Slashdot Mirror
Goodbye, "Majestic"
fonixmunkee writes: "Ack, looks like EA is stopping the very cool, ground-breaking game 'Majestic.' The article is here. I got hooked on this from the very start, and in turn got a bunch of friends into it. It's cool to be out for a fancy dinner and have the game calling you threatening your life. Oh well, I'm sure a new spinoff will rise up."
The concept of a game that regulates how fast you can play it and then has a pricing system based on time periods rather than episodes struck me as an odd combination to start.
While the beginning plot was done rather well, describing a world where Majestic had started off as a game until things went horribly awry, it tried to do to much. To have a plot centered on a conspiracy is one thing; to include every alleged conspiracy of the twentieth century, from JFK to the Illuminati, from black helicopters to mind control, was a bit much.
By far the biggest problem was the bots. They spent a great deal of time and Real Video (emails web sites etc.) creating believable characters with distinct personalities to whom you could relate. Then you talked to them, and they have the IQ of slime mold. It was a little too free form for its own good.
sell your certainty and buy bewilderment
I dunno, sounds pretty uncool to me. The list of reasons is pretty long. First off, going on a first date to dinner and having to tell your girlfriend that you need to take a call from a video game would be pretty dorky. Second, I would have to guess somewhere in the message, it would let you know that it was the game calling, otherwise you might have a serious threat on your life. Case in point: "I am going to kill you, I am going to gut you like a stuck pig. Thanks for playing Majestic." I don't know, the whole idea just sounds really, REALLY cheesy.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
I find it very bizarre that the Majestic team attempts to vindicate their efforts by repeatedly referring to their game as "critically acclaimed."
Majestic got a lot of buzz and ink for being a novel concept, but in terms of actual critical reviews it was universally slammed by the gaming press. Since the Majestic team has such a short memory, they can find some reviews here and here.
Like the gaming press, I really wanted to like this game, but I could not be dragged into paying $120 a year for an elaborate "click here to continue the poorly acted movie" setup that lasts a few hours each month.
Their right in one respect: the game definitely does "play you", not the other way around. Actually EA is playing you. Charging money and then forcing you to sit through ads on the game's main homepage -- kind of takes the suspense out of things, huh?
Ever since EA started partnerning with companies like AOL their quality has shot to hell. Yes, "let's make a game identical to a previous one, provide even more unrealistic action, beef up the graphics (because that's the only thing we do anyway) and advertise a song by calling it SSX Tricky. People will love it!"
"How hedonistic and selfish is it to spend your money and your time entertaining yourself by reading and posting to slashdot instead of using those same resources to do some good in the world?"
Why are there so many people that think it should be illegal to enjoy themselves? They bitch all the time about how the Republicans / the Government / Micro$oft / the RIAA / etc. are attempting to control their lives, and then you claim that everyone should devote all their time and money towards the causes that you deem of most importance.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should be selfish pigs thinking only of ourselves. But your own quality of life is important as well, and no one ought to begrudge someone the opportunity to enjoy themself.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
It's not capitalism in itself that is a problem.
I do not know majestic, so I'm going to speak in general terms about all media and cultural activities.
It just shows that culture cannot ever fully be run by for-profit companies. Countries need at least some sort of government backing for cultural activities that isn't profitable, because culture and media isn't necessarily better, just because it is profitable.
An example is BBC, which creates some extraordinary stuff that would never have been created in a for-profit company because the income would not justify the costs.
Actualyl, if you had companies owned by the state you'd have state capitalism. This is what the Soviet Union was (not communism, as much as it wanted to be.) I'm sure you remember how well that worked for Russia. I'd rather take the lesser evil of American-style capitalism than state capitalism anytime.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
I know. YHBT. I suppose you don't have to say it.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?