Preacher, you are 100% right about GV. That game was insanely underated. I agree with the reviews too, the way you put it I mean. They simply didn' t know how to play the game and that' s why they gave it a bad score. It took me 3 freaking days of near straight playing to finally figure out I could go through the level without touching the ground. I spent an entire day repeating the first level just to get this technique down. Once I did it was simply videogame heaven. One of the best under rated games of all time.

I still play Gun Valkyrie now, trying to beat those high scores

Rarely am I so obsessed with a game that I go back just to play it: not to play through it, not to achieve any kind of goal, just to be doing all those insane air boosts and killing bugs. The feel and of the controls are rewarding enough if you' ve persisted with Gun Valkyrie to such a point that you know how to play it properly.


God I love Gun Valkyrie.


It just annoyed me that the rolling demo was hidden away - If I remember correctly, the demo didn' t roll after the title screen faded, no matter how long you waited.

Instead, to get the demo, you had to play the game and exit and/or die, and then the demo would roll before the title screen came up.

Man, I remember how raw my thumbs would get after playing the game. I never left a game(even fighting games) with so much pain, lol.

I' m a little late to jump into this conversation, but, in looking at the original post about the sales of the ESPN line vs the Madden line, the problem is in the marketing and the market. Sega revolutionized grahics and gameplay in sports games and for the first time in a long time, there was something out there to challenge EA.

I say that the marketing is an issue because when you look at how much time the Madden franchise has on the 2K series, it already has an established fan base (myself once being one) and it also drops much much more cash in advertisements. If Sega would get a few stars to play or even mention the ESPN line in a music video, they wouldn' t be able to keep them on the shelves.

The market plays a big part in this as well. At the time the 2K line was released, there was no other viable sports option on the Dreamcast. Sega, luckily, made the most of this and VC made a name for themselves in the sports market. If EA and Sega had worked out a deal to get sports games the Dreamcast, that may have killed the 2K series long before it became a threat. Fans of a series tend to stick with what they know. I was still a Madden fan at that time, but, not for long. Had I been given the option to buy Madden or NFL 2K, I would have never known what I was missing. When Sega actually got things going with online gaming and it was possible to play NFL 2K1 on the net, they took opened up the market and no one else could compete because they had the online real online console out there. People such as myself who were on the borderline were roped in.

I my opinion, if Sega had not screwed up and dropped a bunch of crap after the Genesis (32x and Sega CD for two examples) they would have knocked Sony out cold early and the gaming world would be a different place right now. That and the fact that NFL 97 on the Saturn was one of the worst football titles ever released by a major company.

It' s funny that the Madden series got it' s start on the Genesis. I know that there was an SNES version, but, that was lack luster. Now they' re fighting with Sega to stay on top.

I have to apologize for the long last post. It' s not normal for me. I' m at work with nothing better to do at 2 a.m.

There' s only one thing you' re making a crucial mistake about- it simply didn' t matter what " position" Sega had been in when Sony entered the market. And it wouldn' t matter today. In the world of big business, Sega simply gets outbid. In recruitment of the best talent, in the most accessible advertising " hot spots," and in just about everything else. With MS around now, Sega would have been in EXACTLY the same spot: assimilate as a 3rd-party developer, or die. The only way out of this would have been if Sega topped Nintendo in worldwide popularity and catered to the 5-12 yr.-old age group better than Nintendo...which is not the direction Sega was heading.

It' s all about financial capability, and right from the get-go, both Sony and MS were simply too much for Sega. When it comes to such massive global corporations, fanbase means little if the big boys want to jump in and have themselves a go. If anybody honestly believes that Nintendo will be any place but a distant third in the next generation...well, unfortunately, they' re just deluding themselves. They survive because they have that wonderful niche market, and a stranglehold on the handheld market...but they will never be #1 again.

Big business. It' s all that counts, and all that matters. Sad, but true.

This is why the Phantom will most likely fail. I' m also getting annoyed by these other new systems coming out. I believe one being the APEX and the other being a console produced by Alienware. Now I have no beef with either company making these, I like both infact(hell I' m typing on a brand new Alienware laptop as we speak), but why try brining more systems into the market. It' s just going to tear the market apart and make more diversity. The market couldn' t even handle four consoles (the DC dropping out), how do they expect the next generation to support 6? I really can' t see any of these three new potential systems going anywhere. It just doesn' t seem like it will work. The videogame market isn' t built to support that many consoles at once. I could be wrong though. I laughed with all my friends when we heard that MS was coming out with a console. I never thought the Xbox was going to go anywhere.

The market will withstand multiple consoles IF the companies responsible for them have the IMMEDIATE financial means to make them a success. You should never have laughed at MS' s foray into the console world; their sheer size and global power, both financial and political, essentially ensured the Xbox' s success before they even began production. You build a game from the ground up, and if you can lure the best talent in the world with considerably deep pockets, than there really isn' t a problem. It' s all about money; developers and publishers alike know where the money lies. The only question left is how big of an audience they expect to get...obviously, a game on the PS2 will reach five times as many people as a game on the Xbox (exclusively), so this is more tempting for publishers.

It' s a testament to MS' s power that several franchises decided to go multi-platform with the Xbox, despite the limited userbase. But if you notice, the Xbox' s biggest and most glaring problem right now is with exclusive franchises that SELL; while Nintendo has Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, and Sony has Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, (the REAL series; FF X, X-2, and XII are all exclusive), Ratchet and Clank, and now, upcoming MGS and GTA games, MS can really only name the Dead or Alive series (if that is a series), and that' s about it. Exclusive titles like Ninja Gaiden, PGR 2, and PDO aren' t enough to sell systems. IMO, they needed to keep Splinter Cell an Xbox exclusive...it' s already got two of the best games EVER, IMO, and that could' ve really boosted Xbox sales by keeping it off of other platforms (especially PC).

But by next generation, I' m sure they' ll have a few. That' s what companies with money DO.

That is all pretty much true but I feel the market will be torn with multiple systems. I' m not saying systems will fail do to limited resources and developers, but more so with the consumer. It' s very rare today to see a person with all three consoles. Most people don' t even have two this generation. This causes the money to thin out between companies. Now if three more entered the battle money would really run thin when it came to sales. It would also be a battle over exclusives leaving people in complete confusion over what system to get. The possibility of any one person owning all 6 systems is almost nonexistant aswell. There will be too much seperation causing a tear in the buying. this will also hurt developers who will have to format 6 different versions of a game which is just a waste of money. There are only so many gamers and the gamers only have so much money. That' s the problem.

If the market is saturated, of course, there' s not much you can do. I don' t expect to ever see six consoles. But it only comes down to money; who has it, who doesn' t, and who has the future capability of having it. No matter how big Pokemon gets, MS will always have the edge over Nintendo (unless something tragic happens), and so will Sony. Fans and consumers are surprisingly fickle, and the big fish know it.

From what I' ve noticed in the past, the market seems quite comfortable with two consoles but any more than that and one of them gets shut out..

During the 16-bit era, in Japan, Sega' s console was pretty much ignored as fans snatched up all the PCEngines and Super Famicoms they could get their hands on.

In America, both Sega and Nintendo dominated while NEC' s console fell by the way side. I believe that happened in Europe as well.

32-bit era came and both Sega and Sony' s consoles were kickin a$$ in Japan. America and Europe were a totally different story for Sega. So the 32-bit era ended up being a Nintendo and Sony affair.

The 128-bit era has been interesting so far, Japan has maintained it support for two consoles but America has actually allowed all three consoles to perform well.
Unsure about the European market though.