| Millennium said: The thing is, something has happened this generation that hasn't happened for quite some time. Namely, that the three consoles aren't just similar products. Each has taken gaming in different directions, and embodies a different philosophy on what gaming should be: Nintendo's fun entertainment, Sony's sensory extravaganza, or Microsoft's hormonal rush. This hasn't really happened since the SNES vs. Genesis days. So why do people care? Simple: the losers in a given generation tend to copy the winner next time around (after all, it worked for the winner). People follow and defend console sales because they believe that whichever console wins this generation, that console's philosophy will become dominant, which means more games of that type. |
I really like that part of what you said! I've always thought that was a bad thing but they way you put it sounds like its a good thing. On a universal scale its good. But on a smaller scale the company who comes up with the ideas needs to keep coming up with new ones so they stay ahead, cos its such a shame when a company puts so much time and effort into something to have taken away from them next generation :(
My thoughts to add to this: Its kinda like a literal war. there is a limited number of consoles that will be soled each generation and each company is fighting for their share of the market. I love real time stratergy games (especially the Age Of Empires series) and I see a reflection of gaming stratergy in the companies market stratergies. Most gamers are drawn to stratergy gaming weather its war tactics or puzzles ect, it would be hard to think of a game without thinking of some sort of stratergy that goes with it. So as we are all by nature gamers who enjoy stratergy and most of all WINNING, its only natural for us to be drawn to the stratergy and winning of the bigger picture.
We also like to critique stratergies and strive to find the ultimate stratergy that will make us the supreme player of a certian game (well hard core players/ serious gamers) and so in terms of a real time stratergy game, we look at sonys stratergy of building big powerful units that cost alot of resources and we mock them for their confidence in a specialised seige military. "over specialise and you breed in weakness" (motoko kusanagi, GITS) They thought their seige weapons would reign fire all over the competition.
Microsoft we mock for making units with low hit points and only average attack, but nintendo we praize for making units that counter Sonys seige weapons and defeat microsfts average units with their quick speed and accuracy.
Also Micrsofts rushing technique left them high and dry with little omph later on in the economic stages of the game but nintendos balanced approach to economy and military allowed them to produce strong cheap units that counter the weaknesses of the other players.
Early on nintendo and sony took their time to get their stuff together and defended against Microsofts rush but ultimatly Sony was rushed into a quick advancement with under improved seige weapons. (Microsofts rush also left them with under improved units and now their improvements arnt making much difference) Now that nintendo has settled and spread its self out into the surrounding land scape they are bringing out their heavier guns (awesome first party games) with the suport of their cheaper counter units (the wii console) for a great defence.
I for one cant wait to see whats next but just like in real time stratergies if you screw up in the biginning its hard to bring it back around especially when your civilisation has weaknesses to the winning civ
If at first you don't succeed, you fail
