One system's swan song is another new system's......flagship game ?!?

It has been a trend that started on portable gaming systems and has now spilled over into the console and even the PC. Old games are being revamped, remade and reused to launch newer systems. There isn't too much of a problem for us gamers I suppose, but for developers and publishers, I think it actually dilutes the final product. A diluted final product means less profit.

Back in the days when Atari, Colecovision and Intellivision ruled them all, there weren't many set "trends" in gaming. One trend that soon arose was creating sequels with slightly different graphical arrangements or updates. This seemed to work well in arcades, so Atari, in their infinate wisdom, thought they'd use the same strategy to launch new systems. After the Atari 2600 came the Atari 5200, that launched with....almost no exclusive titles. All of the biggest titles werle slight graphical upgrades of the 2600 versions. Even worse, Atari continued to release 2600 versions of any new 5200 games, therefore making the 5200 even less appealling. Not surprisingly, the Atari 5200 flopped. That didn't stop Atari from going head to head with the NES with the Atari 7800. While the 7800's backward compatibility with 2600 games (oddly not 5200 games though) made it a more appealing package, Atari still launched the 7800 with games like Ms. Pac-man, Centipede, Pole Position II, Asteriods, etc...games that could still all be found on the 2600! Atari then readied itself for the Lynx and Jaguar fiascos with original software, but honestly, since they hadn't made much new console software since 1977 at this point, they weren't much good at it. It seemed this trend disappeared with Atari.....yet now it's looking to come back with a vengence.

First of all, let's look at Vista's flagship title. Halo 2. Now admittedly, there are some bells and whistles in the form of a new map pack and level editor....but let's face it... anyone who wanted to play the original Halo 2 did so on the Xbox during the fall of 2004. Halo 2's online multiplayer still lives on the 360's Xbox Live. How many PC gamers are clamoring to play this game? As far as first person shooters go on the PC, there are alot more interesting experiences out there than Halo 2, in single player and multiplayer. Don't get me wrong....I'm not particularily interested in dissing Halo 2, it's a groundbreaking game...but the game is almost 3 years old at this point.

These problems aren't limited to the PC. Handhelds, ever since the Gameboy Color's launch in 1999, have always launched with a couple of console "hand me downs". That has been forgivable, because its always nice to have a previously "limited to a console" game available for play on the go. At least that is one new feature......portability.

Nintendo seems to have taken this idea and run with it for the launch and continued life of the most popular (as far as sales go) console on the market this generation, the Nintendo Wii. First they launched with an excellent tech demo (Wii Sports) and a really great Gamecube game called "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess". Now six months into the consoles life, the most anticipated upcoming games or popular current games are: Prince of Persia Rival Swords (a great Gamecube game), Resident Evil Wii edition (another stellar Gamecube game), Super Paper Mario (a previously known Gamecube game) and Fire Emblem: Goddess of Dawn (another previous Gamecube game). The Wii for all it's unique control schemes, has a library of games that can be played on or even came from the Gamecube....and that was supposed to be the #3 champion in the last console race? Nintendo went from #3 to #1 by changing their control scheme, not thier library of games. The library of games for the Wii looks to be most of the same games that are on Gamecube now. Now that's an amazing feat!

These are the two most obvious examples I can think of. If this is a trend that continues, we might find ourselves buying the same game over and over every 5 years. It's strange to think that even though technology advances and the types of games there are becomes more and more complex, we'll still spend most of our time playing old software on a new system...when the truth is, a previous system with the same game in collecting dust somewhere in our closets. The irony is...amusing.

ALOT of text there, captain!!!

I'll just take issue with the Gamecube games on the Wii, topic. This isn't the first time it's ever happened and it certainly won't be the last - it's called 'transition'. When development starts to refocus on a new system, there are always games already in development for the current system at that same time. Rather than scrapping those games, they simply decide to push them to the new system to bolster the library and try to capture as much money as possible, while insuring a successful launch.

N64 - Dinosaur Planet and Eternal Darkness were slated for release
GCN - Received Eternal Darkeness and Starfox Adventures (Dinosaur Planet)

There's certainly nothing wrong with doing this during the new console's initial launch. If it were to continue a year into the new system's lifespan, then you'd have a valid complaint. But it doesn't, so you don't...  :P

"These are the two most obvious examples I can think of. If this is a trend that continues, we might find ourselves buying the same game over and over every 5 years"

EA already sells the same game EVERY year..As a matter of fact their whole business model is based on that.

Also you probably lost most of the people who post here after the first 2 sentences....At least you put a lot of thought in your post. Most people here put absolutely no thought into what they post and how they respond. It's a nice change.

A well thought out and nicely worded version of the same old arguments I read here.

What's your goal from writing this? Was it to get somebody like me to respond to you? Was it to express your opinions? Was it to try and change the opinions of others?

I'm not flaming you, I'm genuinely interested in your motives as your post doesn't read like all the other tat on this board. 

A well thought out and nicely worded version of the same old arguments I read here.

What's your goal from writing this? Was it to get somebody like me to respond to you? Was it to express your opinions? Was it to try and change the opinions of others?

I'm not flaming you, I'm genuinely interested in your motives as your post doesn't read like all the other tat on this board. 

hoursfordimes

I guess my motivation for posting this was just to see if other people are feeling the same way I am about this, that's all. While this has always happened within the video game industry, I feel that it is an increasing trend....more so than previous generations (except with Atari's systems). I'm wondering, if this trend continues, could the same thing happen to current systems as with what happened to Atari?

I guess my motivation for posting this was just to see if other people are feeling the same way I am about this, that's all. While this has always happened within the video game industry, I feel that it is an increasing trend....more so than previous generations (except with Atari's systems). I'm wondering, if this trend continues, could the same thing happen to current systems as with what happened to Atari?LordelXP

Well, why do you think Nintendo decided to go with the Wii instead of jumping into the 'tech wars' with Sony and MS? **hint** It's certainly not because Nintendo doesn't have the money

This was the exact reason they decided to change the controller instead of simply improving graphics - the industry was getting stagnant with prettier games of previous generations being released at an alarming rate. So, how do you change this? You change the way you play the games...

Yes - you do wind up with some games that could have been done on the previous generation hardware being transitioned to the new hardware, but this isn't new and after that first year of re-runs, expect to see some new and exciting games being played in unique ways.