Jeff,
Thanks for another nice post. Just thought I'd put in my two cents regarding the "Why Dreamcast" question. FWIW, I strongly disagree with the writer's argument that the PSX's strength makes it unnecessary to develop games for the Dreamcast system. Why? Well, here are my major reasons.
* In the past, the console game industry has suffered lean times between generations of consoles. The main reason has been that the industry would wait until one generation was declining before moving to the next one; basically, this meant that there would be a period of a year or two where the old generation was dying and developers were still trying to figure out how to develop good games for the new generation. My feeling is that most game publishers and developers are more aware of this danger now. By starting development for Dreamcast (and other next-next-gen systems) before the 32-bit machines fade, it'll help insure the industry doesn't suffer a mini-crash.
* Dominance in one generation doesn't necessarily extend to the next. Why not? Mainly because the next generation of consoles are never compatible with the previous ones (leastways, I can't think of any -- if there are any, it's definitely not the norm, nor the successful). More specifically, Sony has already stated that the PSX2 will probably not be compatible with the PSX (ie it won't play Playstation games). Thus, the only leverage a console maker has is the branding -- and this has only a limited effect, since a bigger consideration in most consumers' mind is what games are available for the system (the N64's troubles are a great example of this).
Regarding the reviews issue, there's definitely quite a bit of subjectivity and variance there. One thought, though, is that there have been several games that've done well despite poor reviews (Mortal Kombat 4 and Deathtrap Dungeon, to name two). I think it's a lot like move reviews where reviewers often have different criteria than the actual customers.
Anyway, just my thoughts. :-)
Harry |
