nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Keep Calm And Discuss Retro Generally!

CiDeRmAn

And so it begins!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82E7vhtLxNs

And a link to past glories!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Andrew76

o1s1n wrote: »

Back in work this morning after two weeks holidays.

I want to die!

I probably shouldn't mention that I've most of August off after this week so.

o1s1n

Yeah you probably shouldnt!

Haha! You're not the first person to say that to me this morning. Seems everyone was saving their holidays till I came back so they could laugh at me as they jetted off

CiDeRmAn

There's some change coming over me...
I finding my interest in new, current gen, releases at a low ebb, aside from the 3ds.

Instead my money is spent on Snes, Megadrive and Shmups.

Is there something wrong with me or is this the right way to be?

Myrddin

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

There's some change coming over me...
I finding my interest in new, current gen, releases at a low ebb, aside from the 3ds.

Instead my money is spent on Snes, Megadrive and Shmups.

Is there something wrong with me or is this the right way to be?

Id worry about you if it were the other way around, this is the retro gaming forum after all

Seriously though, pound for pound past generations have much more to offer than current generation gaming. There are some great new games, but more often than not its formulaic generic toss, with indy devs being the only people who seem to be able to break the mold

o1s1n

I haven't played a new game in absolutely ages now! 360 probably hasn't been turned on in at very least 3-4 months.

I thought I'd be playing the hell out of the Wii after getting HDLoader up and running, but haven't gone near that either.

DayZ for the PC is about it, but I've been out of that for weeks.

o1s1n

Woopsy, I lie, I started a new game last night. Was really enjoying having the crap scared out of me in Slender, so I looked for another good scary FPS. Started playing Amnesia: The Dark Descent.

Proper scary game, definitely one to pick up for those who haven't heard of it.

[Deleted User]

EnterNow wrote: »

pound for pound past generations have much more to offer than current generation gaming. There are some great new games, but more often than not its formulaic generic toss...

I have to agree with this. I've been into video games seriously since the 8 bit days of the NES, and this console gen seems to have become extremely patchy in terms of releases and very focused on the holiday season sales. I find myself playing less and less new gen games lately because I've run through the back catalogue of all that's worth playing and there's feck all that's good being released for at least the first 6 months of the year. You see a slew of big new release games from about September to December when publishers have held everything back for the holiday spending spree and spend a fortune marketing their big games, and then for the rest of the year, nothing of note happens.

Also, the call of duty/battlefield/halo juggernaut just keeps going, churning out generic shooter after generic shooter, and swallowing up prospective gamers who might otherwise spend their cash/time on making other types of games viable for developers to take a gamble on.

Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic current gen games out there, but this generation feels like original games that focus on character, narrative, and progressive development are so thin on the ground that when they actually do turn up they feel like a revelation, whereas games like that seemed (at least to me) to be less unusual on past gen consoles.

johnny_ultimate

Ah yes, selective memory syndrome :P No doubt it's been a slow few months for new releases of note (it's the summer after all). But we forget that eras past were equally chock a-block with junk. Consider any Angry Video Game Nerd production and their highlighting of the sheer amount of crap the supposed Golden Age of gaming had alongside the pioneers and the classics. The PS1 / N64 / PS2 all had their fair share of masterworks, but they were alongside shovelware that would make even Ubisoft blush with embarrassment!

Years hence, it shalln't be the bland, derivative shooters that are recalled fondly by the nostalgic, enthusiast gamer. It will be the Journeys, the Bayonettas, the Skyward Swords, the Mario Galaxys, the Child of Edens, the Dark Souls, the Braids, the Cave Storys, the Civilisation 5s, the SSFIVAE2012s (or something), the Spacechems: the games that plowed inventively ahead, even when the CoD loving masses chose to ignore them. And the digital distribution revolution, and the new pricing schemes it brings along with it, have allowed a innovative, independent scene to emerge: that's probably the single most exciting development of this generation, and the result is offbeat, experimental games are more common than they ever have been before.

Look at a multiplex listing and you'd be forgiven for believing the world of cinema is stagnant. Same on your average gamestop shelf. But it's untrue! Gaming still has so much to offer, and alongside the relatively easy access to repertory releases, it's the best time to be a enthusiast of the interactive medium.

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Ah yes, selective memory syndrome :P No doubt it's been a slow few months for new releases of note (it's the summer after all). But we forget that eras past were equally chock a-block with junk. Consider any Angry Video Game Nerd production and their highlighting of the sheer amount of crap the supposed Golden Age of gaming had alongside the pioneers and the classics. The PS1 / N64 / PS2 all had their fair share of masterworks, but they were alongside shovelware that would make even Ubisoft blush with embarrassment!

Years hence, it shalln't be the bland, derivative shooters that are recalled fondly by the nostalgic, enthusiast gamer. It will be the Journeys, the Bayonettas, the Skyward Swords, the Mario Galaxys, the Child of Edens, the Dark Souls, the Braids, the Cave Storys, the Civilisation 5s, the SSFIVAE2012s (or something), the Spacechems: the games that plowed inventively ahead, even when the CoD loving masses chose to ignore them.

Look at a multiplex listing and you'd be forgiven for believing the world of cinema is stagnant. Same on your average gamestop shelf. But it's untrue! Gaming still has so much to offer, and alongside the relatively easy access to repertory releases, it's the best time to be a enthusiast of the interactive medium.

Nobody is saying retro gaming is filled with brilliance & there's no bad titles though

Of course retro gaming has its fair share of bad games, decades worth in fact. But on the other hand, it also has decades worth of brilliant games, ground breaking games, outside the box gamesand trend setting games too.

Compared to this generations what, six or seven years in existence, there has been little in the way of innovation. Indy devs aside, the motives of this generation seem to be to extract as much as possible out of a franchise while putting as little as possible into it.

Even established ip's are succumbing to this, the Mario's & Zelda's of today are really starting to feel formulaic.

johnny_ultimate

EnterNow wrote: »

Nobody is saying retro gaming is filled with brilliance & there's no bad titles though Of course retro gaming has its fair share of bad games, decades worth in fact. But on the other hand, it also has decades worth of brilliant games, ground breaking games, outside the box gamesand trend setting games too.

Compared to this generations what, six or seven years in existence, there has been little in the way of innovation. Indy devs aside, the motives of this generation seem to be to extract as much as possible out of a franchise while putting as little as possible into it.

Even established ip's are succumbing to this, the Mario's & Zelda's of today are really starting to feel formulaic.

It's the same with any medium though - it reaches a state of refinement, and the revolutions occur less and less often. Film could only have one Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin, for example: while there's still hundreds of amazing films being produced each year, the films that completely and irreversibly alter the cinematic language and landscape are thin on the ground. Same with theatre (Shakespeare) or literature (Joyce). That doesn't mean modern examples any less worthy of our attention. The 1980s and 1990s saw games that completely rocked the boat, with the inevitable side effect that it made it harder for their successors to cause as many shock waves.

There are plenty of games in the last few years that have stepped boldly forward and tried something new in terms of gameplay or storytelling. I cannot for a second deny big-budget productions are largely devoid of innovation, but that's always going to be the way. Still, Nintendo, Valve and others still forge ahead with their attempts at crafting brave new worlds.

As for franchises? Well that's not necessarily a good place to be looking. There's only so many times one can subvert and rebuild an established formula, especially when a property has the weight of expectation and tradition placed upon it. Where was James Bond the harbinger of innovation? Games actually have it pretty damn good in that regard: Mario Galaxy was a revelation, and Skysword Sword managed to impress and surprise consistently despite it's loyalty to a formula established decades ago.

o1s1n

It's a simple enough one for me really (and goes beyond videogames into other artforms) - when you are limited with your technology and resources, you must find more inventive ways of creating something.

Likewise, when you are spoiled with technology and resources, it's easier to just make something bland and 'pretty it up'.

That's why you see so many interesting and innovative indie games, they don't have huge budgets to spend so need to be creative in other ways.

Syndicate is a good example. Really great strategic game with loads of depth - Syndicate Wars kept that going on the ps1 - then the less I say about the modern version the better.

The best games are obviously ones which combine the two, like ICO, SOTC, Dark Souls, Child of Eden etc.

johnny_ultimate

o1s1n wrote: »

It's a simple enough one for me really (and goes beyond videogames into other artforms) - when you are limited with your technology and resources, you must find more inventive ways of creating something.

Likewise, when you are spoiled with technology and resources, it's easier to just make something bland and 'pretty it up'.

That's why you see so many interesting and innovative indie games, they don't have huge budgets to spend so need to be creative in other ways.

I basically agree with you, although with the slight caveat that with great technology comes great responsibility. When you have bountiful resources you're likely also going to be grappling with more stifling complications: both market and corporate. The mass market doesn't like to be challenged, which is a sad albeit inevitable truth. And, of course, trying to do something new on a grand scale is endlessly challenging - look at The Last Guardian for the rare inventive big-budget game, but one where the challenges faced by that fact are posing massive challenges to the developers, with the game probably well over half a decade into production at this point.

It's not all doom and gloom, though: titles like Bioshock (I know, I know, dumbed down System Shock la la la), LA Noire / RDR, Littlebigplanet or Assassins Creed are relatively high-profile productions that have made some interesting progress in creating new worlds, new storytelling techniques or new gameplay styles. They have had mixed levels of success, but it's hard to deny that the gaming world would be a much duller place without 'em.

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's the same with any medium though - it reaches a state of refinement, and the revolutions occur less and less often. Film could only have one Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin, for example: while there's still hundreds of amazing films being produced each year, the films that completely and irreversibly alter the cinematic language and landscape are thin on the ground. Same with theatre (Shakespeare) or literature (Joyce). That doesn't mean modern examples any less worthy of our attention. The 1980s and 1990s saw games that completely rocked the boat, with the inevitable side effect that it made it harder for their successors to cause as many shock waves.

But film has been around for a hundred years or so, and theater literally hundreds of years. To compare this to the established games industry which is what thirty years give or take...isn't really like for like. If I'm wrong, then gaming has suffered a seriously accelerated decomposition...reaching its peak in twenty years & going stale over the last ten. Film took much longer to 'go stale' & I know nothing of theater so can't comment on that.

But it seems to me with film, that the last decade has seen a savage amount of rebooting, & tired rehashing. I'd agree with o1s1n regards technology, & with the advent of CGI, it's easier to bolt on a barrage of lazy cgi effects which all look the same, rather than wow people with the established arts of film & cinematography.

If so, then gaming has suffered the same fate. Bolt on fancy graphics to wow people, rather than rely on established precepts of story, immersion, & innovation to capture the audience. The whole thing just reeks of lazyness & profit mongering.

There are plenty of games in the last few years that have stepped boldly forward and tried something new in terms of gameplay or storytelling. I cannot for a second deny big-budget productions are largely devoid of innovation, but that's always going to be the way. Still, Nintendo, Valve and others still forge ahead with their attempts at crafting brave new worlds.

Of course there have been games over the last decade that raise the bar. Half Life 2 springs to mind. But in the fps world, what have wee seen in the seven or eight years since Half Life 2? Eight years is a long time to go to raise the bar again, & again, it's the pretty CoD type games that pull the money in. Why change a winning team? Ultimately the people get what they want, rather than what they are given...& that's whats led us to where we are today as opposed to an industry simply leveling out.

As for franchises? Well that's not necessarily a good place to be looking. There's only so many times one can subvert and rebuild an established formula, especially when a property has the weight of expectation and tradition placed upon it. Where was James Bond the harbinger of innovation? Games actually have it pretty damn good in that regard: Mario Galaxy was a revelation, and Skysword Sword managed to impress and surprise consistently despite it's loyalty to a formula established decades ago.

Franchises do tend to follow the patterns of their predecessors. But that wasn't a problem for Zelda 3, Ocarina of Time, Majoras Mask, The Wind Waker, The Twilight Princess. Each one had roots in its own past, but yet, felt new & innovative. Skyward Sword, while very good, fee's like it leans far heavily on established formulas than the others did...& thats when you start to feel a franchise going stale.

Mario Galaxy was a departure for sure, & one born out of necessity which feeds into o1s1n's point. But what's Mario been doing since? New Super Mario Brothers? Flashy, fancy, fun. Innovative...I'll let you decide that.

I'm simply saying, that retro gaming & its general ethos, is far more appealing to me than this generation of gaming & its AAA fanbase.

Pyongyang

o1s1n wrote: »

Back in work this morning after two weeks holidays.

I want to die!

I concur.

megaten

I think it's more that you have to go further to get the same amount of variety. Last gen you could buy a ps2 and have a top class selection of almost every genre. These days you need to own a bunch of consoles and handhelds to get the same amount of variety

Andrew76

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

There's some change coming over me...
I finding my interest in new, current gen, releases at a low ebb, aside from the 3ds.

Instead my money is spent on Snes, Megadrive and Shmups.

Is there something wrong with me or is this the right way to be?

Play DayZ, it's the only thing keeping me playing current gen stuff. You don't need a beast of a PC either. Presume it doesn't run on Macs but we all know serious gamers don't use those yokes...

[Deleted User]

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Ah yes, selective memory syndrome .............The PS1 / N64 / PS2 all had their fair share of masterworks, but they were alongside shovelware that would make even Ubisoft blush with embarrassment!

It's not selective memory syndrome. There has always been shovelware, there will always BE shovelware, but there was also more innovation that stood out above the mire and will be remembered for it's brilliance. I would even wager that there was MORE shovelware on older generations, because there was at least some incentive for less well resourced devs to compete with the big boys, because it wasn't all about production budget and graphics, as it is now.

Possibly my all time fave console, the PS2 had more shovelware than i've ever seen on any system (with the possible exception of the wii) but it still gave us many genuine advancements in the field, in a way that i just gon't see as often today. I see sequels that strive for better graphics, bigger set pieces, beefier scores, longer play times....but the same old formulaic gameplay with a few tweaks per iteration at best.

EnterNow wrote: »

Compared to this generations what, six or seven years in existence, there has been little in the way of innovation. Indy devs aside, the motives of this generation seem to be to extract as much as possible out of a franchise while putting as little as possible into it

Again, well said. It seems to me, that the game market has become very commiditized and that the field has narrowed largely in favour of the big players with money behind them over the last 6-7 years. The big players are driven completely by market position and shareholder concerns (ie: profits) and aren't willing to take a risk on trying something new, artistic, or groundbreaking. The money's in the status quo, and giving people more of what they are used to. More and more the only game in town if you've got money to put into video game development is to get a piece of the big name AAA generic sequels, which simultaneously makes them stronger and indie devs weaker.

Get in on the big budget, juggernaut, shooter (or whatever) that everybody's going to buy in November. It's going to wipe the floor with it's competition anyway, it's got a massive installed base of loyal fans who will buy every sequel thrown at them whether it's good, bad, or indifferent, and it's a readymade market that you'd be mad to try to compete with by building something new and original, and starting from the ground up with zero customer loyalty already under your belt.

Aside from that, any irresponsible/undereducated mums looking for a game to buy for little johnny for his christmas present will be instantly hoovered up by the enormous marketing machine that goes with any AAA game that smaller (and arguably more talented) devs just can't afford to compete with. It's not hard to see the merits of the model from a pure business perspective....

EnterNow wrote: »

it seems to me with film, that the last decade has seen a savage amount of rebooting, & tired rehashing

I've noticed the same, and i think it's largely for the same reasons as above. No willingness to take a risk and try something new, because of the risk of foregoing the profit that's to be had by sticking with the old tried and tested routine. Why put a couple of hundred million into a handful of unknown movies with genuine artistic merit or originality when there's no ready-made market there, and you've got to work from the ground up and build critic and audience loyalty for your film?

Why not just make Iron man 3 (or whatever) and everybody who went to see the first two will know exactly what they're getting, will require minimal marketing pushes to get them into the cinema, and also (if you get lucky) might buy the DVD/T-Shirt/Shovelware licenced tie in video game to add to their iron man collection.

It's commoditization of a medium that was once more focused on artistic merits, and it happens to every artistic endeavour once it reaches a point of widespread mass acceptance outside of it's core circle. The hard work, inspiration, and inventiveness of the trailblazers have proved the commercial merits of the medium, but now there's profit to be had, and originality and creativity have to take a backseat to money, forecast-ability, and playing it safe.

johnny_ultimate

Yes, the PS2 was a particularly glorious generation, but I just can't agree that innovation and creativity are dead. Mainstream gaming may be vapid and uninspiring, but the only way to counter it is to support the innovators, and hopefully craft even a niche market for these games.

It's like with film - people bemoan the CGI blockbusters, but when asked what films they've actually paid for in recent months it's always just The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises or other big spectacle movies. I can name you fifty to a hundred great films alone that don't fit into that paradigm, and they're just the ones I've seen. I have always felt it's my duty to support the stuff I think needs supporting, and in my eyes there's always a steady stream of it, be it in books or films or games, in a wide variety of genres. If you feel gaming is stagnant, well then pick up Dark Souls, Catherine, Journey, Dear Esther, Analogue: A Hate Story, Fez, Dyad, El Shaddai, DayZ or any of the other titles from the last twelve months that have had the bravery to be different, with huge success. That's not going into the huge amount of invention happening on handheld devices.

It's all well and good us complaining about it online. But action is what actually makes a difference, but as long as joe bloggs refuses to go out of their way to try something different, we supporters of innovation and artistic accomplishment are going to be nowt but a self-sustaining minority.

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yes, the PS2 was a particularly glorious generation, but I just can't agree that innovation and creativity are dead.

Again, nobody is saying its dead though

It's just a lot less prevalent today then it was 15 years ago. Innovation is generally seen as risk, & risk is seen as potential loss. As opposed to innovation being seen as new ground/sales as it once was.

Mainstream gaming may be vapid and uninspiring, but the only way to counter it is to support the innovators, and hopefully craft even a niche market for these games.

Agreed. It's just when shops & stores stock AAA stuff, it tends to shout louder than the brilliant indy stuff that gets stifled by the banal money makers. The marketing for such smaller games also has less exposure given the costs, so sometimes you really have to dig through layers of crap to find the paydirt. Thats just the way it is today though.

It's like with film - people bemoan the CGI blockbusters, but when asked what films they've actually paid for in recent months it's always just The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises or other big spectacle movies.

Couldn't disagree with this more. Sometimes, spectacle films can be just downright good & have a following, only to disappoint due to modern techniques. Star Wars is a prime example, the original trilogy is a spectacle trilogy, big on effects, action, story & immersion. The fanbase of Star Wars is huge, & people were expecting more of the same with the prequels. The fact that the prequels were bland, uninspiring cgi-fests fully entitles people to complain about them... A big spectacle movie isn't automatically crap, the different eras of the two Star Wars trilogies sums up my whole perception.

The exact same thing is happening in games. For the most part, they're lazy, uninspiring, cash cows...much like the newer prequel trilogy of Star Wars. They're not crap because of the fancy graphics, they're crap because of what has been substituted in place of fancy graphics...soul.

If you feel gaming is stagnant, well then pick up Dark Souls, Catherine, Journey, Dear Esther, Analogue: A Hate Story, Fez, Dyad, El Shaddai, DayZ or any of the other titles from the last twelve months that have had the bravery to be different, with huge success. That's not going into the huge amount of invention happening on handheld devices.

Wasn't Day Z a mod made by some fan of Arma 2? Again nobody is disputing there are games that try hard & succeed in holding the fort for our established values...but don't tell me these games don't have in hard in a world of CoD & FIFA. There have been some great games this generation, but there should have been a whole hell of a lot more.

It's all well and good us complaining about it online. But action is what actually makes a difference, but as long as joe bloggs refuses to go out of their way to try something different, we supporters of innovation and artistic accomplishment are going to be nowt but a self-sustaining minority.

Agreed, but at the end of the day am I going to spend hours trawling through reviews, game lists & websites trying to find something different? No, I'm far more likely to turn on a Dreamcast or Gamecube & find exactly what I'm after...which was what spawned this whole discussion

Retr0gamer

All I know is that I'm really bored by the output on the PS3 and 360, so much so that I've not played any disc based games on them in months. Handheld, PC and indie gaming though have never been fresher.

[Deleted User]

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yes, the PS2 was a particularly glorious generation, but I just can't agree that innovation and creativity are dead.

I don't think anybody has said that they're dead, just that there's a larger financial imperative out there that would seem to have stifled a lot of the creative, risk taking, original development that once happened, and done a good job of hooking in a lot of gamers to spending their money on a fairly bland subset of big name AAA shooters and franchises that typically don't ask much of the player in terms of new challenges or expectations, and don't evolve much in their scope from iteration to iteration.

I played a call of duty modern warfare game recently, it took me about 6 hours to complete it, and i swear i didn't see a thing in it that was new, groundbreaking, or even particularly challenging. It was clear that it was all about "right, you've made it through the single player campaign, you can get straight back into the multiplayer now, because that's what it's all about, isn't it. Look, there are new guns, new maps, oooh..."

:mad:

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Mainstream gaming may be vapid and uninspiring, but the only way to counter it is to support the innovators, and hopefully craft even a niche market for these games.

It's like with film.....I have always felt it's my duty to support the stuff I think needs supporting, and in my eyes there's always a steady stream of it, be it in books or films or games, in a wide variety of genres.......but as long as joe bloggs refuses to go out of their way to try something different, we supporters of innovation and artistic accomplishment are going to be nowt but a self-sustaining minority.

Looking at the history of the rise of consumerism since the 50's will tell you that Joe Bloggs will eat whatever he is fed, and also that the vocal minority will always be just that; A)vocal and

a minority.

I'm an artistic person. I support creativity, and have always tried to find a balance between both it and consumerism, and not just with video games. I'm also a realist though, and am under no illusions that I'm not in the minority, and for every person like me out there who will watch an occasional indie film, or buy a game from an unknown studio or a retro shop, there are scores of people who will just go see the Avengers and then go home and play Call of Duty.

o1s1n

Retr0gamer wrote: »

All I know is that I'm really bored by the output on the PS3 and 360, so much so that I've not played any disc based games on them in months. Handheld, PC and indie gaming though have never been fresher.

I'm tempted to go through Deadly Premonition again just to get some use out of the thing!

James Howlett

Retr0gamer wrote: »

All I know is that I'm really bored by the output on the PS3 and 360, so much so that I've not played any disc based games on them in months. Handheld, PC and indie gaming though have never been fresher.

Do you guys (not singling out Retro here) include xbox live games in the same category?
I've found that the titles I've enjoyed most these past few months have come from XBLA - I Am Alive, Joe Danger, The Walking Dead for example, (don't have a PS3 so can't comment on PSN although I've heard good things about Journey).

johnny_ultimate

I don't for a second disagree that there is a manufactured consensus in mainstream gaming / film / literature / art in general, but I personally accepted long ago that is the way of the world. Depressing though it is, all you can really do is try and fight against it anyway you can. The truth is this situation is perpetuated by an overwhelming majority of consumers, and until society as a whole becomes better equipped to counter capitalist domination, all the individual can do is consume and endorse what they feel is right. I love East Asian cinema, so I support East Asian cinema in whatever ways I can. I love innovative, unusual games, so I got out of my way to support them too. The mass market is out of our hands: it's a grim state of affairs, yes, but that's just the way it is, and the average consumer has been numbed to accept it. Those of us who genuinely want to support the little guy have to do so individually. If there's enough of us, then maybe we can sustain it.

Looking forward, there's actually quite a few promising productions, so the landscape isn't entirely devoid of hope. The Last Guardian (if it's not vaporware at this point), Bioshock Infinite, the new Criterion NFS game, Assassins Creed 3, Watch Dogs, Anarchy Reigns, MGS: Revengeance - several high-profile games (some from long-established franchises) I'm confident will at least provide a welcome respite from CoD over-saturation.

Professey Chin

Retr0gamer wrote: »

All I know is that I'm really bored by the output on the PS3 and 360, so much so that I've not played any disc based games on them in months. Handheld, PC and indie gaming though have never been fresher.

Tokyo Jungle

Retr0gamer

No which is why I added disc based, although I have grown to hate the 360 model for selling digital games. I much prefer buying them on PS3 or even more so PC because it doesn't involve buying monopoly money and both have decent sales.

a5y

Retr0gamer wrote: »

A link would help:

http://www.nemmelheim.de/turrican/news/duke/

Perhaps old news, but semi-related to Turrican graphics:

Hurrican - a fan remake. Haven't played it; would welcome hearing opinions from anyone who had though.

[Deleted User]

Just out of interest, why do most people here seem to think that the PS2 was such a landmark in console gaming? For me it's actually intrinsically linked to what we're talking about here.

I think it represented the pinnacle of gaming technology just before gaming reached that widespread recognition outside of it's core audience, and started down the trend (as discussed) that it's well on now

The PS2 had the perfect marriage of technology and platform capabilities, developers who were beginning to see serious money behind them, a system which was easy to program for, and a market environment that still allowed for some risk-taking and creativity to flourish. Put simply, it was the right thing in the right place at the right time.

As the platform matured, and was rivalled more by the XBOX, paradigm shifting franchises like Grand theft auto and Halo came along and quite simply began to trancend the gaming marketplace as it was at the time. With that, the enormous marketing campaigns, huge investment, and bland, play-it-safe sequels rolled in as we've discussed.

For me, the PS2 marked a high water mark in the games industry just before it became so commercially irresistible to people who didn't care about games that it was bound to morph into something else, something less pure.

Retr0gamer

The PS2 was no SNES.

o1s1n

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The PS2 was no SNES.

the SNES was no Megadrive.