Now let's talk about innovation. Apple is the poster child for tech innovation; it releases one groundbreaking product after another. But let's get beyond Apple. I challenge you to name another tech company that innovates like Apple--with game-changing technologies like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad. Google certainly doesn't fit the bill--after its original search engine and ad platform, it hasn't invented anything earth shattering. Yes, Google did develop a nice email system and some mapping software, but these were incremental innovations.
Groundbreaking products? Game-changing technologies? The iPod is an mp3 player, iTunes is a media player, the iPhone is crap with apps, and the iPad is an over-sized joke (replacement for a laptop? please.). The fact that the author dismisses Google's mapping software as an "incremental innovation" is fucking hilarious. Google's mapping software is far more impressive than all four of those Apple products combined.
Acting as a middleman between business owners and graphic designers, the 99designs site hosts contests in which clients post their needs--website design, logos, print packages--and designers compete to fill them. Instead of bidding for the job, designers submit finished work tailored to the client specifications in the contest listing.
Anyone who is stupid enough to spend their valuable time crafting something like this for someone they've never met, without guarantee of payment, deserves to both waste their time and not be paid. Unfortunately, spec work hurts everyone involved. The client usually ends up getting something that really just isn't right, the designer usually doesn't get a job or any follow-up work, and by doing spec work, the value of that industry's services is diminished because new clients think they can just throw their criteria out there and get free results.
http://www.no-spec.com/ is a great resource that addresses the topic in detail from many different angles.
Rod Cousens doesn't fully understand the issue.
on
DRM vs. Unfinished Games
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My answer is for us as publishers to actually sell unfinished games
I'm pretty sure that's what most of them are doing now. Things certainly are nothing like they were in the 8-, 16-, and even 32-bit days; back then, it was a little hard to find a truly shitty game and even the mediocre games were worth at least one play-through. Nowadays, they are so focused on fighting these different wars ("piracy", second-hand market, etc.), making games look good, and turning an easy profit that I actually think they forgot what goes into making a good game. There are still some truly great games here and there, but overall the bar has been lowered.
Personally, I don't think people really started pirating until after getting burned too many times by greedy publishers looking to milk their cash cows. So, instead of being smart and going back to making games that are actually worth paying money for, they waste all this money on stupid shit. As a result, people are a lot more careful with their money when considering purchasing a game and a lot of them don't see a problem with trying before buying, even if it is technically illegal, because they no longer have good reason to trust these publishers..
Backwards compatibility would be nice in this case because of the fucking "disc read error" problem that plagued the original PS2. Nobody wants to have to replace a console because it was poorly manufactured and no longer works. I mean, every older console I have (besides the PS2) still works. People in this situation are basically left with a few options; buy a PS2 Slim, buy a gimped PS3 that actually is compatible with some PS2 games (which you hopefully own), or buy one of the decked-out PS3s and forget about your PS2 games. Personally, I've been against buying a new PS2 slim or PS3 because I don't want to support Sony and all the foul-smelling fecal matter they've excreted into the market the past few years. When Sony starts making a good, affordable product again, I might change my view on the matter. Until then... so long, PS2 games!
I'm also never going to pay for the "privilege" of playing online.
Will you also refuse to pay the one broadband ISP for your area to unblock inbound ports so that you can play online?
I'm pretty sure he means he's not going to pay a second company to let him use their online service, since he's already paying for internet access to begin with. Honestly, high-speed internet should just be assumed by this point.
If the current crop of systems/companies piss me off enough, I'll just give them all the middle finger and go back and find the games I missed
Unless the games you missed are unsupported in modern operating systems. Sure, DOSBox can run MS-DOS games, but games for Windows 3.1 don't run on 64-bit Windows, games for Windows 95 or 98 that didn't consider NT 4 have problems under Windows XP and Windows 7, and Apple no longer sells anything that can run games for Mac OS 6 through 9. Sure, the Retrode can copy Atari 2600, Genesis, and Super NES carts to your computer for use in Stella, Gens, and Snes9x, but a lot of classic consoles remain with no convenient UMG v. MP3.com-compliant cart dumper.
Considering he said he OWNS "a gaming PC, an NES, SNES, Genesis, Sega CD, Sega Saturn, Playstation, Playstation 2, GameCube, Wii, GBA, DS, and PSP", it's pretty safe to say he's not interested in emulating games for those consoles. I'd wager he's probably going to try E-Bay for those older titles that he missed.
"Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."
Wrong. Stupid, as well. I've experienced video games as art (multiple times) long before you made this ignorant comment. I guarantee most other gamers will say the same.
The Same Egotistical Blowhard says:
"No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."
I could name quite a few, but the one classic that comes to mind is Final Fantasy 6. Good game, Roger. By the way, why did you mention poets twice in that quote? You must be going senile (hence your failed argument).
To be honest, I think Roger is just trolling... I mean, nobody can be that stupid and ignorant, right? Right?
I respect that you want to respect the licenses of others; that's a noble thing to say, especially from someone on the open source side of things. However, since we live in a corrupt society (and don't mistake it for anything but), you need to take a step back and examine whether or not those licenses deserve to be respected. Just because someone chooses an extremely restrictive license for "their" intellectual property doesn't mean it should be respected. Everything we use today, whether it is language, clothing, housing, or pretty much anything else you can think of, was based off an idea that somebody else had. Most of these former ideas were in existence before copyright, but I doubt their creators would have wanted to bleed their neighbors dry for the use of said idea.
Given your viewpoint, I can understand why you might be irritated that your open source pals appear to be hypocrites. However, since you don't seem to realize how corrupt our social structure actually is, I can't blame you for your misguided view. The whole topic here is really just more proof of how outdated our social structure is. For example, just look at any popular music. People who are actually trained in music nearly always dislike popular music. Why? Because, it sucks ass. Sure, there are a few songs here and there throughout the years that might stick in your head, but what songs can you point out that truly stand the test of time... songs that people today would listen to and appreciate? I bet you can't name any. That's because popular music artists aren't in it for the sake of art or for the sake of sharing their creation with others. They are simply in it for the money.
If you want to call anything "evil" (which is just another idea conjured up by the human mind), take a long, critical look at the concept of money in our world today and you'll see you're looking into the soul of the devil, if such a thing even exists.
You bring up an interesting point I'd like to add on to. You said, "Most products sold nowadays suck." This is absolutely true, but I want to explain why this is so. Companies are always striving to achieve profit. This is their sole motivation and every other conflicting interest is generally ignored. Since this is the case, they are always trying to balance their budget in such a way that their profits are maximized. What this usually leads to is shoddy products, because the company cut corners. The company uses less-than-desirable materials to build their product, designs the product to look cool (instead of having the design provide more functionality or add to the quality of the product in some way), and tries to cram as many "features" into the software before the deadline is up, often resulting in buggy software and not-fully-realized functionality. Clearly, most consumers would stray far, far away from a product like this, but that's where advertising comes into play. Companies are allowed to basically lie about their product to you on television, which might trick you into wasting your hard-earned money on it, and then you get screwed over by their customer service (not always the case, but sometimes the hassle is just not worth it).
As you can see, this process generates a lot of waste. People want products that last a lifetime, but companies make products that either break or become outdated in a relatively short amount of time. As a result, people are always buying the latest and greatest while their old products are sitting in a landfill somewhere. This process is called "cyclical consumption" and it is built into the social system. The more cyclical consumption going on, the more money there is circulating in the economy. Companies have no incentive to make products that last a lifetime, because it would hurt their profits.
In a saner world, products would be built to their peak technological efficiency and made from the longest-lasting, most durable materials. Cities themselves would be designed in such a way that everything about them was extremely efficient, with many aspects of the city serving more than one purpose simultaneously. Science and technology would be at the forefront of our concerns, instead of being hindered by monetary politics. Energy would be harnessed from non-polluting sources. Everything in our current day and age is about money, but money is not what it's about. This is the problem and until more of us start to realize this, social progress will be extremely slow. For more information regarding what I've just talked about, look up The Zeitgeist Movement. There is a ton of information on their website. You can also view a couple videos they've released here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Technology is nice and all, but if it ain't fun to play then who gives a damn? Granted, if a game utilizes new technologies in order to create a unique gameplay experience, then all is well. The problem is, most of them don't. It seems like the article is mainly looking at FPS games where you can blow up the environment. SNORE.
Unless the technology complements the gameplay experience, then all you have in your hands is boring tech demo with some re-hashed gameplay on the side. I couldn't care less if the debris from whatever I just blew up bounces and reacts in a true-to-life fashion. Now, if whatever it was I blew up allowed me to reach some hidden area of the level, crushed a group of enemies, or helped me solve a tricky puzzle, I would probably find it more interesting.
I still think one of the best use of physics in a game was the ability to kick zombie heads around in Blood (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_(computer_game)). Okay, so maybe it didn't add to the gameplay like I was just bitching about, but it was really fun! I think there was even a level that had a soccer field and you could get access to a Life Seed if you kicked a zombie head into one of the goals. Damn, that game was awesome.
Remember the days when games were abundant and didn't consist of 99% dog shit?
*points to the ET Atari debacle* I personally don't.
Look! It's Mr. Historian and his painfully irrelevant historical reference!
Mr. Historian, as you may or may not know, the "ET Atari debacle" is obviously NOT what I am referring to when I mention a period of time during which video games flourished. For you to bring this up in reply to my comment makes me think you are either unaware of a time period where video games flourished or you believe the "ET Atari debacle" is representative of the overall quality and abundance of video games throughout history. Either way, you're retarded.
You know, I have to hand it to you, Mr. Historian. You thought you were pretty clever in mentioning the "ET Atari debacle", as if nobody's ever heard of it, and that you'd sound smart by doing so. By mentioning this event, you hoped it would somehow invalidate my rhetorical question. Unfortunately, you failed miserably and that is why I am writing this post. You see, by answering "no" to my rhetorical question and pointing out the "ET Atari debacle" as your reasoning, you effectively used that one period of time as evidence that there was never a time when video games thrived. You basically disagreed that there was ever a point in time during which video games thrived and, in fact, claimed that the "ET Atari debacle" is proof. That's just... amazing. Amazingly stupid.
Next time, instead of disagreeing with a person and providing some ancient event as a reference, try to, you know, contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, just don't post anything.
P.S. To the Sony fanboys who modded grandparent "flamebait" -- the truth hurts, doesn't it?
This is just more proof of how inept Sony has become. They've completely lost touch with their user base and at this point it appears that they are just trying to squeeze every last cent out that they can. Remember the days when games were abundant and didn't consist of 99% dog shit?
Sony is one of the worst offenders with draconian EULA's. I am not surprised by this. They don't want to have people creating their own content to own their own content. They want to own our content.
I learned a long time ago to just say no to Sony.
Agreed a million times over. In addition, it really boggles my mind how so many have raved about this game's originality when there really isn't anything new about it. It just goes to show how massive amounts of hype can trick idiots into believing something is worth their time and/or money.
Oh, and I'd also like to point out how hilarious I think it is that Sony can't seem to get anything right. First, they release a crappy overpriced console while trying to copy at the last minute things that XBox and Wii were doing / had done. Now, they have this super-hyped game with a level editor, A LEVEL EDITOR FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHOOPTY-FUCKING-DOO, and they want to claim ownership of everything any of their consumers create. I can't think of any other company in history that's released a level editor with their game and tried to do that... and if you can name one, I'll bet it didn't end well for them.
I thought TFA was going to contain a list of some of the mods that have made the biggest and most enjoyable impact on gaming, but instead all I saw was the same stuff I see in my toilet after dropping my friends off at the pool. Seriously, the author who wrote this article, James Matson, must live under a rock in the middle of nowhere. There are several mods on the list that aren't even finished and most of the mods on that list just plain suck. Where is the list of mods that have made THE BIGGEST AND MOST ENJOYABLE IMPACT ON GAMING? Where are the Duke Nukem 3D and Quake II mods? What about Warcraft III? Team Fortress? What about total conversions? This article is a big letdown -- I was hoping to see some of the old mods I used to play and forgot about. Besides the painfully obvious fact that most mods on this list aren't worth mentioning, the author himself even admits that one of the mods might be crap:
Besides, it's the modified Crysis engine, even if it's crap it'll be very, very pretty crap. Did we just type that?
Crap is crap, no matter how pretty it is. I don't know about you guys, but I don't play with crap.
In terms of gameplay, I agree that creativity was a little bit stifled. Depending on what kind of creature you wanted, you had to choose between a small subset of parts that had the correct stats for that kind of creature. But, this is an evolution simulation and, as such, you don't choose pieces just because they look cool. However, you can still place those pieces anywhere on your creature and there really is a lot of flexibility with that. Also, I am just curious... does it matter where you place the pieces? For instance, if you have a carnivore, does it matter if you put that spur-looking thing where the creature looks as though it could actually attack with it, or is it just sufficient enough to place it on your creature?
That said, I think that the creature editor on its own is incredibly flexible and revolutionary. I personally suck at drawing things. I can imagine all sorts of cool-looking creatures, but when it comes to putting it on paper, I'm useless. With the creature creator, I can make tons of different looking creatures (granted they won't look exactly like what I have in my mind) in a pretty painless manner in a relatively short amount of time. This is great because now I can think of a creature, come up with some really rough sketches, make an interpretation in the creature creator, and then be able to provide an artist with plenty of material to work from.
Conserve ammo and run past enemies. You don't have to kill everything in RE (I assume we're talking about the original one) and, in fact, you're pretty much doomed if you do try to kill everything. RE had a lot of suspenseful moments which didn't involve the player worrying about ammo management. Also, being the game that kicked off the survival-horror genre, its not surprising that there are some tedious elements (such as the controls and camera angles, for one)... everything has to start somewhere:)
In case you're talking about RE4, I'm just not sure how you ever had ammo problems, unless you're a bad shot. As for those biological scythe whips.. flash grenades are your friend!
Now that you've clarified exactly what your definition of depth is, and I don't believe it coincides with the original poster's definition, I have to say there are things I agree and disagree with.
First, I understand the point you're trying to convey. Coming up with clever tactics and using different strategies against different opponents in order to defeat them does indeed add depth to a game and can be very rewarding for the player. And, yes, while there may be an infinite number of ways that a match can unfold, that does not give a game infinite depth. The problem arises after a player has mastered the reflex and tactical aspects of the game. While some may still be inclined to keep playing, learning, and trying to be the best, it's inevitable that most players will simply become bored. I've personally logged thousands of hours on Smash Bros. Melee and, as much as I enjoyed playing it in the past, I've simply played it too much. It's not that I have grown to dislike the game, but it just doesn't keep my interest anymore. I've done everything there is to do in that game and now it's become boring to me.
Second, I want to clarify how people (or at least myself) become bored with these games. For this example, it doesn't matter what game I'm talking about, just imagine that it is a well-made game. You start out by figuring out the controls. That doesn't take too long, but it's not particularly fun since you're probably getting smoked while doing so. Once you have the controls mapped to muscle memory, you can focus on how to best bring your opponent down. Players usually aren't aware of their surroundings once they are in this phase of learning, because they are concentrating solely on the opponent. It takes a really long time to master this phase, because you have to play tons of matches against opponents of varying difficulty levels... in other words, you have to practice your ass off. Eventually, fighting an opponent becomes second nature and the player is now able to focus on other things going on during the match, such as a weapon or health container that spawned on the other side of the map. However, the player cannot defeat every opponent, so more practice is needed. This time around, the player isn't focusing on pressing the right button at the right time, but rather on formulating strategies to counter the opponent's strategies. There is a LOT going on at this phase of learning and it takes a lifetime to master (most will never master it). The problem is that the improvement gains are so minuscule and the effort required is so gigantic that at some point, most people will just give up. Yeah, they could sit there for the next few years and become the best fighting game player in the world, but in the end they really have nothing to show for themselves other than the fact that they just wasted the past few years of their life.
What I personally find boring about these games is the gameplay itself. It takes quite awhile for these games to become boring for me, but they all eventually do. Once I've played a game enough, I start to realize that everything I do in that game is basically the same. I fight, I use my tactics and strategy, my opponent uses his tactics and strategy, we both react to each other the entire match, someone loses and someone wins. Game over. I know every map inside and out, I know every character's moves, I know what people typically do with certain characters, and I know how certain people play. I've basically seen and done everything there is to do and I'm done with it. Want to keep me playing? Give me more content.
Before I wrap this up, there's one game I would like to mention that did a very great job of keeping things fresh. That game is Quake II. What kept this game so interesting and fun to play was the continuous introduction of new game modes and levels. Vanilla QII was awesome, but it got boring. It's been awhile, but I believe Vanilla QII had Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, and Capture the Flag. Over the years, more and more ga
Not to put words in parent's mouth, but by depth I believe he was referring to the limits of the gameplay itself (and perhaps story and characters). While I agree that fighting games have a lot of re-playability, they don't necessarily have a lot of depth. Don't get me wrong. Sure, the game is very entertaining at first -- you learn the controls, then you learn special moves, then you learn some strategies, but once you get to the point where your improvements only increase ever so slightly, the game essentially becomes very repetitive. You end up doing the same basic thing without improving your skill enough to be meaningful.
However, this lack of depth is not necessarily a negative point. In fact, a lot of the best fighter games (and other genres) have very basic stories and characters so that all of the focus can be placed on the gameplay. In a fighter game, that is probably the most important thing to have done right. That said, I still think it is very important for any game to have an intriguing story and characters. Why? Because, once you get to the point where you have pretty much maximized your skill level in the game, the only things left to keep you entertained are the story, characters, and music.
Take the Super Smash Bros. series for instance (Brawl in particular). The gameplay is pretty easy to pick up and incredibly hard to master. You will eventually get to the point where the victor is always determined by the smallest margin (or by pure luck if items are turned on). There is so much extra stuff crammed into the game that you can constantly find new things to do or look at or listen to once you've mastered or become bored with the gameplay. Then, of course, there are unlockables (hidden character and stages), as well as additional game modes.
This brings me to an all-encompassing point regarding videogames. Games need to have a lot of content! Period! So you've just finished working on your awesome game engine and now you're putting the finishing touches on the gameplay. Well let me ask you this. Who's going to play your game once they tear through the single-player and find out there's nothing left to do? Who's going to appreciate your beautiful game engine when the only way to do so is to play through a campaign they've already beaten? Who's going to have positive memories of your game if they spent $50-$60 on it for a mere 6 hours of gameplay? I hope the answer is obvious.
Of course, before putting content in your game you need to have a solid base to work from. Your gameplay needs to be tight and original, as well as challenging (but not quite impossible). Your setting, story, and characters need to be engrossing. Your GUI cannot confuse or hassle the player ever. Once you have that crap taken care of, THEN you can start putting in as much content as possible. Think back to the days of Quake and Duke Nukem 3D. Okay, sure, Duke3D was pretty much one-of-a-kind when it came out (let's ignore Doom for the moment), so that is probably a main reason people played it and kept playing it. But you also have to consider the amount of content that game had. There were tons of levels, including single-player, cooperative, and deathmatch. There was also a ton of interactivity, stuff that had never been seen in a game before. But I think the biggest thing that kept Duke3D going (or any other FPS around that time) was the inclusion of a level editor (and subsequent releases of expansion packs). Quake 2 took it a step further by allowing people to develop their own mods. So not only have you provided your customers with tons of content to keep them entertained for many, many hours, but now you've given them the tools to create their own levels, art, and game modifications, which in turn will be shared with the community!
This brings me to one last point regarding videogames. If you need additional content, including a level editor and modding tools along with your game will provide it with long-lasting content generati
Actually, that's exactly what I did. See the text you quoted, where I said the trailer was great.
I disagree. You broke the cinematic into two parts: the first two thirds and the last third. The distinction you make is that the prior is "common" and the latter is "once again great". The distinction in the cinematic itself between your two parts is when Arthas unleashes the undead dragon and the army below is shown. That leads me to believe that the difference to you is the boring 'Arthas walking around Northrend' half versus the exciting 'undead dragon breaks free and flies over the undead army below' half.
What I'm saying is that you need to look at the first half as a precursor to the second half. The second half might stand well on its own, but it is much more effective with the first half preceding it. For example, if you read a well-written novel, you (hopefully) wouldn't think lesser of it because the only exciting part was when the protagonist killed the bad guy. The way you've described your opinion of the cinematic is akin to thinking lesser of the aforementioned novel because the introduction wasn't exciting enough. It's an introduction -- it's not meant to be action packed, although it certainly can be. Granted, the two mediums are drastically different in terms of length, but the concept still applies. Even in the War3 cinematic the action splices in the introduction are short (and this again intertwines the introduction with the development).
With that said, I have to agree that the War3 cinematic is more enticing than the WOTLK cinematic. However, to perhaps offer some reason why "what they are offering isn't eclipsing the competition like it used to", I believe the WOTLK cinematic was directed more towards their current player base, as opposed to attracting new players (at 10 million I hope they don't think they need more players). In addition, we are only talking about one cinematic here, so it is not entirely representative of "what they are offering". If you watch the original WoW cinematic (URL:http://media.worldofwarcraft.com/movies/video_loader/wow_video.htm?vid=wow-intro_en&dir=movies/wow_intro&rating=wow), you will probably find it to be quite enticing, as it was geared towards attracting consumers.
Well, enough rambling from me. I hope I've explained myself clearly enough. I'll see you all in the Duke Nukem Forever official cinematic thread.
Okay, braid is amazing. What I want to know is when more expensive games with bigger budgets will stop sucking.
My guess is that will happen when the majority of video game consumers stop considering good graphics to be the only factor in determining what makes a good game (and by extension, quit wasting money on games whose sole selling point is amazing graphics). Only then will the business model used for most big-budget games become antiquated.
The first two thirds of this new cinematic was just, "Pretty, but... common". The last third pulled it out, and it's once again great.
For a three-minute-long cinematic, I find that statement to be misguided. You need to judge the cinematic as a whole. What that statement basically says to me is that every scene that is not packed with action is "common". Interesting. Let's just ignore the incredible graphics and eerie music for a second and focus on the story presented in this cinematic (which is quite short).
Yes, the first half to two-thirds of the movie aren't packed with action, but that is often the case with storytelling. Usually you have your introduction, development, climax, and resolution, but in this case you have the introduction, which is intertwined with the development, and then the climax (which is the "good part" from your perspective). The first half builds up to the "good part" and, because of that, it makes that part much more worthwhile.
To contrast this a little bit, I also watched the Warhammer Online cinematic (http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/home/flash/WAR_cinematic_08.html). This one has about a minute-long introduction, then the rest is just action with a climactic part at the end (where this dragon bursts through the gate). To be honest, this one became boring rather quickly and the climax was not as strong as it could have been. The graphics are great and each scene is presented well, but the story doesn't develop nicely. The transition from the introduction to the action part starts off nicely, but after about thirty seconds or so you realize that it has plateaued and doesn't really go anywhere until the climax. They keep showing these different combat situations between characters the viewer doesn't have any attachment to and then they slow the action for a few seconds before the climax, which fails to deliver. The problem is that the action was already at a pretty high point, so the climax didn't have much room to increase in intensity.
I have to go ahead and give the nod to WOTLK as the better cinematic of the two.
I think a lot of that stems from the desire to keep the focus on bashing monsters' brains in. In tabletop games, you have all the time in the world to ponder your next move. In a game like Diablo, you have to act quickly or become "Ahh... Fresh meat!". Although I wouldn't mind a little more complexity to the way a character's health is calculated, I would be disappointed and perhaps a little agitated if it had a negative impact on my time spent killing things.
Could it be a little more realistic? Yes. Do I want it to be? No. In a real-time video game, trying to make gameplay elements too realistic can destroy the fun of the game, and that's NO GOOD! On the other hand, in a turn-based strategy game, more realistic gameplay elements can enhance the fun of the game. All in all, I think we can expect another mind-blowing, more-addictive-than-crack, FUN masterpiece from the brains at Blizzard and I can't wait.
It's new for the Diablo series. I know this is/., but try to understand the context in which phrases like that are placed, rather than rant about something silly like that.
You may be interested to know that there is a relatively recent Duke3D side-scroller called Manhattan Project. Being a big fan of the two original side-scrolling Dukes, this game brought back a lot of good memories. You should check it out, I think there's a demo you can download off the 3D Realms website.
Slashdot Mirror
Now let's talk about innovation. Apple is the poster child for tech innovation; it releases one groundbreaking product after another. But let's get beyond Apple. I challenge you to name another tech company that innovates like Apple--with game-changing technologies like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad. Google certainly doesn't fit the bill--after its original search engine and ad platform, it hasn't invented anything earth shattering. Yes, Google did develop a nice email system and some mapping software, but these were incremental innovations.
Groundbreaking products? Game-changing technologies? The iPod is an mp3 player, iTunes is a media player, the iPhone is crap with apps, and the iPad is an over-sized joke (replacement for a laptop? please.). The fact that the author dismisses Google's mapping software as an "incremental innovation" is fucking hilarious. Google's mapping software is far more impressive than all four of those Apple products combined.
Acting as a middleman between business owners and graphic designers, the 99designs site hosts contests in which clients post their needs--website design, logos, print packages--and designers compete to fill them. Instead of bidding for the job, designers submit finished work tailored to the client specifications in the contest listing.
Anyone who is stupid enough to spend their valuable time crafting something like this for someone they've never met, without guarantee of payment, deserves to both waste their time and not be paid. Unfortunately, spec work hurts everyone involved. The client usually ends up getting something that really just isn't right, the designer usually doesn't get a job or any follow-up work, and by doing spec work, the value of that industry's services is diminished because new clients think they can just throw their criteria out there and get free results.
http://www.no-spec.com/ is a great resource that addresses the topic in detail from many different angles.
My answer is for us as publishers to actually sell unfinished games
I'm pretty sure that's what most of them are doing now. Things certainly are nothing like they were in the 8-, 16-, and even 32-bit days; back then, it was a little hard to find a truly shitty game and even the mediocre games were worth at least one play-through. Nowadays, they are so focused on fighting these different wars ("piracy", second-hand market, etc.), making games look good, and turning an easy profit that I actually think they forgot what goes into making a good game. There are still some truly great games here and there, but overall the bar has been lowered.
Personally, I don't think people really started pirating until after getting burned too many times by greedy publishers looking to milk their cash cows. So, instead of being smart and going back to making games that are actually worth paying money for, they waste all this money on stupid shit. As a result, people are a lot more careful with their money when considering purchasing a game and a lot of them don't see a problem with trying before buying, even if it is technically illegal, because they no longer have good reason to trust these publishers..
Long story short... MAKE BETTER GAMES!
Backwards compatibility would be nice in this case because of the fucking "disc read error" problem that plagued the original PS2. Nobody wants to have to replace a console because it was poorly manufactured and no longer works. I mean, every older console I have (besides the PS2) still works. People in this situation are basically left with a few options; buy a PS2 Slim, buy a gimped PS3 that actually is compatible with some PS2 games (which you hopefully own), or buy one of the decked-out PS3s and forget about your PS2 games. Personally, I've been against buying a new PS2 slim or PS3 because I don't want to support Sony and all the foul-smelling fecal matter they've excreted into the market the past few years. When Sony starts making a good, affordable product again, I might change my view on the matter. Until then... so long, PS2 games!
I'm also never going to pay for the "privilege" of playing online.
Will you also refuse to pay the one broadband ISP for your area to unblock inbound ports so that you can play online?
I'm pretty sure he means he's not going to pay a second company to let him use their online service, since he's already paying for internet access to begin with. Honestly, high-speed internet should just be assumed by this point.
If the current crop of systems/companies piss me off enough, I'll just give them all the middle finger and go back and find the games I missed
Unless the games you missed are unsupported in modern operating systems. Sure, DOSBox can run MS-DOS games, but games for Windows 3.1 don't run on 64-bit Windows, games for Windows 95 or 98 that didn't consider NT 4 have problems under Windows XP and Windows 7, and Apple no longer sells anything that can run games for Mac OS 6 through 9. Sure, the Retrode can copy Atari 2600, Genesis, and Super NES carts to your computer for use in Stella, Gens, and Snes9x, but a lot of classic consoles remain with no convenient UMG v. MP3.com-compliant cart dumper.
Considering he said he OWNS "a gaming PC, an NES, SNES, Genesis, Sega CD, Sega Saturn, Playstation, Playstation 2, GameCube, Wii, GBA, DS, and PSP", it's pretty safe to say he's not interested in emulating games for those consoles. I'd wager he's probably going to try E-Bay for those older titles that he missed.
Wrong. Stupid, as well. I've experienced video games as art (multiple times) long before you made this ignorant comment. I guarantee most other gamers will say the same.
The Same Egotistical Blowhard says:
I could name quite a few, but the one classic that comes to mind is Final Fantasy 6. Good game, Roger. By the way, why did you mention poets twice in that quote? You must be going senile (hence your failed argument).
To be honest, I think Roger is just trolling... I mean, nobody can be that stupid and ignorant, right? Right?
I respect that you want to respect the licenses of others; that's a noble thing to say, especially from someone on the open source side of things. However, since we live in a corrupt society (and don't mistake it for anything but), you need to take a step back and examine whether or not those licenses deserve to be respected. Just because someone chooses an extremely restrictive license for "their" intellectual property doesn't mean it should be respected. Everything we use today, whether it is language, clothing, housing, or pretty much anything else you can think of, was based off an idea that somebody else had. Most of these former ideas were in existence before copyright, but I doubt their creators would have wanted to bleed their neighbors dry for the use of said idea.
Given your viewpoint, I can understand why you might be irritated that your open source pals appear to be hypocrites. However, since you don't seem to realize how corrupt our social structure actually is, I can't blame you for your misguided view. The whole topic here is really just more proof of how outdated our social structure is. For example, just look at any popular music. People who are actually trained in music nearly always dislike popular music. Why? Because, it sucks ass. Sure, there are a few songs here and there throughout the years that might stick in your head, but what songs can you point out that truly stand the test of time... songs that people today would listen to and appreciate? I bet you can't name any. That's because popular music artists aren't in it for the sake of art or for the sake of sharing their creation with others. They are simply in it for the money.
If you want to call anything "evil" (which is just another idea conjured up by the human mind), take a long, critical look at the concept of money in our world today and you'll see you're looking into the soul of the devil, if such a thing even exists.
You bring up an interesting point I'd like to add on to. You said, "Most products sold nowadays suck." This is absolutely true, but I want to explain why this is so. Companies are always striving to achieve profit. This is their sole motivation and every other conflicting interest is generally ignored. Since this is the case, they are always trying to balance their budget in such a way that their profits are maximized. What this usually leads to is shoddy products, because the company cut corners. The company uses less-than-desirable materials to build their product, designs the product to look cool (instead of having the design provide more functionality or add to the quality of the product in some way), and tries to cram as many "features" into the software before the deadline is up, often resulting in buggy software and not-fully-realized functionality. Clearly, most consumers would stray far, far away from a product like this, but that's where advertising comes into play. Companies are allowed to basically lie about their product to you on television, which might trick you into wasting your hard-earned money on it, and then you get screwed over by their customer service (not always the case, but sometimes the hassle is just not worth it).
As you can see, this process generates a lot of waste. People want products that last a lifetime, but companies make products that either break or become outdated in a relatively short amount of time. As a result, people are always buying the latest and greatest while their old products are sitting in a landfill somewhere. This process is called "cyclical consumption" and it is built into the social system. The more cyclical consumption going on, the more money there is circulating in the economy. Companies have no incentive to make products that last a lifetime, because it would hurt their profits.
In a saner world, products would be built to their peak technological efficiency and made from the longest-lasting, most durable materials. Cities themselves would be designed in such a way that everything about them was extremely efficient, with many aspects of the city serving more than one purpose simultaneously. Science and technology would be at the forefront of our concerns, instead of being hindered by monetary politics. Energy would be harnessed from non-polluting sources. Everything in our current day and age is about money, but money is not what it's about. This is the problem and until more of us start to realize this, social progress will be extremely slow. For more information regarding what I've just talked about, look up The Zeitgeist Movement. There is a ton of information on their website. You can also view a couple videos they've released here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
...it's the gameplay, stupid!
Technology is nice and all, but if it ain't fun to play then who gives a damn? Granted, if a game utilizes new technologies in order to create a unique gameplay experience, then all is well. The problem is, most of them don't. It seems like the article is mainly looking at FPS games where you can blow up the environment. SNORE.
Unless the technology complements the gameplay experience, then all you have in your hands is boring tech demo with some re-hashed gameplay on the side. I couldn't care less if the debris from whatever I just blew up bounces and reacts in a true-to-life fashion. Now, if whatever it was I blew up allowed me to reach some hidden area of the level, crushed a group of enemies, or helped me solve a tricky puzzle, I would probably find it more interesting.
I still think one of the best use of physics in a game was the ability to kick zombie heads around in Blood (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_(computer_game)). Okay, so maybe it didn't add to the gameplay like I was just bitching about, but it was really fun! I think there was even a level that had a soccer field and you could get access to a Life Seed if you kicked a zombie head into one of the goals. Damn, that game was awesome.
Remember the days when games were abundant and didn't consist of 99% dog shit?
*points to the ET Atari debacle* I personally don't.
Look! It's Mr. Historian and his painfully irrelevant historical reference!
Mr. Historian, as you may or may not know, the "ET Atari debacle" is obviously NOT what I am referring to when I mention a period of time during which video games flourished. For you to bring this up in reply to my comment makes me think you are either unaware of a time period where video games flourished or you believe the "ET Atari debacle" is representative of the overall quality and abundance of video games throughout history. Either way, you're retarded.
You know, I have to hand it to you, Mr. Historian. You thought you were pretty clever in mentioning the "ET Atari debacle", as if nobody's ever heard of it, and that you'd sound smart by doing so. By mentioning this event, you hoped it would somehow invalidate my rhetorical question. Unfortunately, you failed miserably and that is why I am writing this post. You see, by answering "no" to my rhetorical question and pointing out the "ET Atari debacle" as your reasoning, you effectively used that one period of time as evidence that there was never a time when video games thrived. You basically disagreed that there was ever a point in time during which video games thrived and, in fact, claimed that the "ET Atari debacle" is proof. That's just... amazing. Amazingly stupid.
Next time, instead of disagreeing with a person and providing some ancient event as a reference, try to, you know, contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, just don't post anything.
P.S. To the Sony fanboys who modded grandparent "flamebait" -- the truth hurts, doesn't it?
This is just more proof of how inept Sony has become. They've completely lost touch with their user base and at this point it appears that they are just trying to squeeze every last cent out that they can. Remember the days when games were abundant and didn't consist of 99% dog shit?
...let's hear some stories about people who actually had the balls to say what they thought to the faces of those who fired them.
Sony is one of the worst offenders with draconian EULA's. I am not surprised by this. They don't want to have people creating their own content to own their own content. They want to own our content. I learned a long time ago to just say no to Sony.
Agreed a million times over. In addition, it really boggles my mind how so many have raved about this game's originality when there really isn't anything new about it. It just goes to show how massive amounts of hype can trick idiots into believing something is worth their time and/or money.
Oh, and I'd also like to point out how hilarious I think it is that Sony can't seem to get anything right. First, they release a crappy overpriced console while trying to copy at the last minute things that XBox and Wii were doing / had done. Now, they have this super-hyped game with a level editor, A LEVEL EDITOR FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHOOPTY-FUCKING-DOO, and they want to claim ownership of everything any of their consumers create. I can't think of any other company in history that's released a level editor with their game and tried to do that... and if you can name one, I'll bet it didn't end well for them.
Good luck on that front, people have been barking up that tree for years.
I thought TFA was going to contain a list of some of the mods that have made the biggest and most enjoyable impact on gaming, but instead all I saw was the same stuff I see in my toilet after dropping my friends off at the pool. Seriously, the author who wrote this article, James Matson, must live under a rock in the middle of nowhere. There are several mods on the list that aren't even finished and most of the mods on that list just plain suck. Where is the list of mods that have made THE BIGGEST AND MOST ENJOYABLE IMPACT ON GAMING? Where are the Duke Nukem 3D and Quake II mods? What about Warcraft III? Team Fortress? What about total conversions? This article is a big letdown -- I was hoping to see some of the old mods I used to play and forgot about. Besides the painfully obvious fact that most mods on this list aren't worth mentioning, the author himself even admits that one of the mods might be crap:
Besides, it's the modified Crysis engine, even if it's crap it'll be very, very pretty crap. Did we just type that?
Crap is crap, no matter how pretty it is. I don't know about you guys, but I don't play with crap.
In terms of gameplay, I agree that creativity was a little bit stifled. Depending on what kind of creature you wanted, you had to choose between a small subset of parts that had the correct stats for that kind of creature. But, this is an evolution simulation and, as such, you don't choose pieces just because they look cool. However, you can still place those pieces anywhere on your creature and there really is a lot of flexibility with that. Also, I am just curious... does it matter where you place the pieces? For instance, if you have a carnivore, does it matter if you put that spur-looking thing where the creature looks as though it could actually attack with it, or is it just sufficient enough to place it on your creature?
That said, I think that the creature editor on its own is incredibly flexible and revolutionary. I personally suck at drawing things. I can imagine all sorts of cool-looking creatures, but when it comes to putting it on paper, I'm useless. With the creature creator, I can make tons of different looking creatures (granted they won't look exactly like what I have in my mind) in a pretty painless manner in a relatively short amount of time. This is great because now I can think of a creature, come up with some really rough sketches, make an interpretation in the creature creator, and then be able to provide an artist with plenty of material to work from.
Conserve ammo and run past enemies. You don't have to kill everything in RE (I assume we're talking about the original one) and, in fact, you're pretty much doomed if you do try to kill everything. RE had a lot of suspenseful moments which didn't involve the player worrying about ammo management. Also, being the game that kicked off the survival-horror genre, its not surprising that there are some tedious elements (such as the controls and camera angles, for one)... everything has to start somewhere :)
In case you're talking about RE4, I'm just not sure how you ever had ammo problems, unless you're a bad shot. As for those biological scythe whips.. flash grenades are your friend!
Now that you've clarified exactly what your definition of depth is, and I don't believe it coincides with the original poster's definition, I have to say there are things I agree and disagree with.
First, I understand the point you're trying to convey. Coming up with clever tactics and using different strategies against different opponents in order to defeat them does indeed add depth to a game and can be very rewarding for the player. And, yes, while there may be an infinite number of ways that a match can unfold, that does not give a game infinite depth. The problem arises after a player has mastered the reflex and tactical aspects of the game. While some may still be inclined to keep playing, learning, and trying to be the best, it's inevitable that most players will simply become bored. I've personally logged thousands of hours on Smash Bros. Melee and, as much as I enjoyed playing it in the past, I've simply played it too much. It's not that I have grown to dislike the game, but it just doesn't keep my interest anymore. I've done everything there is to do in that game and now it's become boring to me.
Second, I want to clarify how people (or at least myself) become bored with these games. For this example, it doesn't matter what game I'm talking about, just imagine that it is a well-made game. You start out by figuring out the controls. That doesn't take too long, but it's not particularly fun since you're probably getting smoked while doing so. Once you have the controls mapped to muscle memory, you can focus on how to best bring your opponent down. Players usually aren't aware of their surroundings once they are in this phase of learning, because they are concentrating solely on the opponent. It takes a really long time to master this phase, because you have to play tons of matches against opponents of varying difficulty levels... in other words, you have to practice your ass off. Eventually, fighting an opponent becomes second nature and the player is now able to focus on other things going on during the match, such as a weapon or health container that spawned on the other side of the map. However, the player cannot defeat every opponent, so more practice is needed. This time around, the player isn't focusing on pressing the right button at the right time, but rather on formulating strategies to counter the opponent's strategies. There is a LOT going on at this phase of learning and it takes a lifetime to master (most will never master it). The problem is that the improvement gains are so minuscule and the effort required is so gigantic that at some point, most people will just give up. Yeah, they could sit there for the next few years and become the best fighting game player in the world, but in the end they really have nothing to show for themselves other than the fact that they just wasted the past few years of their life.
What I personally find boring about these games is the gameplay itself. It takes quite awhile for these games to become boring for me, but they all eventually do. Once I've played a game enough, I start to realize that everything I do in that game is basically the same. I fight, I use my tactics and strategy, my opponent uses his tactics and strategy, we both react to each other the entire match, someone loses and someone wins. Game over. I know every map inside and out, I know every character's moves, I know what people typically do with certain characters, and I know how certain people play. I've basically seen and done everything there is to do and I'm done with it. Want to keep me playing? Give me more content.
Before I wrap this up, there's one game I would like to mention that did a very great job of keeping things fresh. That game is Quake II. What kept this game so interesting and fun to play was the continuous introduction of new game modes and levels. Vanilla QII was awesome, but it got boring. It's been awhile, but I believe Vanilla QII had Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, and Capture the Flag. Over the years, more and more ga
Not to put words in parent's mouth, but by depth I believe he was referring to the limits of the gameplay itself (and perhaps story and characters). While I agree that fighting games have a lot of re-playability , they don't necessarily have a lot of depth. Don't get me wrong. Sure, the game is very entertaining at first -- you learn the controls, then you learn special moves, then you learn some strategies, but once you get to the point where your improvements only increase ever so slightly, the game essentially becomes very repetitive. You end up doing the same basic thing without improving your skill enough to be meaningful.
However, this lack of depth is not necessarily a negative point. In fact, a lot of the best fighter games (and other genres) have very basic stories and characters so that all of the focus can be placed on the gameplay. In a fighter game, that is probably the most important thing to have done right. That said, I still think it is very important for any game to have an intriguing story and characters. Why? Because, once you get to the point where you have pretty much maximized your skill level in the game, the only things left to keep you entertained are the story, characters, and music.
Take the Super Smash Bros. series for instance (Brawl in particular). The gameplay is pretty easy to pick up and incredibly hard to master. You will eventually get to the point where the victor is always determined by the smallest margin (or by pure luck if items are turned on). There is so much extra stuff crammed into the game that you can constantly find new things to do or look at or listen to once you've mastered or become bored with the gameplay. Then, of course, there are unlockables (hidden character and stages), as well as additional game modes.
This brings me to an all-encompassing point regarding videogames. Games need to have a lot of content! Period! So you've just finished working on your awesome game engine and now you're putting the finishing touches on the gameplay. Well let me ask you this. Who's going to play your game once they tear through the single-player and find out there's nothing left to do? Who's going to appreciate your beautiful game engine when the only way to do so is to play through a campaign they've already beaten? Who's going to have positive memories of your game if they spent $50-$60 on it for a mere 6 hours of gameplay? I hope the answer is obvious.
Of course, before putting content in your game you need to have a solid base to work from. Your gameplay needs to be tight and original, as well as challenging (but not quite impossible). Your setting, story, and characters need to be engrossing. Your GUI cannot confuse or hassle the player ever. Once you have that crap taken care of, THEN you can start putting in as much content as possible. Think back to the days of Quake and Duke Nukem 3D. Okay, sure, Duke3D was pretty much one-of-a-kind when it came out (let's ignore Doom for the moment), so that is probably a main reason people played it and kept playing it. But you also have to consider the amount of content that game had. There were tons of levels, including single-player, cooperative, and deathmatch. There was also a ton of interactivity, stuff that had never been seen in a game before. But I think the biggest thing that kept Duke3D going (or any other FPS around that time) was the inclusion of a level editor (and subsequent releases of expansion packs). Quake 2 took it a step further by allowing people to develop their own mods. So not only have you provided your customers with tons of content to keep them entertained for many, many hours, but now you've given them the tools to create their own levels, art, and game modifications, which in turn will be shared with the community!
This brings me to one last point regarding videogames. If you need additional content, including a level editor and modding tools along with your game will provide it with long-lasting content generati
Actually, that's exactly what I did. See the text you quoted, where I said the trailer was great.
I disagree. You broke the cinematic into two parts: the first two thirds and the last third. The distinction you make is that the prior is "common" and the latter is "once again great". The distinction in the cinematic itself between your two parts is when Arthas unleashes the undead dragon and the army below is shown. That leads me to believe that the difference to you is the boring 'Arthas walking around Northrend' half versus the exciting 'undead dragon breaks free and flies over the undead army below' half.
What I'm saying is that you need to look at the first half as a precursor to the second half. The second half might stand well on its own, but it is much more effective with the first half preceding it. For example, if you read a well-written novel, you (hopefully) wouldn't think lesser of it because the only exciting part was when the protagonist killed the bad guy. The way you've described your opinion of the cinematic is akin to thinking lesser of the aforementioned novel because the introduction wasn't exciting enough. It's an introduction -- it's not meant to be action packed, although it certainly can be. Granted, the two mediums are drastically different in terms of length, but the concept still applies. Even in the War3 cinematic the action splices in the introduction are short (and this again intertwines the introduction with the development).
With that said, I have to agree that the War3 cinematic is more enticing than the WOTLK cinematic. However, to perhaps offer some reason why "what they are offering isn't eclipsing the competition like it used to", I believe the WOTLK cinematic was directed more towards their current player base, as opposed to attracting new players (at 10 million I hope they don't think they need more players). In addition, we are only talking about one cinematic here, so it is not entirely representative of "what they are offering". If you watch the original WoW cinematic (URL:http://media.worldofwarcraft.com/movies/video_loader/wow_video.htm?vid=wow-intro_en&dir=movies/wow_intro&rating=wow), you will probably find it to be quite enticing, as it was geared towards attracting consumers.
Well, enough rambling from me. I hope I've explained myself clearly enough. I'll see you all in the Duke Nukem Forever official cinematic thread.
Okay, braid is amazing. What I want to know is when more expensive games with bigger budgets will stop sucking.
My guess is that will happen when the majority of video game consumers stop considering good graphics to be the only factor in determining what makes a good game (and by extension, quit wasting money on games whose sole selling point is amazing graphics). Only then will the business model used for most big-budget games become antiquated.
The first two thirds of this new cinematic was just, "Pretty, but... common". The last third pulled it out, and it's once again great.
For a three-minute-long cinematic, I find that statement to be misguided. You need to judge the cinematic as a whole. What that statement basically says to me is that every scene that is not packed with action is "common". Interesting. Let's just ignore the incredible graphics and eerie music for a second and focus on the story presented in this cinematic (which is quite short).
Yes, the first half to two-thirds of the movie aren't packed with action, but that is often the case with storytelling. Usually you have your introduction, development, climax, and resolution, but in this case you have the introduction, which is intertwined with the development, and then the climax (which is the "good part" from your perspective). The first half builds up to the "good part" and, because of that, it makes that part much more worthwhile.
To contrast this a little bit, I also watched the Warhammer Online cinematic (http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/home/flash/WAR_cinematic_08.html). This one has about a minute-long introduction, then the rest is just action with a climactic part at the end (where this dragon bursts through the gate). To be honest, this one became boring rather quickly and the climax was not as strong as it could have been. The graphics are great and each scene is presented well, but the story doesn't develop nicely. The transition from the introduction to the action part starts off nicely, but after about thirty seconds or so you realize that it has plateaued and doesn't really go anywhere until the climax. They keep showing these different combat situations between characters the viewer doesn't have any attachment to and then they slow the action for a few seconds before the climax, which fails to deliver. The problem is that the action was already at a pretty high point, so the climax didn't have much room to increase in intensity.
I have to go ahead and give the nod to WOTLK as the better cinematic of the two.
I think a lot of that stems from the desire to keep the focus on bashing monsters' brains in. In tabletop games, you have all the time in the world to ponder your next move. In a game like Diablo, you have to act quickly or become "Ahh... Fresh meat!". Although I wouldn't mind a little more complexity to the way a character's health is calculated, I would be disappointed and perhaps a little agitated if it had a negative impact on my time spent killing things.
Could it be a little more realistic? Yes. Do I want it to be? No. In a real-time video game, trying to make gameplay elements too realistic can destroy the fun of the game, and that's NO GOOD! On the other hand, in a turn-based strategy game, more realistic gameplay elements can enhance the fun of the game. All in all, I think we can expect another mind-blowing, more-addictive-than-crack, FUN masterpiece from the brains at Blizzard and I can't wait.
It's new for the Diablo series. I know this is /., but try to understand the context in which phrases like that are placed, rather than rant about something silly like that.
You may be interested to know that there is a relatively recent Duke3D side-scroller called Manhattan Project. Being a big fan of the two original side-scrolling Dukes, this game brought back a lot of good memories. You should check it out, I think there's a demo you can download off the 3D Realms website.