IGN Editorial: You Failed SEGA

[sonikjesus]

http://retro.ign.com/articles/956/956296p1.html

I thought this was spot-on. What do you guys think?

[Mozgus]

I didnt fail Sega, but I know a lot of people did. Hell, I knew people who passed up the DC entirely because the PS2 was coming. Then it came, and for the first two years of it's life, my friends had very little fun to be had with it. This led to me bringing the DC to quite a few places for some 2-4 player action that was much appreciated by all.

[jp1]

I had a dreamcast launch week along with 15 games within the first few months...I took it everywhere with me. We used to play NFL Blitz and Rush along with NFL 2k. I have never been a fanboy though, always just choosing the least popular system somehow...here was my progression.

Atari (Something can't remember)
Commodore 64
Sega Master System
Turbo Grafx 16
3DO
N64
Dreamcast

Somewhere in there I owned an NES but it was already retro by the time I owned it.

As a kid I remember going to Montgomery Wards and agonizing over which grid design box to choose.

[marurun]

The only systems I ever bought new were the TG-16, Dreamcast, and the GBA SP.

I also bought many games for my Dreamcast, because I found it to be an awesome system. And I agree. Most people didn't want to buy stuff that was interesting or creative or new. They wanted same-old same-old. The Dreamcast was about as close as I've ever seen to an Art-House console.

[Reverend]

T_T

I was kinda young when the dreamcast was in stores, so I my dad told me to stick with my trusty genesis. I wish I could have helped.

[RCBH928]

This was a great article. I love underdogs(sega), they always put in the extra effort.
But the subject of the dreamcast failing, really hurts me. I do not understand why people failed such a great console.
It had everything, EVERYTHING , with great price($200) , so innovative , great name, so much great new titles like shenmue , jet radio, 2D AND 3D fighters, arcade ports, online play, cult following. If I was CEO of Sega, I would be bashing my head to the wall trying to understand what went wrong.

On the other hand, in the end people do have the free choice to buy what they want. The more I know about gaming, the more I believe that actual gamers are the minority. The majority are just franchise fans. You know like if you put WWE on anything it would sell more than Zak & wiki. If you think this is only with non-gamers(playing games just because it has the title of their favorite star, show, film, etc) think again. People are going to buy call of duty no matter what. Halo whatever it is. But who cares for newer innovative games? I think I can prove this by saying , if SF4 had a name like "World Fighters" and different character names, instead of Ryu , we have Tzu and instead of Ken we have Ben. Even if it is still the great game it is, it won't sell half as much.

I for one , I do not understand where do people shed the money for it, specially on annual games like Call of Duty. Its a great game, but how many times do we have to play it? Why do people continue to chose to pay $60 for the same game ? Other franchise games are the same. Why won't they spend that $60 on something different. Some franchise games deserve it, like mario. Each Mario is far in between and totally different game(64.sunshine, galaxy) . Yet newer titles we would like to see successful fail.

The only new titles that succeed are ones with big marketing and hype like gears of war, yet even those fail sometimes, I really consider LittleBigPlanet failure compared to its hype and years of waiting..

I think the real people driving sales behind videogames are kids really, and they just want the NEWER BIGGER COD no matter what. The other factor I think is that people are really afraid to try something new. You always buy that Cola or Pepsi because you know what it is, but you will never reach out for that new drink even if it was better.

This thing in gaming, and failure of innovative idea should be fixed some way or another. I believe building market strategy to push these games is best. Something like world awards for new games that deserve attention. Other wise, its always going to be GTA and COD the ones with the 10's and 9's for scores, and they will kill the innovative underdog.

I am still sad about the dreamcast though. Its so good, its a blast to play today.

[lost_within]

i had the dc literally 2 days after launch. I loved it...took it everywhere like most people only one flaw...3 months later...a "friend" had his car "broken into" and it was stolen. Funny thing is...i stopped hanging with him about 4 months go by...i go by his house to get some stuff of mine, and ...he has a dc...with every game i had...including a n64 i had in that same bag...hmmm odd.

DC greatest system ever.

[DCsegaDH]

I know I didn't fail anybody,I was still in high school when DC came out and I didn't have any money at that time.I did buy a Saturn back in 1998 and I use to play Sega arcades a lot,that should help a little bit at least.

[MrPopo]

I didn't fail Sega. Sega failed me by not being Nintendo.

But as for the point raised above, of course people are going to get into franchises. When I get a Mario game, I know that I'm going to be jumping around a lot and cursing bottomless pits. When I get a Metroid game, I know I won't be finding half the expansions without a guide. People take comfort in the familiar. Some franchises exploit a certain type of person. The yearly EA Sports releases target the sports fan who cares about player statistics and wants to show that they can manage a current team just as good as the real coaches do. And for the person who's picking up a sports game for the first time, or the first time in years, they know that grabbing an EA Sports game will net you a competent simulation.

Then there's the quick sequels. How many times have you played a game and wished there was more to it? Well now here's a sequel. This works especially well with First Person Shooters, as bastions of storytelling they are not. A good RPG will have a conclusion that, while making you sad it's over, gives you closure to the story and that feeling that the story is complete. If the game mechanics are good then you look forward to the next game by the devs that will utilize them, such as a sequel to Valkyria Chronicles, but it won't need to be a direct continuation like Gears to Gears 2.

I look at myself. My favorite games are a long series of JRPGs which, for a good portion of their life, didn't do a whole lot to innovate. All were menu driven games who's main variance was specific ways you could power up or customize your characters. What draws me to them is the feeling of taking part in an interactive story. I've actually found fault several times when I see developers trying to change things for the sake of change. While stagnation is bad, I see just as much of a problem in trying to do something different just for the sake of it being different.

[DCsegaDH]

I didn't fail Sega. Sega failed me by not being Nintendo.

But as for the point raised above, of course people are going to get into franchises. When I get a Mario game, I know that I'm going to be jumping around a lot and cursing bottomless pits. When I get a Metroid game, I know I won't be finding half the expansions without a guide. People take comfort in the familiar. Some franchises exploit a certain type of person. The yearly EA Sports releases target the sports fan who cares about player statistics and wants to show that they can manage a current team just as good as the real coaches do. And for the person who's picking up a sports game for the first time, or the first time in years, they know that grabbing an EA Sports game will net you a competent simulation.

Then there's the quick sequels. How many times have you played a game and wished there was more to it? Well now here's a sequel. This works especially well with First Person Shooters, as bastions of storytelling they are not. A good RPG will have a conclusion that, while making you sad it's over, gives you closure to the story and that feeling that the story is complete. If the game mechanics are good then you look forward to the next game by the devs that will utilize them, such as a sequel to Valkyria Chronicles, but it won't need to be a direct continuation like Gears to Gears 2.

I look at myself. My favorite games are a long series of JRPGs which, for a good portion of their life, didn't do a whole lot to innovate. All were menu driven games who's main variance was specific ways you could power up or customize your characters. What draws me to them is the feeling of taking part in an interactive story. I've actually found fault several times when I see developers trying to change things for the sake of change. While stagnation is bad, I see just as much of a problem in trying to do something different just for the sake of it being different.

That's the problem I have with Nintendo is that they center everything around the same franchises mostly Mario and that's the reason Nintendo turns me off to most of their games.