As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Are the first years of consoles that bad?

RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
edited January 2007 in Games and Technology
Another thread brought this question to my mind: are the first years of consoles really that bad as people make them out to be?

I decided to do a little research on Gamerankings.com. Due to the way the search engine works there, I decided to look at both the year each console was released and the year afterwords since all of the consoles I looked at were released near the end of the year to catch the Christmas shoppers. So if you want to get technical, this is looking at the first year of each console plus a month or two.

Here are the results. I included a sample of a few of the more noteworthy titles released during this time for each system. Feel free to argue that Game X should be up there (some genres I'm not very familiar with like sports titles & stealth titles are underrepresented). Note that the over 90% titles are included in the over 80% count.

Oh and I'm not trying to infer that review ratings are the end-all of games. Heck, I've been playing Atelier Iris 2 like crazy for the past few days and finding it to be one of the most enjoyable games I've played in a long time and that game only has a 70.1% rating on Gamerankings.

DS

'04 - 1 Game over 80% (Super Mario 64DS)
'05 -16 Games over 80% (3 versions of Nintendogs), 3 over 90%

Some of the Notable games include:
Mario Kart:DS, Castlevania:DoS, Advance Wars: Dual Strike, Meteos, Kirby: Canvas Curse, Animal Crossing, Phoenix Wright, and Trauma Center

PS2

'00 - 8 games over 80%, 2 over 90% (SSX & Madden NFL 2001)
'01 - 39 games over 80%, 11 over 90%
Some memorable games include:
GTA3, MGS2, Gran Turismo 3, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy X, ICO, Silent Hill 2, Klonoa 2

XBox

'01 - 13 games over 80%, 1 over 90% (Halo)
'02 - 37 games over 80%, 3 over 90%
Some notable games included Shenmue 2, Jet Set Radio Future, Steel Batallion, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and uh help me out here guys.

XBox 360
'05 - 9 games over 80% (Go Geometry Wars!)
'06 - 26 games over 80%, 3 over 90%
Notable games included Gears of War, Oblivion, Dead Rising, Viva Pinata, and Burnout Revenge (included because my SO will kill me otherwise)

Gamecube
'01 - 10 games over 80%, 3 games over 90% (Smash Bros!)
'02 - 22 games over 80%, 6 games over 90%
Notable games included Metroid Prime, Super Mario Sunshine, REmake, Eternal Darkness, and Animal Crossing

Wii
'06 - 3 games over 80% (Madden NFL 07 & Trauma Center), 1 game over 90% (Zelda of course)

PS3
'06 - 5 games over 80% (Resistance:Fall of Man & various ports)

On an interesting note, users generally rated Wii titles higher than the magazines rated (Wii Sports having the biggest discrepancy) whereas users generally rated PS3 titles substantially lower than the magazines did.

My general opinion is that the first years of consoles generally aren't that bad. Looking at years when the PS2 was in its prime, the numbers weren't that much higher than the first years presented here. I imagine most of the feeling that consoles have slow first years generally come from weak launches (followed by 2-3 months of nothing much) combined with the lack of a backlibrary of games.

RainbowDespair on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    mausmalonemausmalone Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    (snip)

    On an interesting note, users generally rated Wii titles higher than the magazines rated (Wii Sports having the biggest discrepancy) whereas users generally rated PS3 titles substantially lower than the magazines did.

    (snip)

    My initial inclination is to believe that this has something to do with most reviewers having HD, and most users not.

    Either that or for all the lip service that reviewers play to "gameplay over graphics" they really care more about graphics than your average user does.

    mausmalone on
    266.jpg
  • Options
    GimeCGimeC Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    It's less the first year and more the launch to the beginning of fall, and hence, the holiday season.

    Before that, there's even more of a drought than usual, especially during winter and summer.

    GimeC on
  • Options
    NaromNarom Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    mausmalone wrote:
    (snip)
    On an interesting note, users generally rated Wii titles higher than the magazines rated (Wii Sports having the biggest discrepancy) whereas users generally rated PS3 titles substantially lower than the magazines did.
    (snip)
    My initial inclination is to believe that this has something to do with most reviewers having HD, and most users not.
    Either that or for all the lip service that reviewers play to "gameplay over graphics" they really care more about graphics than your average user does.
    I tend to believe that reviewers build their ratings according to rather arbitrary standards.

    Narom on
    <cursive>Narom</cursive>
  • Options
    StormyWatersStormyWaters Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    In all seriousness, launches have seemed to be pretty bad since the Dreamcast. Maybe there's something to only putting out a few good games at the start, then stringing gamers along for a while with promises of future greatness, as opposed to the DC's frontloaded lineup.

    StormyWaters on
  • Options
    AntibodiesAntibodies Used to live in a psychic city. Never knew what would happen in a day. Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I always end up buying every system, and I never have bought any during thier first two years. Its just good policy as by then there's actually enough good games to occupy my time and build a backlog so I'm not waiting in a drought and the hardware has gone through several revamps so you won't end up with DRE systems or other bullshit.

    Being an early adopted just sets you up for disappointment, mostly ports, knowing you'll end up with the lesser and inferior hardware and paying top dollar to front the cost of technology not yet adopted by the Joneses. I am aware this is a hardcore gamer site so most just have to have the goods at launch and then have more reasons to complain when there are no games to play and all the other issues that go hand in hand with the first years of all launches.

    I prefer to catch up on all the massive backlog established over the course of the entire previous generation while prices drop and more material becomes available, but I hate not being able to get in on the buzz and hype.

    Antibodies on
    XBL: thetinwoodsman
  • Options
    supabeastsupabeast Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    The early years do suck. If you really want to see some sucky games, look at all the utter turds that made up the first few years of the Playstation—out of hundreds of early games, only a handful were memorable. Hell, the N64 only had Mario 64, Blast Corps, and not much else for a long time.

    At least the Wii has the novelty factor going for it; just playing Wii sports is a hell of a lot more fun than trying to convince oneself that a PS3 is worth $600!

    supabeast on
  • Options
    AngryPuppyAngryPuppy Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Burnout Revenge (included because my SO will kill me otherwise)

    I don't want to derail this topic or anything, but I just have to ask, what the hell is it with girls and the burnout games? I've all but given up on trying to get my girlfriend into games, as while I may have had a little success I have absolutely no control over what direction her taste in games develops in. I can understand her preference for platforming and Generic-Gem-Busting-Puzzle-Game over elite counter terrorist actshun! but Burnout is a complete statistical anomoly to me. And the kicker is she prefers playing it on her own, since you kind of need the full screen to see whats going on :/

    AngryPuppy on
    PSN: AngryPuppyEsq
  • Options
    JJJJ DailyStormer Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    AngryPuppy wrote:
    Burnout Revenge (included because my SO will kill me otherwise)

    I don't want to derail this topic or anything, but I just have to ask, what the hell is it with girls and the burnout games? I've all but given up on trying to get my girlfriend into games, as while I may have had a little success I have absolutely no control over what direction her taste in games develops in. I can understand her preference for platforming and Generic-Gem-Busting-Puzzle-Game over elite counter terrorist actshun! but Burnout is a complete statistical anomoly to me. And the kicker is she prefers playing it on her own, since you kind of need the full screen to see whats going on :/
    Girls are just doing what they naturally do best.

    [spoiler:e5c0799b09]crashing cars[/spoiler:e5c0799b09]

    kekekeke

    JJ on
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    The reason launch software is, by and large, poo, is that the hardware is barely finished, say 6 months before launch, while it takes at least a year, if not more, to make a good game. So many people have to rush and don't have time to polish the games.

    It'll just get worse as the tech gets more complex and games take more time to make.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    Blake TBlake T Do you have enemies then? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Here is a better question.

    What's the ratio of games were released that year compared to games about 80% or whatever?

    There is less games in the first year because there are less developers working on it, the following year means more games and chances are more quality games.

    Blake T on
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2007
    Blaket wrote:
    Here is a better question.

    What's the ratio of games were released that year compared to games about 80% or whatever?

    There is less games in the first year because there are less developers working on it, the following year means more games and chances are more quality games.
    Yeah, I'm kinda curious to see what the second year looks like. Also, what's the number of those titles that came out in the last three months of the first year? "First year" isn't a hard or fast rule, and generally, things start picking up around the 9-month mark. It's at about 12 months that the good games really start rolling.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Narom wrote:
    mausmalone wrote:
    (snip)
    On an interesting note, users generally rated Wii titles higher than the magazines rated (Wii Sports having the biggest discrepancy) whereas users generally rated PS3 titles substantially lower than the magazines did.
    (snip)
    My initial inclination is to believe that this has something to do with most reviewers having HD, and most users not.
    Either that or for all the lip service that reviewers play to "gameplay over graphics" they really care more about graphics than your average user does.
    I tend to believe that reviewers build their ratings according to rather arbitrary standards.

    Out of curiosity what do you feel these standards are?

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    JJ wrote:
    AngryPuppy wrote:
    Burnout Revenge (included because my SO will kill me otherwise)

    I don't want to derail this topic or anything, but I just have to ask, what the hell is it with girls and the burnout games? I've all but given up on trying to get my girlfriend into games, as while I may have had a little success I have absolutely no control over what direction her taste in games develops in. I can understand her preference for platforming and Generic-Gem-Busting-Puzzle-Game over elite counter terrorist actshun! but Burnout is a complete statistical anomoly to me. And the kicker is she prefers playing it on her own, since you kind of need the full screen to see whats going on :/
    Girls are just doing what they naturally do best.

    [spoiler:47e6091404]crashing cars[/spoiler:47e6091404]

    kekekeke

    You deserve a gold star

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    The value of a console's launch to a person depends on the tastes of that person, not on the arbitrary numeric value given by a bunch of reviewers.


    Why 80 percent? A lot of those 80 percents are, to me, are rather boring. Tons of them are sports games, mostly EA and a few others, that are the usual yearly updates. A lot of the first years' games see plenty of 'updated' last-gen games, which can be decent, but not spectacular, netting 80+ scores but really don't do a whole lot. Not that it's a bad thing per se, but it's not something that early adopters to their hundreds+ dollar new machines were hoping for really looking forward to.



    You can look at numbers above an arbitrarily drawn '80%' line, sure. But you have to look past those numbers to see what games were included in those numbers, and perhaps which ones weren't.








    Also, retro compilations and 2D games never get a fair wrap in reviews. :P

    slash000 on
  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I think people are just fucking picky. The 360 had an awesome launch. Between Call of Duty, Project Gotham, Condemned, Kameo, King Kong, NBA 2k6, and the shortly after released DoA4, there was something for just about everyone.

    The PSP also had a great launch, with Wipeout, Lumines, Tony Hawk UG2 Remix, Darkstalkers, Ridge Racer, Twisted Metal, and Metal Gear Acid.

    The Wii? Zelda, Rayman, Excite Truck, Elebits, Metal Slug, Madden, Trauma Center, and the virtual console.

    Let's go back a ways. XBox? DoA3, Halo, PGR, and Oddworld. Gamecube? Wave Race, Luigi's Mansion, Super Monkey Ball, Rogue Leader, Smash Bros, and Pikmin.

    For the most part, systems have pretty good launches. The PS2, PS3, and DS all blew at launch (which didn't stop 2 of the 3 from selling like fucking hot cakes). But seriously, all this bitching about new consoles not having good launches is from people that expect every game to be amazing. News flash, not every game is awesome. Ever.

    Edit:
    JJ wrote:
    Girls are just doing what they naturally do best.

    [spoiler:68c951a6c3]crashing cars[/spoiler:68c951a6c3]

    kekekeke

    My fiancee just slapped me for that. Thanks. ;)

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    GimeC wrote:
    It's less the first year and more the launch to the beginning of fall, and hence, the holiday season.

    Before that, there's even more of a drought than usual, especially during winter and summer.
    Yeah. The DS had some fantastic games by the end of its opening year, but it was hardly even worth owning until Meteos and Kirby came in about six months later. Even then, it still took a bit longer to really pick up. Every single DS game listed in the OP came out very, very late in the system's first year.

    Elendil on
  • Options
    DashuiDashui Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I like how a lot of the user reviews on these websites are made by people who don't even own the game, let alone the console.

    Dashui on
    Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
  • Options
    RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Here are the quick and dirty stats for the XBox, Gamecube, and PS2 game reviews in latter years. First number is the number over 80%, second is the number over 90%.

    XBox
    '03 - 48/8
    '04 - 45/5
    '05 - 48/6
    '06 - 11/0

    Gamecube
    '03 - 30/7
    '04 - 27/1
    '05 - 18/1
    '06 - 1/0 (Lego Star Wars 2)

    PS2
    '02 - 54/7
    '03 - 57/9
    '04 - 56/7
    '05 - 47/7
    '06 - 29/4

    Oh and before anyone cries foul at the '06 Gamecube stats, this search was done with their default "Only show games with over 20 reviews" hence the omission of Twilight Princess (most review sites only reviewed the Wii version and didn't bother doing a separate review for the GC version).

    So there is a noticeable jump in the second year for all three systems although the severity jump varies from console to console (almost double with the XBox, smaller percentage with the Gamecube & PS2). Oh and I wasn't trying to imply that anyone use these kind of stats to determine which console to purchase, because that's just silly. Obviously there are a number of factors that should go into deciding on a console to purchase such as price, hardware features, and of course, how many games it has that you want and how badly you want them. Nor was I trying to imply that review scores are infallible - many of my favorite games didn't do so well with the gaming press.

    I do think that people may be overly picky in their perceptions on new systems. Now if you only like a single genre of games then yeah in most cases, you're better off waiting a few years before buying a system. However, if you're more open in your gaming tastes, it seems to me that most systems have plenty of worthwhile games by the end of the first year.

    RainbowDespair on
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2007
    Here are the quick and dirty stats for the XBox, Gamecube, and PS2 game reviews in latter years. First number is the number over 80%, second is the number over 90%.

    XBox
    '03 - 48/8
    '04 - 45/5
    '05 - 48/6
    '06 - 11/0

    Gamecube
    '03 - 30/7
    '04 - 27/1
    '05 - 18/1
    '06 - 1/0 (Lego Star Wars 2)

    PS2
    '02 - 54/7
    '03 - 57/9
    '04 - 56/7
    '05 - 47/7
    '06 - 29/4

    Oh and before anyone cries foul at the '06 Gamecube stats, this search was done with their default "Only show games with over 20 reviews" hence the omission of Twilight Princess (most review sites only reviewed the Wii version and didn't bother doing a separate review for the GC version).

    So there is a noticeable jump in the second year for all three systems although the severity jump varies from console to console (almost double with the XBox, smaller percentage with the Gamecube & PS2). Oh and I wasn't trying to imply that anyone use these kind of stats to determine which console to purchase, because that's just silly. Obviously there are a number of factors that should go into deciding on a console to purchase such as price, hardware features, and of course, how many games it has that you want and how badly you want them. Nor was I trying to imply that review scores are infallible - many of my favorite games didn't do so well with the gaming press.

    I do think that people may be overly picky in their perceptions on new systems. Now if you only like a single genre of games then yeah in most cases, you're better off waiting a few years before buying a system. However, if you're more open in your gaming tastes, it seems to me that most systems have plenty of worthwhile games by the end of the first year.
    Thanks, that was pretty interesting.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I have to pick the ratio scab too.

    If Year 1 sees a console get five 80% reviews and 1 90% review, and Year 2 sees 29 80%'s and 5 90%'s, that is one thing.

    But if Year 1 only saw 10 games released, and Year 2 saw 120 games released, that gives Year 1 a 60% success rate (6/10), and Year 2 a 28.3% success rate (34/120).

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    PbPb Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    mtvcdm wrote:
    I have to pick the ratio scab too.

    If Year 1 sees a console get five 80% reviews and 1 90% review, and Year 2 sees 29 80%'s and 5 90%'s, that is one thing.

    But if Year 1 only saw 10 games released, and Year 2 saw 120 games released, that gives Year 1 a 60% success rate (6/10), and Year 2 a 28.3% success rate (34/120).

    Success rate is largely irrelevant, though, as we have other forumers and reviews to pick off the bad ones. I think all anyone should care about is how many total quality games come out for a system.

    Pb on
  • Options
    RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    mtvcdm wrote:
    I have to pick the ratio scab too.

    If Year 1 sees a console get five 80% reviews and 1 90% review, and Year 2 sees 29 80%'s and 5 90%'s, that is one thing.

    But if Year 1 only saw 10 games released, and Year 2 saw 120 games released, that gives Year 1 a 60% success rate (6/10), and Year 2 a 28.3% success rate (34/120).

    This I don't get. Who cares what the percentage to good game and bad games are? I'm not a game reviewer; I don't have to play every game that comes my way. If a system gets 5 games I want in a year, it really makes no difference to me if the total # of games released for that system that year was 5 or 5 thousand.

    RainbowDespair on
  • Options
    ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    JJ wrote:
    AngryPuppy wrote:
    Burnout Revenge (included because my SO will kill me otherwise)

    I don't want to derail this topic or anything, but I just have to ask, what the hell is it with girls and the burnout games? I've all but given up on trying to get my girlfriend into games, as while I may have had a little success I have absolutely no control over what direction her taste in games develops in. I can understand her preference for platforming and Generic-Gem-Busting-Puzzle-Game over elite counter terrorist actshun! but Burnout is a complete statistical anomoly to me. And the kicker is she prefers playing it on her own, since you kind of need the full screen to see whats going on :/
    Girls are just doing what they naturally do best.

    [spoiler:9fafffa00e]crashing cars[/spoiler:9fafffa00e]

    kekekeke
    Anyone laughing at this doesn't understand how true it is. Excite Truck for Wii is the PERFECT girl game. It's a racing game where you steer by tilting the controller and you get points for crashing. The girls across the hall can't seem to get enough of it, and none of them are gamers at all.

    ZackSchilling on
    ghost-robot.jpg
  • Options
    bernbaumbernbaum Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    mtvcdm wrote:
    I have to pick the ratio scab too.

    If Year 1 sees a console get five 80% reviews and 1 90% review, and Year 2 sees 29 80%'s and 5 90%'s, that is one thing.

    But if Year 1 only saw 10 games released, and Year 2 saw 120 games released, that gives Year 1 a 60% success rate (6/10), and Year 2 a 28.3% success rate (34/120).

    Are these lists for the first 12 months after the console launched, or just the titles that came out for that year ? If so, the ratios will be muffed for consoles that launched late in the year.

    bernbaum on
  • Options
    bruinbruin Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    In its first year Wii's got/getting a Zelda game, a Mario game, a Metroid Prime game, and a Smash Bros. game.

    bruin on
  • Options
    Akilae729Akilae729 Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    mausmalone wrote:
    (snip)

    On an interesting note, users generally rated Wii titles higher than the magazines rated (Wii Sports having the biggest discrepancy) whereas users generally rated PS3 titles substantially lower than the magazines did.

    (snip)

    My initial inclination is to believe that this has something to do with most reviewers having HD, and most users not.

    Either that or for all the lip service that reviewers play to "gameplay over graphics" they really care more about graphics than your average user does.

    I can easily see this, i've played through Gears co-op no this guy in my halls awesome HD tv and it was phenomenal

    When I saw the game on a SD tv at my friends room yesterday, it looked unplayable to me.

    Akilae729 on
    signaturebighe7.jpg
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 2007
    The DS was so damn different when it launched.

    No games at all except for mostly tech demos and ports. Feel the Magic I regret not buying...and that's about it for launch games I desired besides Mario 64.

    I'm very pleased it managed to survive those first rocky months.

    Sterica on
    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I didn't buy a DS in its first year, mainly because my previous handheld (GBA) ended up collecting dust with only 2 games ever bought for it.

    Then I tried a friend's later on and he had Kirby on it... man, my bank account cried, but screw that bitch. 8)

    Glal on
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    for me, the first year of any console goes like this: the hardware is brand new, so it's at its most expensive point. It also hasn't been as widely tested to destrcution as it will be over those first 12 months, meaning there may be unreliabilites, glitches, and other things that need to be ironed out. It'll be at its least stable. The developers will have been working through different iterations of devkits, meaning their games won't have had much time on final, finished hardware. The games will also probably be a little cropped/rushed to get them out of the door on time for those release dates.

    Basically, everything is at its most expensive (games and hardware) and least reliable. I tend to wait a couple of years (just 1 year for the 360, though) before considering a purchase.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    GotLagGotLag Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Don't forget that new hardware takes time to master. The developers need some time to learn the specifics and games utilizing the full potential of a new console almost never appear at startup.

    GotLag on
  • Options
    DirtyDirty Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Shadowfire wrote:
    I think people are just fucking picky. The 360 had an awesome launch. Between Call of Duty, Project Gotham, Condemned, Kameo, King Kong, NBA 2k6, and the shortly after released DoA4, there was something for just about everyone.

    The PSP also had a great launch, with Wipeout, Lumines, Tony Hawk UG2 Remix, Darkstalkers, Ridge Racer, Twisted Metal, and Metal Gear Acid.

    The Wii? Zelda, Rayman, Excite Truck, Elebits, Metal Slug, Madden, Trauma Center, and the virtual console.

    Let's go back a ways. XBox? DoA3, Halo, PGR, and Oddworld. Gamecube? Wave Race, Luigi's Mansion, Super Monkey Ball, Rogue Leader, Smash Bros, and Pikmin.

    For the most part, systems have pretty good launches. The PS2, PS3, and DS all blew at launch (which didn't stop 2 of the 3 from selling like fucking hot cakes). But seriously, all this bitching about new consoles not having good launches is from people that expect every game to be amazing. News flash, not every game is awesome. Ever.
    Well, I guess its all really just a matter of taste. You might say I'm too picky, I might say you have low standards. Let's run your post again, through the "games Dirty likes" filter:
    Shadowfire wrote:
    I think people are just fucking picky. The 360 had an awesome launch. Between ... and ... there was nothing for just about everyone.

    The PSP also had a great launch, with Wipeout, ... and ... Wipeout?

    The Wii? Zelda!

    Let's go back a ways. XBox? Nothing really, but can JSRF count for "launch window"? It can't? Okay. Gamecube? Smash Bros and Pikmin.

    See, from my point of view, pretty much every launch is shitty shitty shitty.

    Also, its not just the launch that people have issues with. Right after the launch there always seems to be some kind of drought where hardly anything worth playing comes out.
    In all seriousness, launches have seemed to be pretty bad since the Dreamcast. Maybe there's something to only putting out a few good games at the start, then stringing gamers along for a while with promises of future greatness, as opposed to the DC's frontloaded lineup.
    The Dreamcast launch is kind of unique, assuming you're talking about the US launch, which came almost 10 full months after Japan's (I hear the DC only launched with 4 games there). All that extra time allowed for a much larger catalog of games right out of the gate. It didn't hurt that the Dreamcast was the home version of the Naomi arcade board, and launched while the arcade scene was breathing its last gasps of relevancy. Porting games like House of the Dead 2 and Power Stone (a couple of the most well-remembered launch titles) was effortless.

    Dirty on
  • Options
    Lindsay LohanLindsay Lohan Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I think that it should be said too that for the first year of any new console that reviewers really have to score stuff low in order to leave room for improvement and because they are still feeling out the console to get a good feel for what the average game looks/plays like.

    Also, numbers are basically meaningless. Yoshi Touch & Go is averaged at 75%, so it wouldn't be included despite being a great game that many declared game of the year on this board. Also, Battles of Prince of Persia is at 65% but yet everyone I know that actually plays it, loves it.

    Lindsay Lohan on
  • Options
    RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Herby wrote:
    Also, numbers are basically meaningless. Yoshi Touch & Go is averaged at 75%, so it wouldn't be included despite being a great game that many declared game of the year on this board.

    I find it extremely hard to think that many people declared Yoshi Touch & Go to be the best game of the year. That was the year that we saw Resident Evil 4, Guitar Hero, Shadow of the Colossus, Civilization 4, Ninja Gaiden Black, Lumines, Psychonauts, and Dragon Quest 8 just to name a few games. Now I have no doubt that there are a few diehard fans of YS&G (definitely not me; I tried a demo of it and got very bored before I ran out of lives), but there will always be diehard fans of flawed games (Siren being my personal favorite).

    On other notes...

    I played through Gears completely with a SDTV and didn't have any problems. Then I went ahead and tried it on my parent's humongous HDTV and though I will admit it looked better, it didn't blow me away or anything (I was more impressed with how Burnout Revenege & Geometry Wars looked). I think people overestimate how badly you need an HDTV for a 360. I'd say a broadband connection is much more important for one's enjoyment of the system (for XBLA games and demos even if you don't like online multiplayer) than an HDTV as long as your SDTV is of decent quality.

    Oh and Dirty, I'd say you're too picky with your gaming tastes if out of the 30+ games Shadowfire presented, you only saw 4-5 games that you liked.

    And I'm very surprised (but pleased) that through this thread, we've discovered that there's something in the female gene that makes them love racing games involving crashing and destruction. Maybe I should start hyping up Excite Truck; see if I can talk her into buying us a Wii. :)

    RainbowDespair on
  • Options
    ViscountalphaViscountalpha The pen is mightier than the sword http://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    cloudeagle wrote:
    The reason launch software is, by and large, poo, is that the hardware is barely finished, say 6 months before launch, while it takes at least a year, if not more, to make a good game. So many people have to rush and don't have time to polish the games.

    It'll just get worse as the tech gets more complex and games take more time to make.

    They are pushing out new consoles too fast then. Fuck all these new consoles without decent software. In all honesty I haven't really seen a dramatic graphical jump SINCE the dreamcast. The 360 is finally getting some decent software and the Wii won't have the rest of its line up until the end of 2007.

    If development cycle is moving too fast for them to make a decent lineup, then its moving way too fast.

    Viscountalpha on
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    cloudeagle wrote:
    The reason launch software is, by and large, poo, is that the hardware is barely finished, say 6 months before launch, while it takes at least a year, if not more, to make a good game. So many people have to rush and don't have time to polish the games.

    It'll just get worse as the tech gets more complex and games take more time to make.

    They are pushing out new consoles too fast then. Fuck all these new consoles without decent software. In all honesty I haven't really seen a dramatic graphical jump SINCE the dreamcast. The 360 is finally getting some decent software and the Wii won't have the rest of its line up until the end of 2007.

    If development cycle is moving too fast for them to make a decent lineup, then its moving way too fast.

    Not finalizing the hardware till a few months before launch is pretty much par for the course with consoles, and console "generations" have held steady at 4-5 years since the NES. And aside from the NES, console launch lineups have always been a bit shaky. So that's nothing new.

    Though I will agree we've reached the point of diminishing returns for visuals... sure, the 360 and PS3 have amazing horsepower, but it's to the point that all that power can only improve the visuals some, not to the huge, revolutionary extent of previous console jumps.

    Maybe the life of each console will have to be extended, since it'll be increasingly hard to convince people to upgrade with a seemingly small bump in graphics.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    cloudeagle wrote:
    Though I will agree we've reached the point of diminishing returns for visuals... sure, the 360 and PS3 have amazing horsepower, but it's to the point that all that power can only improve the visuals some, not to the huge, revolutionary extent of previous console jumps.

    Maybe the life of each console will have to be extended, since it'll be increasingly hard to convince people to upgrade with a seemingly small bump in graphics.
    what i'm happy to be seeing now though, is games like Dead Rising and Crackdown. DR might not be the shinest, most realistic-looking game out there (although it does look damned nice), but it uses that horsepower to create swarms of zombies like nothing before. Crackdown's using it to put simply massive amounts of a persistant city on-screen at one time. Everyone harps on about the draw-distance, because frankly, it's incredible. And there's a whole bunch of other things going on in it too that just couldn't be done on older consoles. That's what i'm excited for.

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    CowbombCowbomb Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    darleysam wrote:
    cloudeagle wrote:
    Though I will agree we've reached the point of diminishing returns for visuals... sure, the 360 and PS3 have amazing horsepower, but it's to the point that all that power can only improve the visuals some, not to the huge, revolutionary extent of previous console jumps.

    Maybe the life of each console will have to be extended, since it'll be increasingly hard to convince people to upgrade with a seemingly small bump in graphics.
    what i'm happy to be seeing now though, is games like Dead Rising and Crackdown. DR might not be the shinest, most realistic-looking game out there (although it does look damned nice), but it uses that horsepower to create swarms of zombies like nothing before. Crackdown's using it to put simply massive amounts of a persistant city on-screen at one time. Everyone harps on about the draw-distance, because frankly, it's incredible. And there's a whole bunch of other things going on in it too that just couldn't be done on older consoles. That's what i'm excited for.

    I kinda hope that someone makes a game with 'last-gen' visuals on the 360/PS3. It'd be interesting to see what sort of stuff we get.

    Cowbomb on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Cowbomb wrote:
    darleysam wrote:
    cloudeagle wrote:
    Though I will agree we've reached the point of diminishing returns for visuals... sure, the 360 and PS3 have amazing horsepower, but it's to the point that all that power can only improve the visuals some, not to the huge, revolutionary extent of previous console jumps.

    Maybe the life of each console will have to be extended, since it'll be increasingly hard to convince people to upgrade with a seemingly small bump in graphics.
    what i'm happy to be seeing now though, is games like Dead Rising and Crackdown. DR might not be the shinest, most realistic-looking game out there (although it does look damned nice), but it uses that horsepower to create swarms of zombies like nothing before. Crackdown's using it to put simply massive amounts of a persistant city on-screen at one time. Everyone harps on about the draw-distance, because frankly, it's incredible. And there's a whole bunch of other things going on in it too that just couldn't be done on older consoles. That's what i'm excited for.

    I kinda hope that someone makes a game with 'last-gen' visuals on the 360/PS3. It'd be interesting to see what sort of stuff we get.
    i think i see where you're going with that. Personally, i wouldn't hope a developer would intentionally gimp their visuals just for the sake of it. But if having poorer graphics came into play in some crazy gameplay equation, then i'd hope there are already developers out there who would be happy to make that sacrifice. As it stands, i think there are plenty out there who are happy to take a more simplified style, to free up some processing power. Similarly, there are some stunning-looking games that still seem to pull out all the bells and whistles in other departments (Alan Wake, for one).

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    DirtyDirty Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Oh and Dirty, I'd say you're too picky with your gaming tastes if out of the 30+ games Shadowfire presented, you only saw 4-5 games that you liked.

    Well, to be honest, I felt like he was bloating the list of good launch games. It seemed like he was confusing "good" with "good enough." A lot of those games were fun enough to play because it was launch and there wasn't really anything better to play instead, but Mediocre stuff like Kameo, King Kong, and Luigi's Mansion got put on the shelf to collect dust as soon as some genuinely great titles came out.

    Dirty on
  • Options
    DirtyDirty Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    darleysam wrote:
    Cowbomb wrote:
    I kinda hope that someone makes a game with 'last-gen' visuals on the 360/PS3. It'd be interesting to see what sort of stuff we get.
    i think i see where you're going with that. Personally, i wouldn't hope a developer would intentionally gimp their visuals just for the sake of it. But if having poorer graphics came into play in some crazy gameplay equation, then i'd hope there are already developers out there who would be happy to make that sacrifice.

    Maybe he was thinking of something with the scope of the GTA3 series, but with the graphical detail of RE4?

    Dirty on
Sign In or Register to comment.