Not that I would like to see you or anything, but unless you've got a verygood reason you probably will have to post your own picture...

You guys tired of me yet? Don't worry, you'll get there. [Okay, going out on a limb here, might I suggest that we're less likely to find you tiresome if you don't ask us? Just a thought. - Allan] Today, I don'targue, but I answer questions.

Two topics. First deals with the specifications for next-gen systems. If"Alexander3025" from the 6/26 column is a good example of what the averagegamer knows about the Big Three's next generation consoles, then the averagegamer knows very little. (Sorry, friend, but you're highly confused.)

Sega's "Dreamcast" GD-ROM based console will launch on 9/9/99. It utilizesa 128-bit RISC CPU. The GD-ROM discs are modified CD-ROMs that can holdsome extra information. It will, obviously, be the first next generationsystem. Sega is attempting to fix the mistake they made with Saturn. On ahistorical note, this is the first major console system to ever ship with aninternal modem.

Sony's uncreatively named Playstation 2 has an announced release date sometime in the year 2000. Sony's made up of very good liars, because I don'tsee this thing appearing until a bit later.

The PSX2 uses a 350 MhZ, 128-bit RISC CPU. It's an aluminum chip, whichSony thought was pretty cool until Nintendo went copper. The softwaremedium is DVD-ROM, which remains cool. I'm not sure about co-processor,though I think it has a 150 MhZ graphical CPU. The CPU is being called the"Emotion Chip", and is touted as being able to produce amazing real-time cutscenes.

Also fascinating is the system's backwards software compatibility with thePSX, made possible not by emulation but by a built in 32-bit processingcapability.

Nintendo's rather creatively codenamed Project: Dolphin is "scheduled" for aChristmas 2000 release, but that's only because they want to scare Sony.The software medium will definitely be DVD-ROM.

In the CPU department, the console will use a 400 MhZ, 128-bit RISC CPU.The processor is being built by IBM (yeah, that IBM), and is based on thePower PC architecture, highly modified and code-named Gekko. It's a copperchip.

As for a graphical co-processor, Art-X of Palo Alto, CA is providingNintendo with a 200 MhZ graphical co-processor, which is definitely cool.Art-X does good stuff, believe me.

On a fascinating side note, Nintendo will be able to keep the price downbecause of their strategic alliance with Matsushita (you know them asPanasonic.) Matsushita will provide the DVD-ROM to Nintendo drives at-cost.This is mostly because they want to give Sony the beat down just as badly asNintendo does.

Matsushita is one of the largest electronics companies in the world.There's a Matsushita component in nearly every electronic device you own.

There, aren't I informative?

Also, on the topic of a sequel to Chrono Trigger... Go to Square USA'snewly remodeled home page. Check out the "Info" section. They talk aboutthe Final Fantasy series, which is a given, but for some reason they thenstart to talk about Chrono Trigger like it wasn't released several yearsago. Then they refer to it as "A LINE OF GAMES" or something to that effect!And isn't the game rumored to be in development at Square Honolulu?

Excuse me, but, HOT DAMN! CT2 is coming. I can smell it. Wait, that'sburning insulation... Pardon me, my house is on fire again...

--The Professor, Tom Lillis

- "Where's the fire extinguisher?" It's not a quote, I really need toknow...

Hey Doubly Secret (or Secretly Double?) Agent Man,

I don't know much about the new next generation systems, but I have some thoughts on multiplayer gaming.

Firstly, I would like to DEFEND Nintendo and applaud them for including four controller inputs on the N64. I hope the next generation systems follow suit. Multiplayer games (like GoldenEye) are really the only place where the PSX gets beaten silly - you can't really argue with the N64's out-of-the-box 4 player capability (if you can get a friend to bring over some controllers). If a system is going to have games with four (or more) player support, an addon with branching controller connections is highly unwieldy. The old 5-player TurboTap comes to mind, along with my favorite TurboGrafx 16 game, Moto Roader. It's a pity a basement flood eliminated my beautiful TG16. =(

Speaking of TG16, tell somebody to put up a Vault of Keith Courage. It's technically an adventure game, isn't it? Don't forget to mention how his sword gets longer and longer as he goes through the game. =P Hey, even Shakespeare appreciated such humor - read the very beginning of Romeo and Juliet carefully if you don't believe me.

Secondly, I would really like to see a good multiplayer console RPG, one that gives a multiplayer experience a truly distincitve feel, and not a simple "few persons playing as one" feel. Secret of Mana's multiplayer is a novelty, and FF2 US and FF3 US's two player support (FF2's might have been kind of unintentional, not sure) is welcome but not really a new dimension of play. Tactics Ogre had a player vs. player mode when you wanted to train your units, which was a little fun. But, it would be nice if you both weren't playing on the same screen. We all know that GoldenEye is won in part by how well you can watch and interpret the screen(s) of your opponent(s). As another example, trying to play Starcraft with vision of your opponent's screen is completely absurd. I am waiting to laugh at the port of Starcraft to the N64, but it's not fair that they get new combat units. =P

Which brings me to my third thought. I was talking to my friend the other day, and he was going on and on about how the next generation consoles are going to start boasting modem-type devices for multiplayer. Can you say Xband? (I think that's the name of one of the old console modems) Being an avid computer gamer, I know the vastness of the online multiplayer gamer base. With games like Quake 3 Arena and Diablo II on the horizon, more and more poor souls with Internet connections and a penchant for time wasting will get sucked into 3D worlds of rocket-blasting, spell-casting madness. So, my question to you is this: Do you think that we will ever see Internet-driven or otherwise-driven multiplayer CONSOLE games making a large impact on the gaming community? Or will it remain a novelty?

- In my dreams I play multiplayer Ogre Battle 64 on the Internet

Dear Double,

First, thanks for defending Nintendo against overzealous Sony fans.Secondly, thanks for defending Sony against overzealous Nintendo fans. Iwon't talk about Sega. Lastly, what do you think the odds are that thisalleged Chrono Trigger sequel won't be a PSX game? As Chrono Trigger wasthe last Square game for a Nintendo system, it would be great to see itssequel be the first of a new generation of Square/Nintendo game.

--BruceKid, Messenger of the gods

Dear D.A.

Here's a question for you, prompted by the rumors that Squaresoft may begin developing for multiple systems. If this does turn out to be the case, will Square then release all their games on -both- systems, or will they start to divide their games between the two? I've owned two Nintendo machines before buying the Playstation in the latest console war, and have nothing against either company. Since I think Square makes the best RPGs, I'll go wherever they do, but it will seriously tick me off if I have to buy two systems to play all of Square's games, or choose one machine and miss out on half of their upcoming titles.

Lord Pendragon

To be completely honest, I never really cared for Sega much. Hell, at one point I probably actively disliked them (they had some annoying-ass commercials). But I loved the Sonic games. And a couple of other Genesis jewels...but in the end my heart belonged to Nintendo.

So fast forward a few years, the Dreamcast is being prepped to be launched upon the American public, after already becoming something of an intermediate success in Japan, it's got the record for top presales for a console system. For once, I find myself standing in the Sega aisle of the videogame supermarket. They've got the games (I will personally hang anyone who every says ANYTHING bad about Sonic Adventure, House of Dead 2, or Soul Caliber) and all seems peachy. Yet here we have people bitching and whining about systems that are still 2 years off. But this is what gets me--Sega seems to have been completely dismissed by readers of the Double Agent (who I assume, are readers in the higher tiers of the RPG circle of gaming).

HEL-LLO?! Have we forgotten Sega totally? Maybe it's because Sega has never had Square on their side, and when it comes to RPGs everybody still giggles like a braindead schoolgirl when the name of the-ones-who-did-create-FF are mentioned, but come onnnn. Square seems to be single-handedly man-handling the RPG market. All Enix games, the Breath of Fire series, Namco's "Tales of _____", Grandia 2, Lunar 3, Phantasy Star V, and god knows what else could come out on Dreamcast and people would STILL side with whoever Square goes to as "The Superior RPG Machine". WHAT+THE+FUCK+EVER!

>From where I'm sitting, DC is the best system. Why? Games. They have some. And a lot of them are good. True, the RPGs aren't flowing like wine (yet) but neither did the PS in it's first generation wave of games. What they do have are technically impressive, and a few of them even PLAY good. Imagine that.

So I guess my point is, why are people floundering about PS2 and Dolphin (and that BETTER be only a pre-release codename) when Dreamcast is here, and tasty? True, Sega is already showing signs of it's classic stupid-ass marketing ("We're hip with Gen-X, doodz!") but the system clearly has enough juice to put anything out right now to crying shame. PS2 is at least a year off, and Dolphin, well god knows when Dolphin will come out (I think the 64 didn't come out until some 2 or three years after the first rumblings of "Project Reality" or whatever it was called).

Having a superior-tech machine doesn't make your console the best. People have already heard the stories of how PS2 might destroy a lot of the smaller developers because of it's super-high tech specs, and if the Dolphin is going to be in the same class power-wise, smaller game developers are going to be screwed unless its really cheap and easy to develop for. Somehow I doubt this (at least PS2's case, Nintendo seems to know what they're doing...)

So don't ignore Sega gawdammit. Sure they don't have the tech-superior machine, but Sony didn't either, and they manage to dominate finely without it. Like the man says, "Don't center on your anxiety, keep your concentration on the here and now, where it belongs."

Oh, and looky who is here, now. Dreamcast. And damn it's looking sexy.....

~Riisuke

In response to DarkElf, I'd like to say "who cares" about how many bitsa system has!? The PSX2 could technically be labelled as a 2048 bitmachine (It's RAMBUS runs at that speed), but it's 128. However, it'sproven that bits don't rule how powerful a system is, and moreover, howwell it sells (Nintendo 64 and Playstation.. who won that battle..)Bits don't matter.. if you want to talk about graphics, the system'sprocessor really doesn't matter either. It's all about the graphicscard. Your P2-400 may run fast, but a P2-300 with a 16meg 3-daccellerator card is going to run a whole lot faster, and be much kinderon the eyes. The same holds true on video game consoles. Just becausethe PS2 and Dolphin are "true" 128-bit machines doesn't mean they arebetter than the Dreamcast just because it is "technically" 64-bit. Youcan look at the PS2 tech demos all you want.. until they release actualgames running on the system, you cannot compare. Sorry, but it's notpossible.

Besides.. who cares about which system's graphics are better.. whichsystem is more powerful. I'm going to be buying a Dreamcast and aDolphin (the PSX2 may wait due to price tag rumors, which can't reallybe denied when looking at the 238mm/sq size.. however I will still getit), but I'm a gamer. I buy the systems because I am a gamer. I havetons of "failed" systems in my room.. some many people have never heardof (PC-FX, SMS and SMS2, and even Super Pong) but they all had at leasta few great games.

I just have to ask you people one question: does it really matter howpowerful a system is, if it has no good games to go along? When did itstop being about the games?!

- Brad Williams

"Average artists don't have to spend millions of dollars to create theirwork, and they don't necesserily have to devote their lives to it."

Then what about movies? Are they art? I consider movies an art form,and they fit the exact description given above.

Personally, I consider videogames an art form. It doesn't matter thatthey are being paid, it doesn't matter that they have to appeal to agreat amount of people. A painting made to appeal to many people isstill art.

Art, however, is netural. Just because something is art, doesn't meanit's good. I could take a shit on the ground, get a stick, swirl itaround, call it art, and I'd be right. I don't think anyone would wantit, but it's still art.

Videogames containt music, a story, and graphics. Any one of these alonewould be considered art. Yet, throw them together, and the issue isclouded. Are the graphics, polygonal or sprite-based, anywhere asdetailed as the Mona Lisa? Not a chance. Is the dialouge in Lunaranywhere near that in Macbeth? Hell no. Are the themes presented in FF7anywhere near as thought provoking as those in Brave New World? Definitely not. But the thing is, they COULD be.

The potential is there.

--Kupek

Kupek's Den

Well, I will say that the Internet RPG community has helped me empathize with Winsn Smith somewhat, but other than that it's mostly assailed me with petty and presumptuous whining. This isn't aimed at any of the GIA staff, by the way...

Now, does anyone here remember when FF4 or FF5 was your favorite RPG? As in, roughly, as soon as FF6 came out? Remember, FF6 was just a load of graphical flash disguising a poor soundtrack, a much easier and more dumbed-down game, and a much more linear experience. FF5 was what REAL RPGamers played.

Now that FF6 is "the pinnacle of substance" and FF7 is a weak game with pretty graphics... what's changed? Has FF6 become a better game since September 1997, or have attitudes changed? And why, incidentally, do none of the people here addressed seem to remember when FF5 or 4 was the "greatest RPG ever made?"

Observing the process, it's seemed to go like this:

1) FF7 is released.

2) A vocal minority of whiners attack it on websites.

3) FF7 is now a mediocre, or even poor game. The few thus rule the many, a minority opinion having spread to much of the fan base.

Will the Internet RPG fan base ever outgrow this, or will we take the way of the movie critics and deride every sequel that dares to do something its predecessor hadn't yet established?

--Matthew Schuele... again...