Slashdot Mirror
Is Realism Destroying Video Games?
zdburke writes "An interesting article at the NYTimes looks at two poles in video game development: the quest for the real (think flight simulators and things like a boxing game's "facial damage engine") vs. the quest for the unreal, "elaborate world with its own regulations and peculiarities". The included PlayStation screenshot of Britney Spears may alone tip the balance in favor of the fantasy folks. It also mentions that RIT has a master's program in video game development."
Real, live, breathing, human girls prove to be more 'realistic' than their virtual counterparts. Story at 11.
Jesus Christ, I needed a NYTimes (free reg) article to tell me this? Please. This is like saying "real girls prove to offer more love than your curled fist." No shit. People will continue to play video games forever, but nothing will replace a walk ouside in the fresh air.
If you mean the "last true game companies" that make first-party games for their systems with recognizable mascots to sell them, then yes, except Sega isn't making hardware anymore. Otherwise, I'd like to know how you define a "true game company," and I'm sure Konami, Namco, Capcom, Square, Sony, Rockstar, UbiSoft, Naughty Dog, THQ, LucasArts, Midway, and hundreds of others would like to know (were they not busy making triple-A titles).
OK, this just sounds like fanboyism. Sega is out of the market because their marketting was full of crap, and their products were sub-par. (I'm sure there are slashdot readers here who would be happy to comment on how many defective units they've seen returned.) I'm not talking about games here; DreamCast, Genesis, Master System, even the Master Gear had some triple-A titles, but think of those systems: Sega has a really, really poor track record with promotion. (These are the people that brought us the Saturn, I mean, geez, look what they did with that.)
Nintendo fanboy now? Or just rabid anti-Sony/MS/Square? Now, one might consider some Square games to be "interactive movies" (although generally the people who say this are the ones who play about 5 hours of FFX and never really get into the game), but I've got a few PS2 games that are more than interactive movies:
The ones that I hilighted are probably the more recognizable titles of the system. None of these are "interactive movies," and they're all great games.
Now, I'm not anti-Nintendo by any means; I'm going to get a GCN sometime this summer most likely. They make great games; I want the latest Mario and Zelda, too. But remember they're not the only ones who make games for their system. Take the Gameboy Advance. Would you consider Golden Sun, Advance Wars, and Castlevania: Circle of the Moon "real" games? These weren't made by Nintendo (or at least not solely). What about the latest GBC Zeldas (Oracle of Ages and Seasons)? Dual Nintendo/Capcom branding. Nintendo is good, but they're not it.
Well, there are a lot of good titles lined up for the GameCube, so it's a good choice if you can only get one system. Fortunately Nintendo is going to make sure there are a decent lineup of RPGs for this system, too, after the N64.
To you, perhaps. Perhaps because they don't have recognizable mascots, they're "generic", but (at least with the PS2) there is, as I demonstrated above, a long list of games that makes the system worth purchasing. (I'm not an XBOX fan. I don't like MS. I couldn't name any games that are real system-sellers, either, nor am I going to pick my brain for any, either ;-).) The PS2 architecturally is about as far-removed from the PC as you can get, but you seem to mean branding and mascots. Actually this is an interesting point, because Sony seems to be the first company to have an enormously successful, market-leading system without such marketting necessities. This should imply to you that there's something else there that must be selling the system. (The games, perhaps?)
That's your call. You're the one playing the games. If you don't find any interesting on a platform, then you shouldn't buy it, because it's a waste of your money. If you need validation for your purchasing decisions, you'd better look elsewhere, though. I'm very happy with my "generic" PS2 and its "interactive movies", thank you. ;-)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Segas games arent selling, period,
They couldnt sell on Segas own dreamcast, they arent selling on the PS2, the only game which sold well was Sonic Adventure on the gamecube, that game sold well on dreamcast too.
Face it, Sega is as dead as SNK and Atari. Sega Wins? If you believe that, you believe SNK won, and Atari won, its all about game sales, and its harder to sell games on competiting systems, than on your own.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I'm not a fanboy of Sega, I'm just anti Sony.
Sony is like Microsoft, they use their money and hype to sell stuff, They bribe magazines to enhance their hype, Remember the 60 million polygons per second, hell magazines were saying DC was dead ever since PS2 was announced, you act like money cant bribe people and buy marketing?
Sega had less money, Sega got bullied out of the market, sorta like how Microsoft is trying to bully apple and redhat out of the market with their money.
Face it, Sega could have had the best system in the world (actually they did with dreamcast) and the best games (they DID have the best games), and good marketing (Their marketing wasnt that bad)
Theres absolutely no way in hell they are going to be able to out spend Sony, Sony can just buy more ads on more stations, even with shitty ads, they'll still be well known, Sony can afford to bribe third parties and gain support from the whole industry, Sony can afford to bribe magazines and get articles printed on how Sega is dead, dying, articles about 32x, Saturn printed,
thats what I call bullying, using your money to beat out a much smaller company, Sega was just out of their league with 2 billion going against 20 billion Sony, 10 billion Nintendo, 40 billion Microsoft.
Xbox has good games, lets list some, ok you are right i cant really list any "good" games, but theres some decent games
Sony has maybe a few good games, but mostly decent games.
Neither system has great games.
Sony didnt need a mascot or first parties to be successful because Sony has the money to bribe third parties and gain support.
Do you think all the third parties supporting PS2 and ditching Dreamcast was by accident? Do you think they ditched dreamcast because their games werent selling? (Soul Calibur from namco sold over a million copies!) Obviously thats not the reason.
The reason everyone ditched Sega is because Sega was a 2 billion dollar company, with no real business plan or even business sense, they were losing money on EVERY consolee they were selling, and they were in debt at the same time, Everyone KNEW Sega would be forced to pull out because Sega could not afford to SELL dreamcast period, in fact quotes from interviews with Sega's president who is now deceased has said Dreamcast launching was a complete accident, that Sega never had the money to launch it because they were in debt when they launched, this guy had to use his OWN money to pay for the launch, and his own money to keep selling DC, he was determined to make DC a success even if it took his last dime, This man however died and a month later DC died with him.
Sega is now a software company, their fanbase is mostly DC owners, who are now pissed off and wont buy their products, lets see 10 million DC owners, if half of them get a PS2, the other half a game cube, Sega's sales will be less because their market is segmented.
I think Segas biggest mistake now, and biggest mistake with the Dreamcast, too much innovation.
They should have released Sonic Adventure 1,2,3, Night, Virtua Fighter 4, and games they know will sell 1 million, Sega made the mistake of releasing too many new games (more games than people can buy)
having too many third parties (100 games made a year) spending $80 million dollars to make shenmue, spending hundreds of millions making games no ones ever heard of.
Segas a good company, but they have absolutely no business sense.
Nintendo I have more faith in, they create a few high quality games a year each which sell by the millions, they have a few GREAT first party teams and they make games for a specific purpose, to make as much money as possible.
Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, all of these games took the dying N64 and made it a profitable system.
Hopefully Microsoft and Sony dont push Nintendo out off the market, if Nintendo keeps with their routine, they have nothing to worry about even if their system were to come in 3rd they would still make a fortune.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
What prick modded this up ? 5 human beings executed in cold blood. This fscking smart arse cant think of anything better to say.
Curmudgeon