Slashdot Mirror
E3 - Microsoft, EA Go Live, Halo 2 Dated, Xbox Videophoned
Thanks to Yahoo! for reprinting a Microsoft press release revealing its major videogame-related announcements ahead of this year's E3 Expo in Los Angeles. Major among them is Electronic Arts' official support of the online Xbox Live service, long-awaited and previously rumored, so that "by the end of the year, 15 of EA's online-enabled console titles will be playable on Xbox Live." In addition, Bungie's much-anticipated Halo 2 is confirmed for Xbox release on November 9th, just as new hands-on multiplayer previews are appearing online, plus alleged Xbox Gran Turismo-beater, Forza Motorsport is announced, and a multi-person videophone service for Xbox Live is showcased, as well as an Xbox Live Arcade service featuring "casual games people love to play with their families... [including] 'Bejeweled'... and arcade favorites such as Namco's 'Dig Dug' and 'Galaxian'." Update: 05/11 06:26 GMT by S : There are also new Halo 2 screenshots via Bungie.net.
So anything from the company they paid so much for? Any word of a Perfect Dark sequel, a new Banjo game or a Conker follow up? Or hell, even something original? I was holding out hope that they were holding out for this E3.
God, I loved that company back in the days of the N64. What the hell happened? I'd like to blame it on Microsoft, as they are generally responsible for all things evil in the world, but the company hasn't really released a good game for this generation of consoles. I can see why Nintendo decided to take the money and run.
How is open source software going to counter this latest onslaught from Micro$oft?
Uh, we're talking games here so the answer is: it's not. At least not anytime soon.
Or you can buy any of a number of $20 USB webcams and hook it up to a Pentium II box and a screen for less than 50 bucks, total.
Xbox is no longer a value proposition for open source camps. It was a nice hobby, but honestly, there's a lot better things that people can be spending their time and money on. Leave the system to its games (which are pretty damn good now).
I wouldn't say neglected, just being brought into the fold. It was kind of like when force feedback debuted a few years back. At first it was a novelty, but then developers were like "Hey, we can use this to augment x, y, and z experience". Now you can't walk two feet without stepping over a controller with built-in force feedback.
If it's done *right* (and very few games have done this), single can complement multiplayer perfectly. A very good example is Project Gotham Racing 2 on Xbox. At first I was like "Eh, another racing game..." but as soon as I saw that you were always online, even when playing single player, I slowly became impressed with the design. No matter where you are in the game, you can always check out other players replays, how well you handled a track compared to others, or just play multiplayer. It's incredibly addictive because there's always an element of competition to draw you back.
That's why Nintendo's stance (avoiding online) seems so odd. They claim it's not ready for primetime. Clearly it is. Nintendo has made great efforts to introduce extrasensory experiences to their games (the Rumble Pak was the first really successful force feedback, the Game Boy/GameCube link is a nice touch [even if it forces people to buy more stuff]) but they're totally missing the ball on this one. They should be looking at it as yet another tool to augment gaming, rather than letting MS and Sony dig their heels in. Once they're in, neither company is going to let go easily.
And on a side note, does it bother anybody else when people refer to "wheels" as "rims"? A wheel is more than just a "rim", so why call it that?
Because usually they're talking about the rim specifically. A wheel = tire + rim. Not too many riceboys can even tell the difference between firestone and yokohama... but they know shiny!
Disclaimer, I don't own an xbox or xbox live, but I've played it a bunch. I've played a few games on Xbox live like Crimson Skies, Splinter Cell, RTCW and so on. I was skeptical at first, but it won me over quickly. The online buddy list and game invites work flawlessly, and very rarely do I see lag in game. Despite the drawbacks of live chat during game "dude I'm so stoned" "no way dude, so am I!" "PoWNED!", it actually works over DSL without a hitch. I see xbox LIVE as MS's iTunes Music store.
I read at -1 So you don't have to.
The online Myst unfortunately failed?
Uru was slated to the first truly revolutionary MMO (the first MMO being omitted from this category). It took place in a world deeply entrenched with lore, as noted by the guilds of PLAYERS who studied the architecture, mechanical workings, etc of Uru in beta. Every single one of the plot developments and technical difficulties was played out by the devs in character. The idea was so masterfully created that to roleplay, all a person would have to do would be to act like themselves (the characters were all people from earth coming down to visit the newly excavated D'ni).
It was going to be the first MMO based solely around non-combative gameplay, with an element of competition derived from playing games-within-a-game. The first truly exploration driven MMO. The first fully immersive MMO. The focus would not be on conquering the next level, either in terms of the next world or the next EXP bar, but on sucking all of the marrow out of a wonderfully detailed world, forming communities, and trying to decide the fate of D'ni.
Uru failed for a couple reasons. First, the technology wasn't in place at Ubi or wherever the servers were headquartered. 32 people playing simultaneously would cause game-breaking lag. Secondly, it was horribly promoted. No one really understood what Uru Live was about unless they participated, and too few were willing to participate in something they were hesitant about (as I initially was). Finally, I don't think that Ubi Soft had the resources to fund a project of the scope that would be necessary, as in a full-time team crafting new ages and playing characters in the world on a daily basis. Sadly, Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Uru and its other hallmark games (perhaps barring Splinter Cell) have not sold nearly as well as they should.
Yeah, GT's AI is pretty dull, but it's always felt like an extraneous feature to me, anyway - GT is all about mastering the driving system and adapting to the courses with a variety of vehicles, all of which have their own 'flavour'. This is the area GT has mastered and very few other games have approached. I daresay I could do without the other drivers in GT quite happily - in fact, I often play against my own time trial ghost, which I think is a lot more fun.
Similarly, the lack of damage is often mentioned in relation to GT, but again, it isn't important to the core of the game. Now there are great driving games which feature interesting AI and good damage simulation, but none of them, most people will agree, match up to GT as a driving experience.
To some gamers, GT will always seem a little dull, a little joyless - it depends what you're looking for. I appreciate being able to load up Project Gotham and launch into a kudos-grabbing show-off session, and I'll even head back to Destruction Derby 2 on the PSX for some auto carnage every now and again. But I also keep coming back to GT3, because when I'm heading through the shade of those trees, preparing to tackle the upcoming corner accoring to the specs of my car, I know that there's no other game like it. Forget the other cars, forget the fact that you can clip a barrier and not show a dent; it's all about your driving, and it has that covered completely.
I hear a lot of comments from friends that a particular racing game (on whatever platform) has "excellent and realistic handling" as they zoom around a racing circuit in a Porsche - but then I look in their driveway & see a boring saloon car and think to myself "but how do you actually know how realistic the handling is?"
I'm not a racing game nut though I've always liked the Need For Speed series on the PC - and while I've never driven a Porsche (to me a car is a piece of metal with for wheels, a CD player and air-conditioning!), I'd hope that the NFS - Porsche Unleashed game was "realistic" purely because it was limited to about 9 Porsche car models only and that EA had done their research before coding it.
I know the GT series is highly rated but, at the end of it all, entertainment value, not realism, is what makes a racing game good.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
We OSS users have the best of both worlds - since we're invariably people that care about what we run on our computers, we're normally knowledgeable enough to run OSS first but run Windows for all the stuff that OSS doesn't do.
You, like countless others, have fallen into the trap of believing that OSS is out to displace Microsoft and commercial software, entirely the worng viewpoint.
OSS is about having as much choice as possible, about using open standards and about having access to good software despite (possibly) not having enough money to buy commercial software - this only benefits commercial software houses because people get into the mindset of running free software, rather than pirated commercial software.
OSS games will never keep pace with commercial games simply because commercial games software houses have the budgets to hire graphics artists, animators and coders equivalent (sometimes) to the budgets of many movie producers - OSS games are dependent upon the free time given by the same people, obviously much smaller.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
OK, so the specs are a cut-down PC from 2 years ago. It's still $150. With $60 for a solderless mod chip, you can run any software you want. What PC are you going to build or buy for $420 that plays games as well as the Xbox can in its unmodded form? MAME and Bejeweled do not apply here, and remember to include the cost of Windows since most games will not come out for Linux. Also, remember that the Xbox has a GeForce-3 based card - onboard video isn't acceptable.
Not to mention other things - with a micro PC, you have to constantly worry about Windows updates, updates to your apps, drivers, crashes, and other various problems related to a computer. With an Xbox, all you do is plug it in and turn it on. No drivers. There are software updates but they are all compatible with each other and happen automatically. While I'm still wrestling with the best settings and config for my PC games, it's nice to be able to just plop in front of the sofa and throw in a disc and be playing in very little time. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a big PC gamer, but the simplicity of the Xbox is a big draw.)
I mean, basically the Xbox has everything any other console has going for it - the fact that it's similar to a PC is irrelevant for 95% of the people out there. Are they going to care that a $200 WalMart PC is going to have better specs in some regards then the Xbox? No - because you can't play Halo 2 on the WalMart PC. If you're looking to buy an Xbox solely to run Linux on it, then maybe that's not a wise decision, but other then that, I ask why *not* an Xbox?
My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.