Ocinara or Majora's Mask

fhqwhgads said:
And that makes it less true? Discs can hold more, are more compact, cheaper to make, load faster, all that.
And that makes them better? Volume does not equal better, it is the way a developer uses the space that makes something good. Example, Superman 64 vs. Zelda OOT. Cheaper to make does not benefit, me the gamer or consumer, look at the prices of the present generation of games. Compact, hmmm.. that depends on the packaging that the game company chooses. I have a lot of PS2 games that take up just as much or more room than my NES games. The load faster part is not true. Carts are instant access, you have to buffer the code on a disk based system, they have gotten better with the present gen of systems. 20 or 30 years from now only collectors will have the PS3s and other Disk drive oriented gaming systems running by meticulously keeping them under maintenance. The cart based systems of the 80s are still running strong even for an average gamer.
 
retro junkie said:
Computer gaming, I think, has merged with the gaming type culture of the PS1 to produce the game child of today that is present in this generation of systems.

Ummm maybe you have it wrong but, the PSX was HEAVILY influenced by the arcade scene.

And as for the other stuff. The amount the developer/publisher use on the format effects us, the gamers. Carts are more expensive than the disc format and saying that it isn't is being ignorant and lying to yourself. If consoles today used carts now what do you think the price of the games would be, higher than the prices on the other formats that's for sure. It's also easier to develop on a disc than a cart. The disc based systems don't need a bunch of maintenance to keep them running. I've had a PSX since a couple months after it's launch, does it work, yes, do I use it, no because I am trying to save it's value for myself, speaking of which I need to clean the top of. Volume does effect the game as well. Could a cart have done Final Fantasy VIII? I think not.
 
Fr0dus Maximus said:
Ummm maybe you have it wrong but, the PSX was HEAVILY influenced by the arcade scene.

And as for the other stuff. The amount the developer/publisher use on the format effects us, the gamers. Carts are more expensive than the disc format and saying that it isn't is being ignorant and lying to yourself. If consoles today used carts now what do you think the price of the games would be, higher than the prices on the other formats that's for sure.

I looked back over my previous posts and I do not see any where in which I said that the PSX was not influenced by the arcades. The PSX was very influential in the way gaming began to be perceived at that time with its use of Cd's and we are living under some of those influences today. A certain type gaming culture took on a life of its on and emerged from that era. Today we see something totally different that is void of the strong arcade presence.

Whether carts would be more expensive today is debatable, it would depend on how the hardware was designed. Technology has changed a lot, look at the cart being used on the DS. They are a lot cheaper than the NES carts were selling for in their hey day. And the DS games are a lot more complex in their graphics and more innovative in their game play. The DS, as we can see with Super Mario 64, is capable of giving us the N64 gaming experience in our hands on a much cheaper cart than the present day console games using the "cheaper CD format" are selling for.
And yes the developers are making a lot more money by using the game DVD or CD. The CD or DVD cost only pennies. Which is the main reason I use a DVD recorder instead of VHS. They need that extra cash to pay for the longer developing time plus the larger teams of people involved in making the present generation games, which has much more complex graphics, music, FMV, etc.
I am not denying that using all the eye candy and fully orchestrated musical scores may give a gamer that extra edge in their experience. They are not necessarily needed to have a great gaming experience.
-the ignorant and lying gamer

PS. -moving parts break
 
retro junkie said:
And that makes them better? Volume does not equal better, it is the way a developer uses the space that makes something good. Example, Superman 64 vs. Zelda OOT.
I still fail to see how that disproves my point that they hold more.
Cheaper to make does not benefit, me the gamer or consumer, look at the prices of the present generation of games.
Really? That's funny, because I've always thought low productions costs help both ends. But gee, I guess companies paying less to manufacture them, letting you pay less to buy them...well, that just isn't beneficial.
Compact, hmmm.. that depends on the packaging that the game company chooses. I have a lot of PS2 games that take up just as much or more room than my NES games.
Hold a disc in your hand. Hold a cart in your hand. Now think about what you said and tell me why it makes no sense.
The load faster part is not true. Carts are instant access, you have to buffer the code on a disk based system, they have gotten better with the present gen of systems.
The load faster part is true, we're capable of having CDs be read faster now.
20 or 30 years from now only collectors will have the PS3s and other Disk drive oriented gaming systems running by meticulously keeping them under maintenance. The cart based systems of the 80s are still running strong even for an average gamer.
So, 20 years from now, people will have old disc systems. And we've had cart systems for 20 years. I fail to see what that even means.
PS. -moving parts break
Did you know everything breaks?
 
fhqwhgads said:
I still fail to see how that disproves my point that they hold more.
I can't see where you thought that I was denying that they hold more..per say... I was only pointing out that the larger capacity of the disk is worthless if the developer fails to utilize that space to give you a great gaming experience. While we are on the subject, CD capacity is limited. The cart is not. To me, that makes the cart format have the advantage and is better in regard to capacity. I have read that the N64 was capable of reading up to a 4 gig cart, although no game ever reached that during it's life span. Why would a larger capacity of a medium be better? A good or great game is not determined by the capacity of the medium that it is put onto. I enjoy Defender just as much as I enjoy FF12. There is a difference in the size and storage medium used in both games.

Really? That's funny, because I've always thought low productions costs help both ends. But gee, I guess companies paying less to manufacture them, letting you pay less to buy them...well, that just isn't beneficial.
Hmm.... give me some prices here, the N64 games sold for $49, $59, and there were a few that sold higher. The generation of CD gaming at the time of the N64 were only $10 cheaper. A savings of $10? (The games on the N64, like Zelda could not even run on the PS1.) I am walking into the store and seeing $59 to $69 for the present generation systems. The medium that they are using is only pennies in cost with the packaging costing the most. And the prices of producing a DVD has gone down over the years, not up. I pay only 0.30 cents for a blank DVD, the companies that produce these games can get them cheaper! Where is that benefiting me when it comes to games? I am not seeing any savings. I am not seeing lower prices. The present generation of game carts are selling for $29 to $39. And they are using different ideas and principles than they used in the past. And they are higher capacity in memory with the DS cart being equivalent to 1 gb.

Hold a disc in your hand. Hold a cart in your hand. Now think about what you said and tell me why it makes no sense.
Do you store your game disks that way? Do you throw your storage boxes away? Do you just stack your naked game disks in a neat little stack? What you are saying makes no sense. What advantage is the size of the disk that you are holding in your hand if you cannot store it that way? Especially if the storage box is so much bigger? I can store my game cart without the box. As a gamer, I would never store my game disc without the storage box.

So, 20 years from now, people will have old disc systems. And we've had cart systems for 20 years. I fail to see what that even means.
Maybe only three years for a 360. :) In 20 years from now we may still have the old cart systems, but the disc systems will be questionable. And I say this with sadness. I have my Turbo Duo that I love, but it will eventually die because the moving parts are more prone to give out, more so, than non-moving parts. My Sega CD died not too long ago. Disc based gaming systems may not last 20 years. We will just have to wait and see. And I have a lot of CD based gaming systems. I see backward compatibility of newer gaming systems a very good thing. I may not be able to go out and buy that older system, but I can buy a next generation system to play all my older games. But in 20 years the average gamer will not care about retro gaming on any of these systems, they will probably be busy playing in their Holo deck system.

I think this whole discussion started because I like cart based gaming more so than CD gaming. I like the type of games that were produced on them more so than the disc system games. I am baffled as to why that would cause you concern? I still want a modern day cart based console, even more so after this discussion. The technology that we have today is so much more advanced. A small SD card type cart could be used like in the DS.

I think that both Zelda N64 games will always be looked back on as classics. They are a fitting final song to the days of the cart based home console. It is sad to even think that the N64 was the last home based console. :(
 
retro junkie said:
I have read that the N64 was capable of reading up to a 4 gig cart, although no game ever reached that during it's life span.
As opposed to the 400GB disc. I see your point. >_>
Why would a larger capacity of a medium be better?
Why would it be any worse?
Hmm.... give me some prices here, the N64 games sold for $49, $59, and there were a few that sold higher. The generation of CD gaming at the time of the N64 were only $10 cheaper. A savings of $10? (The games on the N64, like Zelda could not even run on the PS1.) I am walking into the store and seeing $59 to $69 for the present generation systems. The medium that they are using is only pennies in cost with the packaging costing the most. And the prices of producing a DVD has gone down over the years, not up. I pay only 0.30 cents for a blank DVD, the companies that produce these games can get them cheaper! Where is that benefiting me when it comes to games? I am not seeing any savings. I am not seeing lower prices. The present generation of game carts are selling for $29 to $39. And they are using different ideas and principles than they used in the past. And they are higher capacity in memory with the DS cart being equivalent to 1 gb.
lern2inflate. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, it's fact that carts cost a helluva lot more to manufacture.
Do you store your game disks that way?
Usually, yeah.
Do you throw your storage boxes away?
No.
Do you just stack your naked game disks in a neat little stack?
No, I set them next to each other on top of my 360.
What you are saying makes no sense. What advantage is the size of the disk that you are holding in your hand if you cannot store it that way? Especially if the storage box is so much bigger?
We're not discussing game cases. I said discs are smaller than carts, and you seem to think that's untrue. At this point, it's almost as if you can't admit that discs are superior.
I think this whole discussion started because I like cart based gaming more so than CD gaming. I like the type of games that were produced on them more so than the disc system games. I am baffled as to why that would cause you concern?
It's the fact that you're far too stubborn to acknowledge CD superiority, even though it's blatantly obvious.
 
fhqwhgads said:
We're not discussing game cases. I said discs are smaller than carts, and you seem to think that's untrue.
cdvscart_0.gif

My PlayStation CD next to my home console Turbo Graphx 16 game cart. I see your point.

DVDvsCart.gif

The size of Modern DVD game disc vs. Modern concepts in game carts.

lern2inflate. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, it's fact that carts cost a helluva lot more to manufacture.
The cost has gone down. I never said that they cost less to manufacture. You were making a point that some how because the CD's were cheaper that it affected me in some way. And I see that it doesn't. All I see is that it helps the game companies make more money and the savings they do not necessarily pass on to me, the gamer. There really has not been that much of a difference, in the past, between game prices on CD and cart to the consumer.

t's the fact that you're far too stubborn to acknowledge CD superiority, even though it's blatantly obvious.
I think you have missed the point..... badly.
 
Back
Top