#1 Posted by Hailinel (25201 posts) -
Well, Microsoft's Game Room has really gotten off to a rousing start, hasn't it?
 
So it appears that, until further notice, no one should expect any new titles to be added to the Game Room any time soon.  It doesn't really help that Krome, the studio behind the arcade emulation, just suffered a rash of layoffs, either.  I hope you guys reeeeally like Jungler.
 
In all seriousness, though, this is a bummer for anyone that was really looking forward to the Game Room only to see it stumble out of the gate like it has.  There are a lot of old, obscure arcade games that deserve to be played again, and to have Microsoft bungle the service's launch as much as they have isn't providing a lot of hope for its future.
#2 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" Well, Microsoft's Game Room has really gotten off to a rousing start, hasn't it?
 
So it appears that, until further notice, no one should expect any new titles to be added to the Game Room any time soon.  It doesn't really help that Krome, the studio behind the arcade emulation, just suffered a rash of layoffs, either.  I hope you guys reeeeally like Jungler.  In all seriousness, though, this is a bummer for anyone that was really looking forward to the Game Room only to see it stumble out of the gate like it has.  There are a lot of old, obscure arcade games that deserve to be played again, and to have Microsoft bungle the service's launch as much as they have isn't providing a lot of hope for its future. "
So...90% fail 10% win? Do they expect people to wait for more stuff? I mean really. 
#3 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

Why am I not surprised? 

#4 Posted by animateria (3253 posts) -

Eh, the games on Game Room only appeal to a certain crowd that misses the arcade scene...
 
 And the oldest arcade scene at that.
 
The games don't live up today unlike the arcade of the 90s... Now that was an awesome period for the arcade.

#5 Posted by carlthenimrod (1597 posts) -

MS really dropped the ball with this whole Game Room debacle. They should have launched it in a more functional state with more games in the pipeline ready for weekly releases.
 
Also, I think the pricing is still too high for this stuff. Especially the 50 cent one play.

#6 Posted by TheCreamFilling (1229 posts) -

Man, this could have been such a great thing, but the way it was handled and delivered made it dead on arrival pretty much. 

#7 Posted by MercuryCrusader (257 posts) -
@animateria:  Using the "X was better when I was a kid/12 years old" to justify the '90s arcade scene as the best, I see.
#8 Posted by Coombs (3449 posts) -
@MercuryCrusader said:
" @animateria:  Using the "X was better when I was a kid/12 years old" to justify the '90s arcade scene as the best, I see. "
I agree with him to a point,
I love the old games but it would be nice if they released some newer arcade games as well.
Can you imagine how many copies they would sell if they released the Simpsons arcade game with online multiplayer?
#9 Posted by Hailinel (25201 posts) -
@Coombs said:
" @MercuryCrusader said:
" @animateria:  Using the "X was better when I was a kid/12 years old" to justify the '90s arcade scene as the best, I see. "
I agree with him to a point,
I love the old games but it would be nice if they released some newer arcade games as well.
Can you imagine how many copies they would sell if they released the Simpsons arcade game with online multiplayer? "
But the point of the service is to give older games, Asteroids and Galaga old games, new life.  If the Simpsons arcade game were to ever be rereleased, I'd imagine it would sooner get a stand-alone release ala Final Fight:  Double Impact or Turtles in Time Re-Shelled.
#10 Posted by MercuryCrusader (257 posts) -
@Coombs:  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't complain if we got something like the Simpsons arcade game or Space Harrier or something, but saying those game "don't live up today" is pretty much like saying "well, it's before my time, must be old fart shit".
#11 Posted by StarFoxA (5162 posts) -
@MercuryCrusader: But honestly, they don't stand up to today's standards and expectations. Gaming as a medium has changed, and so have the standards. Back when these games were big (admittedly, before my time), they were the pinnacle of gaming technology, and thus was the expectation. You can't deny the fact that these games honestly can't compare to a high-budget gaming release from today. Sure, they're good for what they are, but they aren't much beyond that. Even if you remember them fondly, that doesn't mean they are incredible games now (for example, Ocarina of Time has really not stood the test of time).
#12 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@StarFoxA said:
" @MercuryCrusader: But honestly, they don't stand up to today's standards and expectations. Gaming as a medium has changed, and so have the standards. Back when these games were big (admittedly, before my time), they were the pinnacle of gaming technology, and thus was the expectation. You can't deny the fact that these games honestly can't compare to a high-budget gaming release from today. Sure, they're good for what they are, but they aren't much beyond that. Even if you remember them fondly, that doesn't mean they are incredible games now (for example, Ocarina of Time has really not stood the test of time). "
Its more of the "Good ol times" they where trying to sell..
#13 Posted by Hailinel (25201 posts) -
@StarFoxA said:
" @MercuryCrusader: But honestly, they don't stand up to today's standards and expectations. Gaming as a medium has changed, and so have the standards. Back when these games were big (admittedly, before my time), they were the pinnacle of gaming technology, and thus was the expectation. You can't deny the fact that these games honestly can't compare to a high-budget gaming release from today. Sure, they're good for what they are, but they aren't much beyond that. Even if you remember them fondly, that doesn't mean they are incredible games now (for example, Ocarina of Time has really not stood the test of time). "
The same could be said of more recent arcade fair like Final Fight, though.  It's no secret that the Giant Bomb staff aren't exactly fond of the arcade beat'em up genre.
#14 Edited by MercuryCrusader (257 posts) -
@StarFoxA:  I disagree. A good game will stand the test of time, regardless of technological advances, changing standards, expectations, whatever else you want to tack on to it. It's why games like Pac-Man and Tetris are still relevant, whereas a game like Rogue Warrior or Grabbed By The Ghoulies, despite being advanced compared to pretty much every game in the 1980s, isn't. 
 
That brings me to another point, that doesn't mean every game from the old days was great, there was a ton of shit cranked out. The same could be said of every generation, though.
#15 Posted by StarFoxA (5162 posts) -
@Hailinel: It's just much more obvious with these early Atari, Intellivision, and arcade games due to the extremely limited sound and graphical capabilities. Most Atari games, I don't know what is going on for the first ten minutes or so of playing it.
#16 Posted by Torrim (345 posts) -

Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is a terrible game.  A terribly great game because I totally have the most nostalgic feelings about it and enjoy going back to it from time to time.  Sometimes, I lie awake a night and think that it's a good game objectively, but you know, that's besides the point.  The Game Room isn't about the quality (as they compare to modern games) of the releases as much as it is nostalgia.  However, you could theoretically fault them for not putting out more interesting launching titles.  I hadn't heard of any of these games except Yars Revenge and Crystal Castles until I went and looked them up.

#17 Posted by Clinkz (1118 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
  I hope you guys reeeeally like Jungler.
I do. I'm one of Jeff's jungalos.
#18 Posted by MercuryCrusader (257 posts) -
@StarFoxA said:
" @Hailinel: It's just much more obvious with these early Atari, Intellivision, and arcade games due to the extremely limited sound and graphical capabilities. Most Atari games, I don't know what is going on for the first ten minutes or so of playing it. "

That sounds like a personal problem, heh.  For the record, I grew up in the NES/Genesis/SNES era stuff, with the NES phasing out and 16-bit coming in. I also collect a lot of older video game consoles from any generation.  For me, the history of video games is interesting.  I can enjoy a game of Jungler just as much as a game of Left 4 Dead 2, because if you take away the graphics, the sound, the technology, in the end, they're all games.  Anyways, Atari games only have a joystick and one button, if you can't figure them out, I don't know what to say.
#19 Edited by SuperfluousMoniker (2913 posts) -

A good game is a good game regardless of when it came out, but some stuff ages better than others. I grew up during the NES era, so a lot of this old arcade stuff feels archaiac to me in comparison to what I'm nostalgic about, but some games are timeless. 
 
That said, where are the timeless games in Game Room? If they'd rolled out with Robotron, or Defender, or fucking Space Invaders, maybe this wouldn't have happened. The only games I recognize in the Game Room catalog are Centipede and Asteroids.

#20 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

wow that sucks

#21 Posted by xyzygy (10062 posts) -

Just think of the amazing arcade games that could possibly come out in the future. X-Men!!!

#22 Posted by Hailinel (25201 posts) -
@xyzygy said:
" Just think of the amazing arcade games that could possibly come out in the future. X-Men!!! "
There's a big thing standing in the way of the bigger, more recent releases people keep mentioning.  X-Men and The Simpsons are licensed properties, and Konami no longer has the rights to either.
#23 Posted by MikeydCT (571 posts) -

I have had points waiting to be spent on new game room games now for a month >:[

#24 Posted by fox01313 (5088 posts) -

Guessing a legal problem as people suddenly finding out that their IP could be making money again.

#25 Posted by Hot_Karl (3309 posts) -
@Hailinel: This sucks so bad, because I really want to like Game Room. It's just that the launch titles were horrible. I think about 90% were there for nostalgic purposes only- no one wants to play Combat or Millipede on the Atari 2600 unless they have fond memories of that game some 35 years ago. I did buy a couple games to get my download's worth- Centipede is a classic, and Shao-Lin's Road is surprisingly fun. But I have no one to challenge, no one else who's interested in playing in my arcade, and it's because of the poor game line-up.  
 
They should've had more big-name games when it launched- that's what would've brought the consumers in. Have an anchor game to draw the casuals, bring in the obscure stuff to please the hardcore audience. Also, the fact that you can't play your XBLA games in Game Room is completely stupid and shows that Microsoft is a bit greedy about the whole thing. I wouldn't want to re-buy Pac-Man for Game Room if I already have it in my XBLA collection. That's just stupid.
#26 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@VinceNotVance: I think what they should have done is launched with over half as the big, popular games, and the rest, the obscure stuff for a limited audience. They should've slowly phased in more obscure stuff in their releases, instead of doing it all right off the bat and having a bunch of people scratching their heads.
#27 Posted by russdog (52 posts) -

fudge...no bump n jump or spy hunter for me

#28 Posted by MetalGearSunny (6999 posts) -

It doesn't make much to me sense to have full faith in a product and then not support it later. Sad news. Game Room doesn't really appeal to me, but it sure did to others.

#29 Posted by MikeinSC (910 posts) -

Solid plan of action by MS. Let's make a huge deal of this Game Room thing and then not release anything.

#30 Posted by Seanakin66 (158 posts) -

The pricing was the root of the whole problem with Game Room.  Any momentum the nostalgia factor might have provided initially was killed by the $3 price tags for what should only have cost $1 max.  Ironically, it appears that MSFT did on a microcosmic scale what Sony did when it charged $600 for the PS3 at launch.

#31 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @Coombs said:
" @MercuryCrusader said:
" @animateria:  Using the "X was better when I was a kid/12 years old" to justify the '90s arcade scene as the best, I see. "
I agree with him to a point,
I love the old games but it would be nice if they released some newer arcade games as well.
Can you imagine how many copies they would sell if they released the Simpsons arcade game with online multiplayer? "
But the point of the service is to give older games, Asteroids and Galaga old games, new life.  If the Simpsons arcade game were to ever be rereleased, I'd imagine it would sooner get a stand-alone release ala Final Fight:  Double Impact or Turtles in Time Re-Shelled. "
The point of the service was to offer arcade games, not just shitty Atari 2600/Colecovision ports and games.  So far, all the service has done is show how utterly out of touch MS are with their potential market for Games Room.  Games Room has so much potential and there are so many old games which would and should be extremely cheap and simple to license and emulate (Pleiades for example) but instead we've been presented with crap.