Not to mention that in the end, since Microsoft isn't directly selling Halo 3 to anyone, it isn't their responsibility to ensure that the game isn't sold to minors, is it? IANAL, so maybe such responsibility does exist in the law, but if so, that's ridiculous (imho). Common sense alone should tell us that game developers and publishers aren't responsible for what retailers do... that's akin to holding parents responsible for what their adult children do.
One could say that... but then again, one could've said the same thing about dual-layer DVDs when they became writeable. They were $10/disc back then too (took me 7 coasters to figure out my Optorite drive was faulty... ouch). The cost has come down, and now they're reasonable, it just takes time.
I do both, and I can easily see why people just want to play Guitar Hero. Guitar Hero is just plain fun, you don't even have to get up to expert level to have a lot of fun with it. Hell, the only reason I'm at expert level is because over the summer, my roommate and I had absolutely nothing better to do than play Guitar Hero constantly. But they really are two different experiences, and just because it's a blast to rock out on Guitar Hero doesn't mean you'd have fun playing a real guitar.
Re:Piracy is marker of immature market
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They did start going in this direction with Vista, and no one (as far as I know) likes it. The layman thinks it's too confusing, the geek (well, the Slashdot user, which isn't a very fair cross-section of geeks) just mocks Microsoft. How is taking the idea further going to benefit them?
No, I've dismissed it because I tried both games, and didn't like Starcraft. At all. It wasn't a bad game, just a thoroughly mediocre one. I thought it was way too rush-centric, I thought the AI was too damn hard, I thought the game didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't done in Warcraft 2. I still think all these things, btw. I merely pointed out that popularity, and you obviously disagree, is not necessarily indicative of quality. I don't dismiss Starcraft because of that fact, I tried it firsthand.
If you bought them at Best Buy, wouldn't they be retail, not OEM? Important distinction, for price reasons if nothing else. Also, if you have an OEM copy of XP, it has a full install disk. You don't have to wipe everything and reinstall, unsure about retail however.
As was recently pointed out on the WoW forums, that doesn't necessarily hold true. A poster there pointed out that WoW's popularity is not necessarily indicative of its quality... McDonald's is very popular, but they don't have what's generally thought of as "high quality" food. So, popularity really doesn't have to indicate quality.
Exactly. The point of the Botany Bay was to get rid of some criminals, not to send people's remains into space. So you're wrong in saying "That was the whole point of SS Botany Bay."
To each his own, I guess. Those things are all, to me, great features that their respective games brought. I'm also something of a Dawn of War fanboy, but meh. You play Starcraft, I'll play Dawn of War, we're both happy!
You know, Starcraft fanboys (not necessarily accusing you of being one) say this all the time, and it's so untrue. Starcraft (which, to be fair, I didn't like in the first place) is not a perfect game. In fact, the only improvement it has over Warcraft 2, gameplay-wise, is differentiation of the sides. It really is just Warcraft in space, no matter how much anyone said it wouldn't be that. And the game does not hold up to newer games, not by a long shot. Newer games have introduced things that were big steps for the genre (resurrectable heroes in War3, squad model in Dawn of War, the resource model used in Dawn of War and Company of Heroes, etc), which Starcraft, no matter how lovingly it is remembered, suffers for not having when compared to those games. Blizzard would be remiss to not include these improvements to RTS gameplay in its new game, fanboys be damned.
Also, have you seen some stills of Optimus Prime? He doesn't look like his cartoon incarnation at all, imo. I understand that done "properly", Optimus wouldn't go over so well in the movie... but come on, can they at least get the faceplate right? Not to mention that Optimus doesn't have flames, I'm sorry. Call me a purist, but he's only the most iconic character from that franchise, you'd think they'd REALLY WANT to get him right.
If you've ever broken a game disc, you either have kids, a pet that doesn't know to keep its nose out of that stuff, or you're horribly careless. If it's the first or second, that sucks. If it's the third, I have no sympathy. Personally, I prefer having the game tied to a disc... I've used Steam, it works ok, but it's definitely more hassle than straight-up physical media.
Because if there were, they'd be announcing those rather than "We've got 34 games coming up." I call BS on this statement. There's no reason they can't do both, and indeed, you make it sound like high-profile games aren't coming to the PS3. I guess FF13, GTA4, and MGS4 don't exist to you? Saying the PS3 doesn't have any spotlight games coming up is about as ridiculous as saying the same of the Xbox 360.
I'll get that "through my head" when you agree to get this through your head: There is a limited budget when developing a game. If you spend it ALL on graphics assets, you can't spend it on the game. There MUST be a balance between the two. Super Paper Mario took the opposite extreme. It used a 3D Vector Drawing engine to produce 2.5D graphics (they're really 3D, but you usually see them from one side) of a drawn nature. The engine isn't going to win any awards on photo-realism, but it does the job very nicely.
The money that the Intelligent Systems team didn't spend on graphics was then able to go to story line, scripting, level design, puzzle design, game variations, item variety, character design, etc. The result is a stunning example of a game that is nice to look at, but truly pulls its weight in the gameplay department. So you've never, ever played a game which had great graphics and great gameplay to boot? I feel bad for you if that is indeed the case. It doesn't sound like you accepted the GP's point at all: graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive. Some games, for example, don't need tons of new gameplay mixed in to give us what we expect. When the next version of UT comes out, the fans of the series know what they're getting into, gameplay-wise. The improvements in gameplay will be evolutionary, not revolutionary, but the improvement in graphics should be extreme. There's a good example of graphics trumping gameplay in terms of development time.
Not all games are an established FPS series, you'll say, and I agree. So for an even better example, I bring you a game straight from the same camp as your example: Final Fantasy VII. Like Super Paper Mario, it's an RPG. Unlike SPM, FF7 was hailed at the time, as I recall, for its stunning graphics, especially the CG cutscenes. FF7 is also (rightfully so, imo) hailed as one of the greatest RPGs of all time, if not the greatest RPG of all time, if not the greatest game of all time. It earns this praise for its story, and its gameplay, both of which are very endearing to people.
So, not just any game, but an RPG, like Super Paper Mario, which had great graphics, and great gameplay and story as well. You have one example of a game which is fun without cutting-edge graphics, but your point (or what seems to be your point) falls apart, because we can pull up example after example of games which are damn fun while still having great graphics.
To be fair, helping people over the phone, when they're completely clueless about computers, is one of the more difficult things I've had to do. Phone support can be hard in ideal conditions, but throw in a user who is very inexperienced... you're asking for trouble. Someone who is at such a beginning level of understanding truly needs to be shown, not talked to, imo (and I wouldn't be surprised if this held true for teaching someone other things besides computer skills).
Until Rvd. Falwell starts killing people en masse, he (or anyone else, for that matter) does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler as an example of what not to do.
I have a landline phone precisely because it's cheaper than any cell phone plan I can get, so why do cell phones appeal to low-income customers? Also, I have yet to find a cell phone plan that works like I want: I pay for minutes as I use them, just like a traditional landline phone. I don't talk on the phone much at all, so even the typical cheapest cell plan, at ~300 minutes and $30/month, is a huge waste for me. Thus, cell phones are out of the question until either a) they offer the service option I want, b) are more economical than landline phones, preferably both.
And no, I'm not over 30. I'm 22.
That's because they don't know what M$ does. They know that their computer sucks life more than anything else in their life but they don't know why or that things could be different. Oh, please. First of all, Windows isn't half as bad as you're giving it blame for. Second, even if Windows was the great Satan like you seem to be claiming it is, that article is the worst evidence you could provide, because with Windows 2k and later, it doesn't crash that much. The last time I saw a BSoD on my Windows machine was when I had faulty hardware.
Maybe you aren't serious, but if you are, you need to take your blatant anti-Microsoft bias and get out of here. I recognize that the Slashdot community tends to look poorly upon anything Microsoft does (until proven wrong, which can happen), but your statements take it to the next level.
The interesting thing, to me, about Final Fantasy games is how little the series' fans can agree on the quality of the games. I love FF8, I really do. Plenty of people hate it. I think FFX is the second-best game in the series, others in this discussion think it's horrible. I think FF6 is overrated, many fans fondly think of it as the best in the series. What is it that inspires us to think such widely varying things about these games?
To answer the original question: I play FF games for the story. I find the stories of the games to be rich and compelling (on balance), and it is the single biggest reason I play them.
I disagree that they'd be considered weak on story. I found the story of a fall from good to evil genuinely interesting. By contrast, I think the original trilogy has a terrible plot (hence, I laughed out loud when Lucas said Spider-Man 3 doesn't have much story, cause I think there are Vin Diesel movies with more plot than Lucas' original trilogy). Obviously, many disagree with me, so I'm not sure why I'm even putting my opinion out to be flamed by the masses, but it is my honest opinion that the plot of the prequels is vastly superior to the plot of the originals.
What the originals had, imo, was a nice sense of style. Lucas managed to capture the look and feel of the universe very nicely with very limited tools, and I respect him for that. As much as I like the prequels, the cantina in Mos Eisley feels a lot shadier than its equivalent on Coruscant, shown in episode 2 (just an example)... clearly technology isn't everything.
And who's defining "addictive"? What you're calling "addictive", I call a fun game. Therefore, the company that makes it is doing its job. It's not their fault if some gamers don't have a sufficient grip on reality.
So... are you ripping on WoW because some people take it too far? Because if so, I don't think that's very fair of you. I play WoW quite a bit (it's my main game these days), but I still have a job, a life, all those other good things that non-WoW players have. Clearly, both types of players exist, if it were the game's fault, shouldn't the people like me (the ones who play, enjoy the game a lot, but don't go overboard) not be in existence? Shouldn't we all be addicts?
To be fair, FF8 has "good guys" who utilize technology quite extensively. In FF7, FF9, and FFX, tech isn't evil either. There's a religious thing about tech in FFX, but the game's plot doesn't make tech out to be evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that in the end, since Microsoft isn't directly selling Halo 3 to anyone, it isn't their responsibility to ensure that the game isn't sold to minors, is it? IANAL, so maybe such responsibility does exist in the law, but if so, that's ridiculous (imho). Common sense alone should tell us that game developers and publishers aren't responsible for what retailers do... that's akin to holding parents responsible for what their adult children do.
One could say that... but then again, one could've said the same thing about dual-layer DVDs when they became writeable. They were $10/disc back then too (took me 7 coasters to figure out my Optorite drive was faulty... ouch). The cost has come down, and now they're reasonable, it just takes time.
I do both, and I can easily see why people just want to play Guitar Hero. Guitar Hero is just plain fun, you don't even have to get up to expert level to have a lot of fun with it. Hell, the only reason I'm at expert level is because over the summer, my roommate and I had absolutely nothing better to do than play Guitar Hero constantly. But they really are two different experiences, and just because it's a blast to rock out on Guitar Hero doesn't mean you'd have fun playing a real guitar.
They did start going in this direction with Vista, and no one (as far as I know) likes it. The layman thinks it's too confusing, the geek (well, the Slashdot user, which isn't a very fair cross-section of geeks) just mocks Microsoft. How is taking the idea further going to benefit them?
When my workplace starts looking like Doom 3, I'll just turn on the damn light switch.
No, I've dismissed it because I tried both games, and didn't like Starcraft. At all. It wasn't a bad game, just a thoroughly mediocre one. I thought it was way too rush-centric, I thought the AI was too damn hard, I thought the game didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't done in Warcraft 2. I still think all these things, btw. I merely pointed out that popularity, and you obviously disagree, is not necessarily indicative of quality. I don't dismiss Starcraft because of that fact, I tried it firsthand.
If you bought them at Best Buy, wouldn't they be retail, not OEM? Important distinction, for price reasons if nothing else. Also, if you have an OEM copy of XP, it has a full install disk. You don't have to wipe everything and reinstall, unsure about retail however.
As was recently pointed out on the WoW forums, that doesn't necessarily hold true. A poster there pointed out that WoW's popularity is not necessarily indicative of its quality... McDonald's is very popular, but they don't have what's generally thought of as "high quality" food. So, popularity really doesn't have to indicate quality.
Exactly. The point of the Botany Bay was to get rid of some criminals, not to send people's remains into space. So you're wrong in saying "That was the whole point of SS Botany Bay."
To each his own, I guess. Those things are all, to me, great features that their respective games brought. I'm also something of a Dawn of War fanboy, but meh. You play Starcraft, I'll play Dawn of War, we're both happy!
You know, Starcraft fanboys (not necessarily accusing you of being one) say this all the time, and it's so untrue. Starcraft (which, to be fair, I didn't like in the first place) is not a perfect game. In fact, the only improvement it has over Warcraft 2, gameplay-wise, is differentiation of the sides. It really is just Warcraft in space, no matter how much anyone said it wouldn't be that. And the game does not hold up to newer games, not by a long shot. Newer games have introduced things that were big steps for the genre (resurrectable heroes in War3, squad model in Dawn of War, the resource model used in Dawn of War and Company of Heroes, etc), which Starcraft, no matter how lovingly it is remembered, suffers for not having when compared to those games. Blizzard would be remiss to not include these improvements to RTS gameplay in its new game, fanboys be damned.
Also, have you seen some stills of Optimus Prime? He doesn't look like his cartoon incarnation at all, imo. I understand that done "properly", Optimus wouldn't go over so well in the movie... but come on, can they at least get the faceplate right? Not to mention that Optimus doesn't have flames, I'm sorry. Call me a purist, but he's only the most iconic character from that franchise, you'd think they'd REALLY WANT to get him right.
If you've ever broken a game disc, you either have kids, a pet that doesn't know to keep its nose out of that stuff, or you're horribly careless. If it's the first or second, that sucks. If it's the third, I have no sympathy. Personally, I prefer having the game tied to a disc... I've used Steam, it works ok, but it's definitely more hassle than straight-up physical media.
Not all games are an established FPS series, you'll say, and I agree. So for an even better example, I bring you a game straight from the same camp as your example: Final Fantasy VII. Like Super Paper Mario, it's an RPG. Unlike SPM, FF7 was hailed at the time, as I recall, for its stunning graphics, especially the CG cutscenes. FF7 is also (rightfully so, imo) hailed as one of the greatest RPGs of all time, if not the greatest RPG of all time, if not the greatest game of all time. It earns this praise for its story, and its gameplay, both of which are very endearing to people.
So, not just any game, but an RPG, like Super Paper Mario, which had great graphics, and great gameplay and story as well. You have one example of a game which is fun without cutting-edge graphics, but your point (or what seems to be your point) falls apart, because we can pull up example after example of games which are damn fun while still having great graphics.
To be fair, helping people over the phone, when they're completely clueless about computers, is one of the more difficult things I've had to do. Phone support can be hard in ideal conditions, but throw in a user who is very inexperienced... you're asking for trouble. Someone who is at such a beginning level of understanding truly needs to be shown, not talked to, imo (and I wouldn't be surprised if this held true for teaching someone other things besides computer skills).
Until Rvd. Falwell starts killing people en masse, he (or anyone else, for that matter) does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler as an example of what not to do.
I have a landline phone precisely because it's cheaper than any cell phone plan I can get, so why do cell phones appeal to low-income customers? Also, I have yet to find a cell phone plan that works like I want: I pay for minutes as I use them, just like a traditional landline phone. I don't talk on the phone much at all, so even the typical cheapest cell plan, at ~300 minutes and $30/month, is a huge waste for me. Thus, cell phones are out of the question until either a) they offer the service option I want, b) are more economical than landline phones, preferably both. And no, I'm not over 30. I'm 22.
Maybe you aren't serious, but if you are, you need to take your blatant anti-Microsoft bias and get out of here. I recognize that the Slashdot community tends to look poorly upon anything Microsoft does (until proven wrong, which can happen), but your statements take it to the next level.
To answer the original question: I play FF games for the story. I find the stories of the games to be rich and compelling (on balance), and it is the single biggest reason I play them.
I disagree that they'd be considered weak on story. I found the story of a fall from good to evil genuinely interesting. By contrast, I think the original trilogy has a terrible plot (hence, I laughed out loud when Lucas said Spider-Man 3 doesn't have much story, cause I think there are Vin Diesel movies with more plot than Lucas' original trilogy). Obviously, many disagree with me, so I'm not sure why I'm even putting my opinion out to be flamed by the masses, but it is my honest opinion that the plot of the prequels is vastly superior to the plot of the originals. What the originals had, imo, was a nice sense of style. Lucas managed to capture the look and feel of the universe very nicely with very limited tools, and I respect him for that. As much as I like the prequels, the cantina in Mos Eisley feels a lot shadier than its equivalent on Coruscant, shown in episode 2 (just an example)... clearly technology isn't everything.
And who's defining "addictive"? What you're calling "addictive", I call a fun game. Therefore, the company that makes it is doing its job. It's not their fault if some gamers don't have a sufficient grip on reality.
So... are you ripping on WoW because some people take it too far? Because if so, I don't think that's very fair of you. I play WoW quite a bit (it's my main game these days), but I still have a job, a life, all those other good things that non-WoW players have. Clearly, both types of players exist, if it were the game's fault, shouldn't the people like me (the ones who play, enjoy the game a lot, but don't go overboard) not be in existence? Shouldn't we all be addicts?
The flaw in your theory is that you're assuming programmers put comments in their code.
Yeah, man... would hate to not be able to buy some new game coming out.
To be fair, FF8 has "good guys" who utilize technology quite extensively. In FF7, FF9, and FFX, tech isn't evil either. There's a religious thing about tech in FFX, but the game's plot doesn't make tech out to be evil.