jason E.K. Brown
Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com says...
>A DVD game will not have more detail
>in a scene or more sounds in a scene or anything else.
While this MAY be true, that given scene might load faster, and there may be
ADDITIONAL scenes. (before you fly off the handle again...note the word
MAY...)
>The argument that I had with whatshisname
Oh great, relagated to a "whatshisname"...
>was primarily about the DC
>modem which he claimed was useless because there were no games for it yet.
>I asked him how the Internet is useless
<sigh> and YOU are the one who constantly whines about people taking you out
of context. WOW. I said the modem was useless to the console. Since it IS a
-GAME- console, the inability to play GAMES on it (thus far) makes it useless.
That doesn't mean that it won't become useful of course...
>and explained that because the modem
>is on all DCs support for it will be very tempting for all DC programmers
>once the Sega Network is up, which is still going to happen 6months before
>the PS2 is even out and at least a year before Sony starts working on the
>same thing.
Hmmm, "6 mo before PS2 is out"...unless you know someone at Sega ANY Sony I
don't see how you can quantify the time interval. -If- PS2 comes out if Sept
2000...the DC would have to be net game capable in what....March? That -might-
happen, but I don't think its set in stone...not by a long shot.
>He said that the modem was still useless and that DVD was a medium and
>not a peripheral and, despite the fact that most games fit on a CD just fine
>and they only limit the game length and the amount of FMV and voice that are
>in a game.
LOL. Go on. Keep telling us all that DVD isn't a storage medium. Perhaps you
could give us your definition of "storage medium" so we could all understand
where your "logic" is based. The portion of the drive that is needed for dvd
flick playback (aspects of the decoder I suppose) COULD be considered a
"peripheral" as it is not needed to play a game. The rest of the drive, if DVD
is the media of choice, is clearly not a peripheral any more than a GD drive
is.
>I say that when almost every game goes onto multiple discs then we need
>DVD drives for our games, by then they will be cheaper as well.
I don't have a crystall ball, but if PS2 lasts as long as PS1 has, the
possibility of multi disc games (if they had stuck with CDROM) seems entirely
likley.
>Also, if
>every game is long enough to need DVD, think about how long development
>times will become and cost. How will smaller companies make games if
>everyone expects DVD length games.
"lets not make it possible to make long "deep" games, cause then the public
will be spoiled and won't like short games"...theres some logic for ya...
>Take Square for example, they take at
>least a year to come out with another game, and the spend millions on each
>one. In a gaming world like that, games like ToeJam and Earl, and
>Subterrania would never have been possible, what gems would we miss out on
>if DVD becomes the standard in console gaming?
You won't miss anything. Have people QUIT making short games simply because
PDS or FF7 came out? Duh. Get a clue.
>Just a thought, but I think
>that was the extent of our conversation, he just ignored me though and kept
>ranting about how he would rather watch DVD movies then have a modem.
It was hardly "ignoring", more like realizing that it was a waste of time.
Like a jew trying to have a discussion with an arab, it just wasn't getting
anywhere and I had better things to do. (sometimes called mid-terms)
>By
>his definition of useless, the DVD in the PS2 will be just as useless as the
>modem in the DC because very few games will be made for it for a while.
If it makes you feel any better about yourself, I'll admit that if -NO- PS2
games use the DVD on launch, then the drive is useless (until a game does).
How this makes the DC modem any MORE useful for gaming I fail to see. Does the
DC modem become useful for gaming just because the the expansion port on the
NES was useless? Gimme a break. It is either useful for gaming, or its not.
What PS2 is, or does, is completely irrelevant to that given idea.
Jason
Jason E.K. Brown
rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net says...
>If the games were actually so large that they were approaching the size of a
>GD (or even CD) yes, but since most aren't, I don't buy this as a
>limitation. About the only games that takes multiple discs (whether CD or
>GD) or the FMV-filled things. My POV is that we don't need *more* FMV, we
>need *less*.
Ahhh come on Raymond! I always like a cool FMV ending scene in a fighter.
Better than a "you win" screen and credits. Besides, on those types of FMVs
you can always just turn the system off, and wont have to watch them! =)
>Of course. But I don't see this limit being reached currently.
>
>If we extend that argument, DVD isn't big enough either, *nothing* will ever
>be big enough.
I think there is a much better chance that games will get bigger in the next 5
years rather than the 17gig limit on DVDs being surpassed by a single games
size... (though that is possible too I suppose....)
Scott
don't reply at all unless you can be more objective.
That was all I was trying to do in the first place. Get you to see that
you were holding a double standard to the modem. At launch all you can do
with the DC modem is connect to the Internet, check e-mail and post scores
on some games. At launch all the DVD drive is going to do for the PS2 is
possibly make the games load faster and let you watch DVD movies. Neither
is immediately important to console gaming but both may eventually expand
console gaming.
Where have you seen that the Sega network will not be up next year? Are
you just assuming that because it was not up at launch it will never go up?
I fail to see your logic there, in fact I am more suspect of Sony's plan to
introduce network gaming features in peripherals, that do not come with the
system, at a later date. How are they going to get a big enough user base
to encourage game development for such a device?
My point about the DVD was just to show you that, by your standard of
useless, the modem and DVD are the same, both add neat features to the
systems but do not effect the games immediately. A 24X CD-ROM would have
been significantly cheaper than a DVD drive, so saying that it will make the
games load faster is not a valid reason to say that the DVD will enhance
games. Until I see some awesome DVD games, or until the price on DVD drives
goes down enough for it to be justifiable I see no reason to include it in a
system except for the same reason that Sega included the modem in the DC
which is for future growth.
By the way, this is how you keep taking what I say out of context. I
never ever said that DVD is not a storage medium, that is stupid of you. I
said to these people that you were arguing that because DVD is a storage
medium and a modem is a peripheral the DVD is somehow inherently better,
even though no games are going to be available for either at launch, and the
DVD is much more expensive than a modem or a 24X CD-ROM and does not produce
a significant increase in game quality over a 24x CDdrive. I can see how
DVD can possibly enhance games down the road by making them longer, but I do
not see how it is worth the extra cost today when GD or CD would work just
as well at a lower hardware cost.
>LOL. Go on. Keep telling us all that DVD isn't a storage medium. Perhaps
you
could give us your definition of "storage medium" so we could all understand
where your "logic" is based. The portion of the drive that is needed for dvd
flick playback (aspects of the decoder I suppose) COULD be considered a
"peripheral" as it is not needed to play a game. The rest of the drive, if
DVD
is the media of choice, is clearly not a peripheral any more than a GD drive
>is.
> If it makes you feel any better about yourself, I'll admit that if -NO-
PS2
> games use the DVD on launch, then the drive is useless (until a game
does).
> How this makes the DC modem any MORE useful for gaming I fail to see. Does
the
> DC modem become useful for gaming just because the the expansion port on
the
> NES was useless? Gimme a break. It is either useful for gaming, or its
not.
> What PS2 is, or does, is completely irrelevant to that given idea.
>
> Jason
> -
Jason E.K. Brown
brute...@DIESPAMDIEearthlink.net says...
>However, I have doubts as to the existance of a video game player who
>would not want their games on a DVD format.
LOL, just ask for a show of hands in any of the Sega usenet groups. You'll
find tons of fanatical anti-DVD people out there...perhaps they are the
same people that actually bought DIVX!! lol
>> Daytona was the first game to employ realistic driving to the racing
>genre
>
>I guess you haven't ever heard of the game Hard Drivin'. Not only was
>it the first polygon-based driving game that I remeber ever seeing,
>but it was a hell of a lot more realistic than Daytona, which came
>years later.
I dunno about realism, but Stunt Car Racer for the Amiga was a poly driving
game...had cool multiplayer...and came out before Daytona...
>> I have no problem with acknowledging SF2 as the first fighter
>
>I do. The first 1 on 1 fighting arcade game was called Yie-Ar Kung
>Fu.
>Street Fighter II wasn't even close to being the first fighter, hell
>it wasn't even the first Street Fighter. Duh.
Actually, in the original discussion, SF2 wasn't put forth as the "first
fighter"...just the game that revolutionized the genre. I think thats pretty
safe to say....
Jason E.K. Brown
rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net says...
>Who cares how many discs it's on? FMV quality isn't about it being on DVD
>format disc, it's about MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-1. I for one don't play games to
>watch movies (FMV); I do it to actually play the game, so I don't really see
>a big deal about "cutscene quality."
I think we can agree though..that -some- people do. Gaining the casual gamers
interest is pretty much the goal of a console maker...that is where the most
ca$h is. Getting the casual gamer market leads to market share...which means a
larger user base...which means more 3rd party support...which usually results
in a given consoles victory in a system war. I wouldn't consider myself a
casual gamer, but I do like cut scenes (not FMV-game-play, just cut scenes),
and tons of casual gamers seem to like them as well.
>I don't particularly want my games on DVD. I really don't care. However if
>you want to doubt I exist, feel free.
LOL, yeah, that comment made me laugh too... =)
>>Sega's lack of DVD will hurt them.
>In what way? How? Why?
>
>I fail to see any advantage to the format aside from storage space. Since
>most games fit on one GD just fine, I fail to see that as a big deal. And if
>a game is multiple discs, so what?
Drive speed and error correction are also superior with the PS2 drive. If the
speed was exactly the same...and GDs turn out to be as durable as any other
disc media, then you're right, it would be a wash. The drive is faster
though...and I have doubts about GDs quality, in the long term. Of course, we
wont KNOW the scoop for a while. Give the rental places about a year...if
their GDs are going belly up like crazy, then there is a problem, if not, all
if good.
AFA multi discs go, I'd prefer to just have one disc...I guess thats just
me. Is there an advntage in having multi-disc games?
Jason E.K. Brown
Weap...@yermeatix.netcom.com says...
>
>Please read the whole thing several times before replying.
As I always respond point by point, clearly I "read the whole thing". As far
as reading it "several times", I haven't seen a post yet that required any
critical analysis. I'm not dissing your posts, just saying that they aren't
exactly mind-bending reading or anything...
>And please
>don't reply at all unless you can be more objective.
If you don't like my responses, feel free not to read them. Last time I
checked there is still a freedom of speech. You can counter this by taking
advantage of your freedom not to read what I post. Aside from that, quit
telling other people what they can/can't do and you'll be a whole lot better
off. Who the hell are you? The usenet gestapo?
>That was all I was trying to do in the first place. Get you to see that
>you were holding a double standard to the modem. At launch all you can do
>with the DC modem is connect to the Internet, check e-mail and post scores
>on some games.
This is true, AFAIK I haven't denied any of that. I did state that it is
useless to ME...as well as being useless for playing net games. If you want to
argue that, then let's do so.
>At launch all the DVD drive is going to do for the PS2 is
>possibly make the games load faster and let you watch DVD movies.
This is true.
>Neither
>is immediately important to console gaming but both may eventually expand
>console gaming.
Some people think load time is "important to console gaming"....
>Where have you seen that the Sega network will not be up next year?
When did I say that? Maybe YOU should read my posts "several times". I simply
stated that if PS2 comes out in Sept...the DC would have to be net capable in
March for your statement (the 6 month one) to be true. Is that in error? Since
we DON'T KNOW if it will be in March, or if the PS2 will be out in Sept for
that matter, its all just speculation really. Until proven otherwise,
speculation is just that. How that changes my "useless for gaming thus far"
idea is beyond me.
>Are
>you just assuming that because it was not up at launch it will never go up?
No. I didn't assume. Net gaming is not currently available inthe US for DC. I
-guess- you could call that an assumtion...but its seems to be true...doesn't
it?
>I fail to see your logic there, in fact I am more suspect of Sony's plan to
>introduce network gaming features in peripherals, that do not come with the
>system, at a later date. How are they going to get a big enough user base
>to encourage game development for such a device?
Sega-ites seem to think Sony has greedy little hands wrapped around 3rd
parties necks anyway. If this is the case, "encouraging game developement"
won't be all that hard. To be honest, I don't really care if PS2 has a modem
or not....if they had an available cable modem, or some other speedy one, then
I'd be interested. 56k net gaming doesn't do it for me. Its been available
for years, nothing new. Of course, thats just MO. Others can and will vary. If
enough people want a modem, they'll get one. I wouldn't be surprised if they
packed it in with a 2nd gen killer app or something...sorta like N64 and the
ram expansion pack.
>My point about the DVD was just to show you that, by your standard of
>useless, the modem and DVD are the same, both add neat features to the
>systems but do not effect the games immediately.
You apparently don't grasp "my standard". If the ONLY advantage the PS2 drive
had, out of the box, over the GD was speed..it would STILL be more useful to a
GAME CONSOLE...than a (thus far) unsupported modem. No doubt the modem will
become useful once they make games for it, I don't deny that...why would I?
>A 24X CD-ROM would have
>been significantly cheaper than a DVD drive, so saying that it will make the
>games load faster is not a valid reason to say that the DVD will enhance
>games.
In DVD mode the PS2 will be faster than a 24x CDRom. With its superior caching
etc DVDrom runs between 9x and 12x faster than a CDRom drive. So a 4x DVD is
comparable with 36-48x CDrom speed. That said, a 4x dvd is more expensive than
a 32x drive would be as well. Superior technology is always more expensive.
>Until I see some awesome DVD games, or until the price on DVD drives
>goes down enough
DVD drives aren't all that expensive in MASS production that a FAST cdrom
would be. They ARE more, but not too much more. Sure a DVD movie player is
$200...but a LOT of that goes into the case, ports, power supply, remotes,
packaging, shipping yada yada yada that a console would already have. The
drive part itself is all that costly. If saving cost is the only thing that
matters, why didn't Sega go with a 2x drive for the DC? Surely it'd be
cheaper...
>for it to be justifiable I see no reason to include it in a
>system except for the same reason that Sega included the modem in the DC
>which is for future growth.
So in other words, you think DVD is a good idea because of the inevitable
"future growth" just like the DCs modem?
>By the way, this is how you keep taking what I say out of context. I
>never ever said that DVD is not a storage medium, that is stupid of you.
Ouch! Don't hurt my feelings! I suppose I could go back and find your original
post and quote it, but this discussion is tired enough as it is...
>I
>said to these people that you were arguing that because DVD is a storage
>medium and a modem is a peripheral the DVD is somehow inherently better
WOW. Thats not even taking me out of context, its just a straight out lie.
Lets remember that YOU are the one that keeps comparing the two. I see NO
relationship what so ever between the PS2 having a DVD and the DC having a
modem. Its beyond apples and oranges, they're not even close to being
comparable, unless you want to simplify everything to a pointlessly stupid
level. (ie they are both attached to a console etc) I have stated time and
again why I think the PS2 drive is better than the DCs GD. I have also stated
several times why I thought the DCs modem, until there are some games, is
useless. Your sorry attempt to link the two has failed miserably. If you like
the modem and want to exclaim its virtues, thats fine, but there is NO
relationship between it and the PS2 drive, so don't bother.
>even though no games are going to be available for either at launch
Go on, please tell us all the details of the PS2 launch. The fact is you have
no idea if DVD will be taken advantage of at launch or not.
>and the DVD is much more expensive than a modem
sigh. Apples and oranges. Why not compare the PS2 CPU to the DCs modem? Heck,
they ought to get rid of it too. The only useful comparisons that can be made
are between like-items. GD vs DVD etc. That much -should- be obvious.
>or a 24X CD-ROM and does not produce
>a significant increase in game quality over a 24x CDdrive.
4x DVD is better than 24x CDROM. Then again, screw it, I think Sony should buy
a warehouse full of old Neo Geo CD drives and put the ol' 1x drives in PS2.
Why not? They'd be waaay cheaper than a GD or DVD and they'd still hold most
all games out these days. Sounds like a plan!!! <massive dripping sarcasm>
>I can see how
>DVD can possibly enhance games down the road by making them longer, but I do
>not see how it is worth the extra cost today when GD or CD would work just
>as well at a lower hardware cost.
Well GD is weak, no way Sony would use it. CDs are copied too easily and are
80s technology. Hold less, slower, worse error correction yada yada. Hence the
move to DVD.
Jason
Patrick Walker
"Jason E.K. Brown" wrote:
DVD drives aren't all that expensive in MASS production that a FAST cdrom
> would be. They ARE more, but not too much more. Sure a DVD movie player is
> $200...but a LOT of that goes into the case, ports, power supply, remotes,
> packaging, shipping yada yada yada that a console would already have. The
> drive part itself is all that costly. If saving cost is the only thing that
> matters, why didn't Sega go with a 2x drive for the DC? Surely it'd be
> cheaper...
DVD lasers are more expensive. They're a tighter beam and margin for error in
manufacture is greater lowering yields. Sega opted for GDROM because:
a) DVD was still very expensive at DC design,
b) DVD was competing with other formats like DIVX (RIP) or had
seemingly uncertain future because sales were abyssmal,
c) cheaper because GDROM uses basic CDROM laser head
and mechanisms
> >for it to be justifiable I see no reason to include it in a
> >system except for the same reason that Sega included the modem in the DC
> >which is for future growth.
>
> So in other words, you think DVD is a good idea because of the inevitable
> "future growth" just like the DCs modem?
DVD great idea. Then again, it seems only PC DVD drives are selling well.
DVD might not be a great idea for a couple of reasons. The first is that
we're not even coming close to filling CDROMs. MP3 anyone? S3TC
anyone? MP3 hardware decode might be better in long run with basic
CDROM/GDROM. I'd say after Dolpin all media will be Flash-eque
cards. Immediate load times baby! Who came out with the 1Gbit chip
lately? Hitachi or NEC? Console won't require motor that can fail or
any fancy control mechanisms and with complete solid state equipment
your power use goes down. Consoles will be smaller and cheaper to ship.
<stuff deleted>
> Well GD is weak, no way Sony would use it. CDs are copied too easily and are
> 80s technology. Hold less, slower, worse error correction yada yada. Hence the
> move to DVD.
The move to DVD wasn't because GDROM is slower, or has no error correction,
it was all about bandwagon. All you hear now is DVD this and DVD that in
the media. To NOT have it would be a mistake now. DVD's are 80s technology
with MPEG-2 compression and smaller laser beam. Besides CDs were
invented by Phillips in the 1970s so in actuality, CDs are 70s technology.
The whole "CDs are copied too easily" is bunk. You can copy DVDs now.
Machines are expensive just like when CD-R came out. (Opt for the
Panasonic/Matsushita standard, the industry usually goes to them). My Yamaha
4416s and Pioneer DVD303S can't even READ most of the GDROM. Believe me,
I've tried repeatedly. To my knowledge on Hong Kongers have copied GDROMs.
> Jason
l8r
Will
Brute
Robert Chang <b...@csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bob-ya02408000R3010990640280001@news...
> In article <fezS3.6577$hK6.3...@monger.newsread.com>, "Raymond
McKeithen
> II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>
space. Since
> > most games fit on one GD just fine, I fail to see that as a big
deal. And if
> > a game is multiple discs, so what?
>
> flawed. I could just as well say that all of the N64 games seem to
fit on
limitation
> imposed on the designers. There is a limit on how many discs you
can use
> before it becomes cost prohibitive and unwieldly.
Ironically, you could probably fit every N64 game manufactured onto
one DVD.
--
~ Brute
Brute
Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:fezS3.6577$hK6.3...@monger.newsread.com...
>
>
>
> Brute <brute...@DIESPAMDIEearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7vee2b$k4f$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > DVD drives aren't just for watching movies you know. Each game
disc
> > is capable of holding 5 times the data than 1 Dreamcast CD is able
to
> > hold.
>
> And this is so important how?
See below.
> > Look at this example: Baldur's Gate for PC is on 5 CD-ROMs...
the
> > DVD version is only on one DVD disc and has better quality
cutscenes.
> >
> Who cares how many discs it's on? FMV quality isn't about it being
on DVD
> format disc, it's about MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-1. I for one don't play
games to
> watch movies (FMV); I do it to actually play the game, so I don't
really see
> a big deal about "cutscene quality."
FYI - Baldur's Gate probably has less than 10 minutes of FMV. The 5
discs are filled with GAME. Speech, 32-bit rendered scenery (not
tiled), tons and tons of cool stuff. This ain't Dragon's Lair, pal.
> I don't particularly want my games on DVD. I really don't care.
However if
> you want to doubt I exist, feel free.
Well then you obviously don't know what you're missing.
Brute
> In article <7vee2b$k4f$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> brute...@DIESPAMDIEearthlink.net says...
> >However, I have doubts as to the existance of a video game player
who
> >would not want their games on a DVD format.
>
> LOL, just ask for a show of hands in any of the Sega usenet groups.
You'll
> find tons of fanatical anti-DVD people out there...perhaps they are
the
> same people that actually bought DIVX!! lol
Are you saying you don't mind the lack of DVD or you would be angry
and not buy a Dreacast had they gone for DVD?
--
~ Brute
Jason E.K. Brown
brute...@DIESPAMDIEearthlink.net says...
>> LOL, just ask for a show of hands in any of the Sega usenet groups.
>You'll
>> find tons of fanatical anti-DVD people out there...perhaps they are
>the
>> same people that actually bought DIVX!! lol
>
>Are you saying you don't mind the lack of DVD or you would be angry
>and not buy a Dreacast had they gone for DVD?
I'm saying exactly what my message says. If you ask, in the Sega newsgroups,
you'll find tons of fanatically-anti-DVD peoples. I *LOVE* DVD myself. Then
again, I am able to look beyond system bias...
Jason E.K. Brown
says...
>DVD lasers are more expensive.
I think that was agreed upon...not to mention obvious...
> Sega opted for GDROM because:
>
>a) DVD was still very expensive at DC design,
A good reason to be sure...
>b) DVD was competing with other formats like DIVX (RIP) or had
> seemingly uncertain future because sales were abyssmal,
DIVX wasn't much competition, additionally, DVD has sold VERY well compared to
other new mediums (CD audio etc). Check out the DVD faq...it has the stats.
Many people have looked at the total number of DVD players sold, and say
"thats weak". Well, go to your local music store and witness to TOTAL
domination of CD-audio over other formats...then notice that CD-audio,
initially, sold slower than DVD. This does not prove that DVD will dominate
the market...what it DOES prove is that as a new medium, its sales since
release hardly preclude the possibility of domination at a later date.
>DVD great idea. Then again, it seems only PC DVD drives are selling well.
Read the faq...
>DVD might not be a great idea for a couple of reasons. The first is that
>we're not even coming close to filling CDROMs.
Thats funny, I see multi disc games all the time...I guess they just include
the extra ones for no other reason than increasing production costs...
>I'd say after Dolpin all media will be Flash-eque
>cards.
Speculation that has little to do with PS2 vs DC...
>Immediate load times baby!
Neo Geo's been there for a decade...
>The move to DVD wasn't because GDROM is slower, or has no error correction,
>it was all about bandwagon. All you hear now is DVD this and DVD that in
>the media. To NOT have it would be a mistake now. DVD's are 80s technology
>with MPEG-2 compression and smaller laser beam.
"its just like x, except i,j,k.." Alllll-righty-then. The combination of all
of DVDs features and abilities is 90s technology. Each given component of what
makes DVD...DVD, may have been created or whatever in the 80s, but that does
make the whole that is DVD 80s tech. Thats like saying because the transistor
was made in x decade (long time ago, I dont have a history of electronics book
on me...) that a P3 is x-decade technology...
>Besides CDs were
>invented by Phillips in the 1970s so in actuality, CDs are 70s technology.
Agreed.
>The whole "CDs are copied too easily" is bunk. You can copy DVDs now.
Its one more hurdle. I don't think anyone suggested that is ALL sony is going
to do to twart pirates....
>My Yamaha
>4416s and Pioneer DVD303S can't even READ most of the GDROM. Believe me,
>I've tried repeatedly. To my knowledge on Hong Kongers have copied GDROMs.
Since there is $ to be made in DC HKs...I have little doubt that they will
find a way to do it. After all, GDs don't grow on trees. They are mass
produced...and its probably not all THAT difficult. Its different than CD...or
DVD, but not impossible.
J
Carl/Lisa Van Camp
>
> In article <381BEDF7...@nb.sympatico.ca>, pwa...@nb.sympatico.ca
> says...
>
> >DVD lasers are more expensive.
>
> I think that was agreed upon...not to mention obvious...
>
> > Sega opted for GDROM because:
Please excuse the ignorance, but what is GDROM?
Thanks,
Carl Van Camp
Scott
disc is a CD that can hold 1 Gigabyte of data. A typical CD can hold a
little over 600MB and a GB is 1000MB. More memory means more stuff in the
game, and since DVD drives are much more expensive and most games don't even
need one CD, much less a GD, Sega used a GD format on the Dreamcast.
Carl/Lisa Van Camp <theva...@interwebco.com> wrote in message
news:381E3599...@interwebco.com...
Nicolas Rioux
Brute <brute...@DIESPAMDIEearthlink.net> wrote in article
<7vkk1f$nci$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Diogenes the Dog
spins faster. But other than that the only difference is the disks--
they've got snazzy, high-tech compression allowing them to store a
bunch more data.
..dpdcp...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
NonDeskript
> Actually the GD-ROM drive is slightly different than CD-ROM in that it
> spins faster. But other than that the only difference is the disks--
> they've got snazzy, high-tech compression allowing them to store a
> bunch more data.
Ok, this is nonsense. Simple nonsense. The DC drive spins faster than a PSX,
but thats because the PSX was made by imbeciles who didn't understand that
fast drives are neccesary for CD-ROM drives, unless you enjoy long load
times. The DC is not as fast as a top of the line CD-ROM drive, though.
There is no set speed for CD-ROM drives. Thats why you have everything from
1x to 42x (and maybe faster, I don't keep up with them anymore). If I
remember correctly, the GD-ROM is a 12x drive, but I could be wrong here.
Someone will correct me if I am.
-David
John Hufford
>
> > Actually the GD-ROM drive is slightly different than CD-ROM in that it
> > spins faster. But other than that the only difference is the disks--
> > they've got snazzy, high-tech compression allowing them to store a
> > bunch more data.
No it's not much different from a cd-rom, if you have a good one it will
read it fine...
No it dose not spin much faster then a cdrom.
> Ok, this is nonsense. Simple nonsense. The DC drive spins faster than a
PSX,
> but thats because the PSX was made by imbeciles who didn't understand that
> fast drives are neccesary for CD-ROM drives, unless you enjoy long load
> times. The DC is not as fast as a top of the line CD-ROM drive, though.
> There is no set speed for CD-ROM drives. Thats why you have everything
from
> 1x to 42x (and maybe faster, I don't keep up with them anymore). If I
> remember correctly, the GD-ROM is a 12x drive, but I could be wrong here.
> Someone will correct me if I am.
> -David
The psx was made along time ago and at the time 2x was ok, just like the DC
is only a 12x rom reader in a year or so when the psx2 is out ppl will say
how slow the DC is, at the time it was made it was fast...
jmp
NonDeskript <dr....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:y4IT3.22325$23.11...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com...
> Diogenes the Dog wrote:
>
> > Actually the GD-ROM drive is slightly different than CD-ROM in that it
> > spins faster. But other than that the only difference is the disks--
> > they've got snazzy, high-tech compression allowing them to store a
> > bunch more data.
>
PSX,
> but thats because the PSX was made by imbeciles who didn't understand that
> fast drives are neccesary for CD-ROM drives, unless you enjoy long load
> times.
At the time the PSX was designed, they decided on a 2X to help keep costs
down on the console. I can't remember but probably at the time 8X or maybe
12X was top of the line.
> The DC is not as fast as a top of the line CD-ROM drive, though.
Right. It's the same cost saving strategy as used with the PSX. 50X is
about top of the line now, but they went with 12X inside the DC to save on
the cost of the console.
So, how come the PSX designers are 'imbeciles' for going with the cost
saving decision but not the DC designers?
Stuart Taylor
Stuart Taylor
dirve price of then with a 14x of now A hellofa big difference
NonDeskript wrote:
> Diogenes the Dog wrote:
>
> > Actually the GD-ROM drive is slightly different than CD-ROM in that it
> > spins faster. But other than that the only difference is the disks--
> > they've got snazzy, high-tech compression allowing them to store a
> > bunch more data.
>
> Ok, this is nonsense. Simple nonsense. The DC drive spins faster than a PSX,
> but thats because the PSX was made by imbeciles who didn't understand that
> fast drives are neccesary for CD-ROM drives, unless you enjoy long load
mordain
(1000 megabytes), as opposed to the 650 Megabytes on a "regular CD". The
drive is a 14x. Drive speed is not how fast is can spin, but how much data
it can transfer at the same time. a True 50x speed is about 8megabytes per
second. Though im not that familiar with the Gigabyte Disc format, the drive
speeds should be the same, puting 14x at about 3mb/s. The GD-Rom reader in
the DC isnt more expensive than a regular one, because your regular PC
CD-Rom drive will most likely play the discs, unless you have a cheap old 4x
one. The reason you dont see that many GD-Rom's with mainstrem software is
because the discs are more fragile than regular CD-Roms, and slightly more
expensive. Well, anyway, just felt like replying. Enjoy.
~-Mordain. He's Electric-~
NonDeskript wrote in message ...
Diogenes the Dog
the disc spins, I still maintain that the GD-ROM drive spins its discs
faster than any CD-ROM drive or CD player I've ever seen.
Of course, this could still be nonsense since I wouldn't be capable of
recognizing how nonsensical it is given that it is MY nonsense, because
if I was aware that I was spewing nonsense I wouldn't have spewed it in
the first place; I suppose the possibility exists that I wrote my
original message not realizing that it was pure nonsense but later came
to realize that it was indeed nonsense, but given this situation I
would still not know that my preceding paragraph was nonsense for the
reason stated above even though I WOULD know that my original message
of similar content was nonsense, this would be quite a contradictory
position to place myself in, so it's much more likely that I don't
consider my first posting to be nonsense, though it may have been.
I hope you've learned your lesson "NonDeskript:" Don't EVER call
anything I say nonsense again, or I will torture you with further
paragraphs of indecipherable silliness...and that goes for the rest of
you, too...GOT IT?!?
Scott
Diogenes the Dog <Diogene...@anti-social.com> wrote in message
news:11f733ec...@usw-ex0101-004.remarq.com...
NonDeskript
Diogenes the Dog wrote:
> I don't think that the 2x, 16x or 42x or whatever refers to how fast
> the disc spins, I still maintain that the GD-ROM drive spins its discs
> faster than any CD-ROM drive or CD player I've ever seen.
>
> Of course, this could still be nonsense since I wouldn't be capable of
> recognizing how nonsensical it is given that it is MY nonsense, because
> if I was aware that I was spewing nonsense I wouldn't have spewed it in
> the first place; I suppose the possibility exists that I wrote my
> original message not realizing that it was pure nonsense but later came
> to realize that it was indeed nonsense, but given this situation I
> would still not know that my preceding paragraph was nonsense for the
> reason stated above even though I WOULD know that my original message
> of similar content was nonsense, this would be quite a contradictory
> position to place myself in, so it's much more likely that I don't
> consider my first posting to be nonsense, though it may have been.
>
> I hope you've learned your lesson "NonDeskript:" Don't EVER call
> anything I say nonsense again, or I will torture you with further
> paragraphs of indecipherable silliness...and that goes for the rest of
> you, too...GOT IT?!?
LOL I wish more people could respond with humorous nonsense rather than
flames ;)
-David
Stuart Taylor
data at one time but it does also mean speed of the disc spinning. you must
spin the disc faster to get more information form it at the same time interval
Diogenes the Dog wrote:
Jason E.K. Brown
>
>> I don't think that the 2x, 16x or 42x or whatever refers to how fast
>> the disc spins, I still maintain that the GD-ROM drive spins its discs
>> faster than any CD-ROM drive or CD player I've ever seen.
Huh? There are 50x and even 64x CD-rom drives out there...I don't think the
DCs 12x is faster than that...
Telcontar
the X does refer to rotational speed... it is how many times faster
than an Audio CD (1X) it spins... I know you didn't say it wasn't just
to lazy to find the proper place in the thread to insert this...<g>
Crazeyface
almost Broke at launch DVD expensive etc...
all I know is when psx2 comes out i will own it
yes ill still play my Dreamcast
i am a gammer for one i work hard and can afford multi platforms
and for people who cant..and have friends why dont you buy diffrent systems
so you guys and gals can play all the great games
and tell ya what Gauntlet for 64 is fun
4 player bond and turok 2 is a blast 2
havent played 4 player toy comander yat..but i bet its a blast
i remember back in the day when sega master system was cool and Nes was also
cool
my cousinand i owned them I had nes he had the sega we would swap systems a
lot
Brute <brute...@DIESPAMDIEearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7vkk1f$nci$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Bill Grootonk
of style
>than other companies. sega always takes chances and makes cool ,
daring games
>that no one else would ever come out with.
I agree. Sega does usually seem to put more emotion and style into their
game creation. And really innovate! You know what I wanna see back?
Stereoscopic 3D games, like Maze Hunter, Blade Eagle, Zaxxon 3D, etc.
for the Master System. THAT was cool. I don't recall ever seeing a
console doing that since, but I could be wrong...
Just my $.02 :-)
Jason Alexander
to wear special glasses so the image can project out the screen? If so, Rad
Racer for the NES had this implemented...
Bill Grootonk <mac...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3831DD70...@home.com...
Scott X
to get a hold of for a while now. Does anyone know why they had to hook up
to the SMS to work and what they did different from paper glasses like those
for Rad Racer?
Jason Alexander <jda...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:s34add...@corp.supernews.com...
Weiner
years back. They had lcd panels which flashed on and off (black and clear)
which apparently makes whatever you're looking at 3d. And they give you
headaches.
--
Força Benfica!
Scott X <Weap...@Yermeatix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:80td86$oc6$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
Scott X
just did basically the same thing, except flashing red and blue instead of
back and clear. And I think the glasses actually flashed with the game to
produce maximum 3D effect. I remember playing a gun shooting game with
missles and it really looked like the missles were comming out of the
screen, but that might have been my 7 year old mind twisting things a bit.
Jeremy Goodwin
Jason Alexander:
..This may sound dumb, but are steroscopic 3D games the kind that require
you
..to wear special glasses so the image can project out the screen? If so,
Rad
..Racer for the NES had this implemented...
SMS Stereoscopic games were compatible with a special pair
of shutter glasses that plugged into the card port on the original
SMS or the PBC.
The glasses were timed to flip in concert with the game frames.
Of course, this worked with various degrees of facility.
Chances are that the NES games were using either Polarized
glasses or the two color film glasses instead of shutters.
They're cheaper.
Now it is extremely difficult to get shutter glasses for the
SMS because those PC bastards like to rip them apart and use
them for Virtual Reality applications.
Usually they go up to about a hundred bucks on eBay, in my
experience.
-Falcom
Jim & Jess
the unit
for power - and flashed exactly as you describe. Maze Hunter was my
favorite title,
but the headaches did stop me from finishing at times (as well as nose
ache - that thing
was heavy). However, I will say the 3-D effect was the best I had ever
seen. I'm sure
today they could do some slick stuff.
Weiner <Portu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80tnai$t8m$1...@news.netlink.com.au...
> I don't know about Sega, but there were some 3d glasses for computers a
few
> years back. They had lcd panels which flashed on and off (black and clear)
> which apparently makes whatever you're looking at 3d. And they give you
> headaches.
>
> --
> Força Benfica!
> Scott X <Weap...@Yermeatix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:80td86$oc6$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Yeah it did, but Sega had some kinda electronic 3D glasses which I've
> wanted
> > to get a hold of for a while now. Does anyone know why they had to hook
> up
> > to the SMS to work and what they did different from paper glasses like
> those
> > for Rad Racer?
> >
> >
> > Jason Alexander <jda...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:s34add...@corp.supernews.com...
> > | This may sound dumb, but are steroscopic 3D games the kind that
require
> > you
> > | to wear special glasses so the image can project out the screen? If
so,
> > Rad
> > | Racer for the NES had this implemented...
> > |