What is the better Old School console?

Does he always flip you off too? I thought I was the only one.

Okay, to actually answer the original question, I'd have to break things down by generation.

Going back to 8-bit, the answer is easily NES. It brought console gaming back to life, and many of the franchises that started there are still around today.

The 16-bit era had a ton of players, but the SNES and Genesis were the two biggies. I have to go Genesis on this one, because even though the NES had a lot of great franchise games (like Link to the Past) and a ton of classic RPG's, I like the Genesis library better. The Genesis had the arcade games that I loved to play at the time, and things like the Shining series -- both Shining Force and the traditional RPG's.

In the era I would put the Playstation, N64, and Sega Saturn. I love my Saturn, still have it, and it had a ton of great games, including a ton of arcade-perfect 2-D translations. But, the Playstation is easily one of the most successful consoles ever, and I've had a lot of fun with it, and a few of my favorite series started there like Gran Turismo and Monster Rancher.

Those are my picks.
 
To me, the trivial thing is the details that make up his character. It's just filler because the game isn't ultimately concerned with developing a character or a complex plot. It's made obvious. It was, at the time, about an immersive experience. The only purpose Freeman being a scientist (theoretical physicist) serves is that it allows for the setting. This all in turn allows for interdimensional demons to be shot as well as highly trained agents. Then there's the seamless nature of the game, the scripted events, and the atmospheric design, which allows for unique immersion. I think it works. :thumbsup:
 
Well, Half Life is definitely a great game, and I enjoy it greatly even now. But because the game is virtually devoid of plot between the immediate beginning and the ending movie, Freeman is left an undeveloped character who is pretty much just a guy with glasses and a gun who kills aliens.

And Halo isn't known beyond immediate gaming culture? That's also bull. It is a FACT that on top gaming culture being freakin huge, a games penetration level isn't limited by its sales (in this case, how many of millions) alone, and that the Chief has pretty much become a symbol of this generation of gaming. And I didn't say that the Chief was anywhere near being as well known as Mario, but like I said, Mario has been around for over 20 years, and has sold a billion units total (I think). Plus you can't forget that Halo isn't called "The Master Chief."
 
You need to go back and carefully read what was said earlier in the discussion.

I said that Halo is "not very well known" outside of gaming culture. This is true; while mainstream America may know of Halo, they don't know much about it. They certainly don't know the focal character is named Master Chief, and if they saw a picture of Master Chief most people certainly wouldn't be able to name him.

I was repsonding to the comment that "Master Chief is already infamous." I don't believe this is true. You can say that "the Chief has pretty much become a symbol of this generation of gaming," but you're talking about gamers. Mario is known to practically everyone. I can wear a shirt with mario on it, and people know who he is. Now, I could wear a shirt with the Halo insignia on it and people would probably know it's a video game, but if it was just Master Chief, very few people outside of the gaming culture would know who it is. Master Chief is simply not a mainstream pop culture icon.

Again, if you don't want to go with common sense, but would rather go with some strange idea which you as a gamer have, without stopping to think as a non-gamer, that's fine, it's no skin off my back. But don't try to make it sound like I said that "Halo isn't known beyond [the] immediate gaming culture." That's very, very different from what I actually did say. Before you you try to throw that back at me, I never made any claims as to what you were saying, and didn't imply that you said "the Chief was anywhere near being as well known as Mario." Again, you need to go back and carefully read what was said in this thread earlier before you fly off the handle and strat talking in all directions at once.
 
Let's see if the Halo movie helps Master Chief's cause to invade the mainstream. If the initial opening of King Kong is any indication, maybe not.
 
From what I recall, King Kong only made over $50 million in its opening week. Analysts forecasted that it was going to be bigger, at least near what the recent Lord of the Rings movies made. My point was that just because Jackson is behind something (with his awesome digital production studio even), it's not an automatic mega blockbuster. I thought King Kong would be. Halo is (from my postulation) less known than King Kong, so...

Anyway, I more or less said that to cool things down. ;)
 
We like to think that, as gamers, we're a farily large demographic. But Halo 2 only had 750,000 preorders, according to Microsoft. If every one of the people who prordered Halo 2 went to see the movie on the opening weekend (at $10 a ticket), that would only be $7.5 million. That's nothing in terms of movies, and doesn't even cover the production costs of most indie films. This is all a way of saying that I think Roach here is onto something.
 
I'd be onto something if i had taken the time to read the earlier posts............But yeah, Master Chief is well known all over the globe.......i think................The movie should kick butt, but i'll probably wait for the DVD.....didn't do all this home theater for nothing...............Plus, i don't think i could deal with all the Obnoxious Master Chief Chronies........i guarantee half the audience will be dressed up in that outfit........
 
750,000 preorders....did you intentionally neglect other 5.75 million people that bought the game by February?
 
Nope, those that preordered are the hardcore fans though.

Still even if every one of the people that bought the game see the movie, that's less than $60 million. The film reportedly has a budget of $75 million. You do the math. I think Roach's comments bear some thought, this is a movie that's up against big expectations. It's hard to say what the audience for it will be outside of the "gamer" demographic.

What I'm really getting at here is that as a demographic we're still relatively small. It's like car enthusiasts; there's a select group of people who will tell you "If someone made a car under 2400 lbs, over 170 horsepower, with rear wheel drive and for less than $25,000, I'd buy it in an instant, and so would every other auto enthusiast." And that's true, but that group of people is so small that if a car manufacturer makes such a car, they're not really making the profit from it that they can with a volume seller like a mid-sized SUV. Thus, even when the enthusiasts do get a bone, the stuff they get tends to be marketed to appeal to the broader audience too; extra safety, comfort, and conveience features are tacked on which add weight and cost.

We as gamers are a similar market. Sure, you might be able to say that a huge number of gamers would instantly go see a Halo movie, but unless that group is willing to spend $100 million, the studios aren't necessarily going to give them what they want. Now to tie all of this together, auto manufacturers do make high performance, enthusiast-oriented cars in small numbers. These cars aren't designed to sell in large enough volume to be hugely profitable, but instead of create a buzz about the brand. They're called halo cars.
 
Video games and movies are quite different. One reason being that games are immensely more profitable. Who do you think made out better? Bungie who spent 15 mil making Halo 2, and made well over $125 million in its first week? Or any movie ever?
 
Well... both industries have been pretty even in terms of net profit, though there are conflicting reports that the film industry is on the decline for whatever reasons (piracy, terrible movies, that sort). Movies then have the added benefit of DVD sales.

The Star Wars franchise--including box office, dvd, vhs, and all merchandise--has made over 10 billion dollars itself.
 
Star Wars is a seperate case, though, just because there is Star Wars EVERYTHING, being movies, a short-but-popular cartoon thing, 1 jillion action figures, models, video games, toys, costumes, conventions, clothing, blah blah blah. But yeah...I wish I was George Lucas....I want 10 billion....
 
spudlyff8fan said:
Video games and movies are quite different. One reason being that games are immensely more profitable. Who do you think made out better? Bungie who spent 15 mil making Halo 2, and made well over $125 million in its first week? Or any movie ever?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything since I wasn't comparing the profitability of video games versus the profitability of movies.