The biggest problem with arcades, IMO, is the annoying people who inevitably show up ("I was waiting for that game," "Yes, those are my 15 quarters on the machine," etc.). Add into that the fact that arcade goers are always going to skew young, and we "old folks" (I'm 31) just aren't going to feel as comfortable in an arcade anymore.
While it's true that you can find as many kids and other annoying people online, you get to choose. You don't have to play against someone just because they happen to be there and you don't have to listen to someone's inane prattle if you don't want to (yummy Xbox Live mute button). Plus, you don't have to be stuck waiting in line for a machine to open up since every machine - or every two machines for online - is it's own arcade box.
As Itagaki said, they're using a modified version of the DOAXBV engine to redo the DOA2 part of the game, so I'd imagine that not only will there be plenty of bounce but probably a great many outfits that will frame that bounce in the most pleasing "fashion" possible...I suspect we'll be getting some bikini fighting excitement too - after all, the textures are already sitting there just crying out to be used again.
Of course, why should we expect that this publication should tell the Feds' side of the story, or do anything else resembling "proper" journalism, eh?
Excellent point. I don't even see in the article where it says something like "a State Department official declined comment" or "a US Customs representative refused to comment until an internal investigation was completed."
It seems like an organization of "reporters" should take the time to investigate a story before simply slapping it on a web page (and if they did investigate the other side, surely that should be in the story).
I used the word "perception" mainly in reference to visual quality. Unfortunately, most multi-console Xbox games are developed first for the PS2 and then ported up. As Itagaki of Team Ninja at Tecmo points out, most ports end up relying on the Xbox graphics subsystem to improve the game (in terms of, for example, hardware anti-aliasing) and don't tweak the game at all to take full advantage of what the Xbox has to offer.
Even more striking is the fact that a few games (most notably the recent Need for Speed 2: Hot Pursuit) can actually SUFFER in the transition because the developers don't optimize their code for Xbox at all. This can result in games that are even worse for the Xbox than the PS2 because of sloppiness.
Overall, though, games are indeed better on Xbox if only because most developers are smart enough to enable Dolby Digital. It's the one area where I think Xbox completely blows away the competition - Pro Logic II and software DTS (in rare PS2 games) are just no competition. Even when games ignore the center channel (which happens too often), the level of sonic immersion is immeasurably better on the Xbox.
Anyway, my point is that multi-console people should find out as much as they can from users, pro reviews, etc. before settling on which version of a multi-console game they will get instead of assuming that the Xbox version will be a lot better...Unless it has Xbox Live compatibility, in which case the choice is absolutely crystal clear.:)
Actually, the $10 extra for the Xbox and PS2 versions is probably quite worthwhile for the "real" sports fans since both versions will have online capability. A friend mentioned to me the other day (I haven't bothered hunting down the information myself) that the Xbox version will even have the capability to play franchise mode online which means that you could form full 32-team leagues online which would be a blast.
In short, Sega discounting sports games foe the Gamecube, even without the royalty restructuring, would probably be a smart move in any case because of the lack of online play.
The biggest area of suffering for the Gamecube has been in the third-party area. All of the Nintendites have already bought a Gamecube for Zelda, Metroid, Mario and the rest but people who are more interested in third-party games have bought a PS2 (most likely) or an Xbox (to a lesser degree, mostly for the perception that third-party games look better on Microsoft's hardware). With the royalty and price drop, this will bring in people who might have at least a little interest in Nintendo first-party games but tend to buy mostly third party.
For Sega, which has been in financial trouble for quite a while (since the 32X?), this could give them a much-needed boost by exposing more people to their games and, maybe more importantly, their characters/franchises (Sonic in particular).
I'm not a die-hard Nintendo fan (or Xbox fan or PS2 fan for that matter) but I certainly hope this, combined with the Gamecube/Gameboy Playter deal (amazing at $150), gives Nintendo the boost they're looking for. If it does, it could portend a similar drop in prices for first Xbox games and finally PS2 games (Sony has the least incentive to drop prices due to their current "mega-dominance").
Kudos to Nintendo for once again leading the way in terms of bringing down prices.
Why do you consider violence against police officers a sacred right of free expression?
Way to misquote/misinterpret. Let me say it plainly: I don't like real life violence at all and, what the heck, I'll also state plainly that violence against police officers should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (short of capital punishment which I'm against).
Video games, on the other hand, should INDEED be protected by the first amendment (no matter what). They tell stories, they are visually artistic and sometimes they advocate points of view, all of which should get them the same protection as any other artform. This, to me, should be true whether the video game contains violence against police officers, drug dealers, African-Americans, Hispanics, Caucasions, fat people, blonde people, midgets, Catholics, Arabs, Muslims, the French, the British, the Ugandans, the Russians, the handicapped, the retarded, etc., ad infinitum....or not.
They might disgust people in general and they might disgust me in specific, but I think part of the price we pay for freedom is that some people are always going to be doing or saying something that we don't like.
That's not to say I agree with this law; I don't. I disagree with this law from a civil liberties standpoint. This is a parenting issue... If a parent wants their child to listen to Ice-T and play cop-killer video games all day long, then fine. But I expect them to STFU and hang their head in shame if some police officer has to kill their gang-banger-wannabe kid in self-defense some day, simply because he's conditioned himself to the idea that it's OK to kill a cop.
I call bullshit. There's no evidence that "anti-police" rap songs or video games "condition" kids to think it's okay to kill a police officer. That kind of conditioning comes from actual people they are exposed to and/or bad experiences with police officers - or just good ole sociopathy.
I would ask how much "crushing guilt" police officers feel when someone dies needlessly in a "bad" (read poor) neighborhood because it took 30 minutes after a 9-1-1 call for police to arrive? Or how much guilt they feel when they pull over a completely innocent citizen because they're the "wrong" color to drive in a particular neighborhood (or even down the Interstate in the "wrong" county)?
I respect the fact that police officers are exposed to a lot of dangerous situations and that they protect others before they protect themselves. There's no doubt that it's heroism in the true sense of the word. But trying to relate the danger police officers are in to media influences is stupid. Worse, it shows a lack of understanding of the criminal mind which, in the long run, could be even more dangerous.
Almost as alarming as the law is the fact that the designers of video games are so completely out of creativity that they have to resort to something as disgusting as shooting law enforcement officers. Is there truly nothing more interesting or fun that they can come up with for new video games?
You're implying that there's some kind of glut of games tjat jave anti-police content when it's not even nearly the case. I just took a look at my console game collection (+/= 30 games at the moment including some out on loan) and only THREE (GTA3, GTA:VC and Splinter Cell) include violence against police officers. Splinter Cell barely counts since the police you might kill during the game (you don't always have to) are corrupt and are more criminal than cop.
This law is an over-reaction to NOTHING. I can't think of a single incident of a police officer getting shot that was subsequently blamed (with reason) on the fact that the shooter played video games that included cop-killing. That being the case, where is the justification? The answer of course, is that it's a form of Orwellian mind control attempting to discourage people from even thinking about violence against police officers. If I did a painting depicting Rodney King taking a baton and beating the hell out of one of his assailants, would THAT be illegal to sell or show to a minor?
I vote for more shocking games (appropriately rated) as long as they're fun. On the other hand, I also have no problems with laws officially restricting minor access to M-rated video games. But singling out one particular activity in a game, and more importantly one particular activity aimed at one particular group, is asinine.
One could similarly ask if we need really need Dreamcast to run Apache. No, we probably don't. The Bluetooth product that you linked to is intended to take over the GBA and provide it a brand new function. The Triton product is intended to expand the GBA's current capability as opposed to giving it a new one. You can already "network" up to four GBAs for multiplayer gaming, and they simply want to make it possible to do so without wires. Given that it's one of the [few] things that interests people about the N-Gage, it's possible that wirelss connectivity between portable "consoles" is the next natural step in their evolution.
Consider this future possibility: Imagine if GBA titles could not only be given 802.11b (or g or z or whatever) compatibility for communication directly between GBAs, but could also be bridged onto the Internet allowing two (or four) people with GBAs across town or across the country to hook up and play on their handhelds. Nokia's N-Gage is supposed to have something along those lines across the cellular network so it's certainly possible. Combining that kind of connectivity with a device as prolific as the GBA, and with its attendant game quality, would be amazing.
Shooting for a price point of $30-40 is something I would expect from Nintendo, or at least one of the "big-time" third-party accessory makers. It's especially ambitious since wireless networking cards for PCs are still running in that price range.
My only question is how big can this possibly be? While it would be "cool" to play multiplayer on GBAs located in different rooms or across the room, you would be paying three or four times the cost of an old-fashioned link cable. I guess the best use for this would be with four-player connectivity since dealing with four cords and arranging appropriate seating for four people tethered by cords would be more troublesome. But there again you're talking about $120-160 spent between four people to get the ball rolling. You'd have to play connected games a LOT to get a decent return on your investment.
Before anyone says anything, I know that the Afterburner was a huge success. But that product gave value to EVERY GBA owner since one player or four, the screen was still lit instead of dark.
Again, though, in terms of the "cool factor" and the ambition factor, Triton certainly can't be faulted. They might just help drive Nintendo to more changes. If they succeed, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a Gameboy Advance SPX in a year or so that integrates bluetooth right into the package.
That sounds great, but I wonder when they would start getting diminishing returns when they have to keep developing new content to keep pace with the players' changes to the world. Like it or not, MMORPG developers are in it to make money and keeping that many development people on the game (the people with bigger salaries, as opposed to customer relations staff) would cut too much into profits.
Having many different servers doesn't help, either. If people think that they will make the developers give them something new by destroying Freeport (to continue using that example from EQ), then it will simply be done on every server (guaranteed). Plus, what's to stop the players from tearing across an entire continent, or the entire world, that way? I've met plenty of people who, if they were able, would kill an NPC just as someone was about to finish a quest out of sheer bloodymindedness - how frustrating would it be to be on the way to Freeport in order to finish a long quest only to find that it's gone and your work has been for naught? Extend the griefing impulse (which entire guilds can be/have been built upon) to big effects on the game world and, again, lots of people lose out on their fun.
At this point in time, I just don't think a dynamic massively multiplayer world like that is feasible unless you're just going to make everything completely random which I think dispells any immersion one might have developed. The world has to be static overall in order to keep the most people involved. Chaos would just drive people away.
I wasn't trying to flame you in any way on that fourth point. I honestly didn't understand what you were getting at. It's an interesting concept - you're right that I wouldn't be interested in it myself but that's certainly to way to measure utility.
I've said before that I have no problem with people modding their Xboxen for whatever legal purposes they're interested in pursuing, and I don't personally think that Microsoft should have the right to stop it. I did, though, think that your middle two uses [for a modded Xbox] were a bit silly, but that's just me.:)
2) You can rip A LOT of CDs onto an unmodded Xbox. You may already have OGG files but how much trouble could it possibly be to buy an Xbox and have it ripping CDs for a couple days while you're doing other things?
3) Futurama (and many others) are available on DVD, so you can play those on an unmodded Xbox too (but then you couldn't steal - I mean, download - copyrighted video and play them).
If I might be bold enough to offer another number for your list:
10.5. Be sure to mention that you bought an Xbox but then traded or sold it so you could get a PS2 or Gamecube because there just weren't any games. Everyone will believe that you know what you're talking about since you owned one (haha) in the past.
Re:The Most Interesting Quote...
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Could" it happen? Sure. Is it going to happen? I don't know and neither does the person quoted. Every argument like this smacks to me of someone who simply wants to justify doing whatever s/he wants to do. It's like people arguing that they download MP3s because CDs are too expensive - if a CD is too expensive to purchase, how does that give you the right to steal it (yes, I use the word "steal" despite all the arguments about copyright being civil law and that copying supposedly isn't the same as stealing).
That's not to say that I think people shouldn't be able to mod their Xboxen. As long as the person modding isn't pirating software then I myself don't see the big deal. But that quote from the article reads like the kind of paranoid spouting off that we read every day from posters on Slashdot...to those people, EVERYTHING is a "slippery slope."
The truth is that I think Microsoft wants to "lock down" the Xbox hardware so that people can't play pirated games and not as some sort of diabolical plot that has something to do with Windows, Office and the Illuminati. I consider their stance on this matter reasonable (though maybe not defensible) considering that any money they make from the Xbox comes from software licensing.
The "nerds need to get laid" joke (using the term loosely) has been done so much that it's just as easy to make fun of the anti-nerds that still use it.
It would be even more absurd to be able to kill Darth Vader only to have him "respawn" a week later.
The biggest problem with making the game world completely malleable by the players is best described in two parts:
1. Players who aren't online when a galaxy-shattering event occurs (like killing Darth Vader or Princess Leia being turned to the dark side or whatever) miss out. As in my first sentence, it seems like it would be no more fun or involving if those characters reverted (back to life or back to good in my examples) after a specified time, effectively resetting the game.
2. If the game changes too significantly (and doesn't reset) then it destroys what the developers have created. To use the example of Everquest, if Freeport were permitted to be destroyed by dark elvish players then everything the developers put in Freeport (including quests, NPCs, dock, etc.) is lost content that would need to be replaced. The developer would essentially have to build a new game multiple times just to keep up with "Players Gone Wild."
In an MMORPG like this, you either accept the internal logic or you don't. If you don't, it's probably just not the right game for you. For a bigger influence on events in the Star Wars universe, you might want to watch for Knights of The Republic - single-player RPG - coming later this year for Xbox (and I believe for PC as well, though that version will come a bit later).
The problem is, in a Star Trek MMORPG you'd have to be some kind of an outlaw or wildcard character like Quark in DS9. You could never be a starfleet officer or any kind of galactic government officer because everything you'd do would theoretically be dictated by an order from a higher commanding officer... how's that fun?
SWG's concept works because you can create a character in a vast star wars like world. You're not bound by orders or uniform oath.:)
Actually, your perception of what things will be like in SWG is just like what could be done in a Star Trek MMORPG. After all, the Empire has buckets of Imperial Star Destroyers but you'r not going to play a crewer on one of them becaue, as you said, that would be boring. It would be the same as being an ensign on a Starfleet ship.
BUT, you could still be a Federation citizen just as you can be an Imperial citizen in SWG. Furthermore, you could be in Starfleet just as you can be in the Imperial military. You're looking at it as everything being done at the behest of a commanding officer, while in the MMORPG tradition you could look at it as being assigned a quest.
For example, let's say you're an Imperial trooper. You receive a mission from a superior officer telling you to go and secure blaster batteries. You're told that a particular merchant has these batteries, so you go to see him. The merchant resists your Imperial authority (or is an agent of the Rebellion) and therefore you must kill him (and presumably his cronies), locate the batteries and either bring them back or call in for a pickup once the area is secure. Boom, you've just followed orders from a superior officer and it could very well have been fun to do so. It's little different from going to a guild leader in Everquest and receiving a mission to go out and kill giant possums for their fur so that coats can be made.
As I noted above, similar things could be done if you were a Starfleet officer in a Star Trek MMORPG. An example might be that a settlement of sentient lifeforms was found on a planet but the ship that detected it didn't have time to investigate further. Your mission might be to go to this planet, locate the settlement and make contact with them if permitted by The Prime Directive (or take close-in tricorder readings for later analysis). Along the way, you might run into hostile wild animals, Breen who are active for some reason on the planet, etc. Again, the "orders" can simply be equated to being given a quest.
Making things to do in an MMORPG isn't tough, regardless of the setting. The tough part is making sure there's enough to do and injecting enough variety into the tasks to keep people interested.
This argument against the movie I just can't understand. Anyone exposed to the entertainment media (meaning just about everyone, and certainly people going opening weekend) knows that the third movie is coming out by the end of this year so a cliffhanger was inevitable...It's like booing the ending of Fellowship of the Ring.
Actually, my argument has NOTHING to do with representing the real world and EVERYTHING to do with the perspective *I* personally find the most comfortable when gaming. To use the most obvious current example, Super Mario Sunshine has little to do with the real world except perhaps for water and the sky but, for me, the 3D environment is more comfortable than if the game had been released as a 2D side-scroller.
You're reading something into my screed that just isn't there.
If you mean the voice chat software, then I guess, but Xbox Live does voice chat without doing anyting besides the usual cache on the hard drive - and since I detect little delay (besides normal net latency) in XBL voice communication I suspect that they're running it right through main memory. Sony might need a different method, though, since they have less main memory to work with.
I've got to disagree with him on the 2D->3D issue. I'm a gamer from way back (not to Odyssey but to the first Atari 2600 in the neighborhood) and I've actually found 3D games to be easier than 2D. I know it sounds odd but I'll try to explain...
In the side-scrolling Mario games, the perspective is quite unnatural in that your character moves in only one dimension. Adding to that problem (?) is that what you are seeing isn't necessarily all that Mario would see. For example, if there's a big pit coming up and I'm running as fast as I can, my avatar should be seeing that pit before it appears on my screen (and I inevitably go running right over the edge). In 3D platforming games, I get to see everything (depending on the camera and the depth rendered) that my character could see. So, if I'm going straight ahead, I'm going to see any osbstructions or pitfalls that are straight ahead of my character.
That's the mechanical side, but then there's the comfort side. I'm quite used to moving [rarely] in three dimensions in real life, and that translates to me feeling more comfortable playing a game that simulates that kind of natural movement.
I suppose small children and new gamers may find the simplicity inherent in side scrollers to be easier, and Miyamoto may be referring to those kinds of gamers instead of the gaming world overall (very possible since I think Miyamoto is the kind of game designer who wants to get new people hooked - "Try it once. It feels good."). Of course, I wonder if he would have preferred to design Pikmin in 2D (I doubt it).
In short, for me, if the controls and camera are working I have a much easier time gaming in 3D than I have in 2D...though I'm still going to get Viewtiful Joe.:)
You say that "society" puts pressure on women to look a certain way, act a certain way. I would submit that women form HALF (a tiny bit more than half last I heard) of that society and that they have to take some responsibility for what pressure it exerts.
As an individual, I can categorically deny that I've ever pressured any woman to wear makeup, change her clothes, lose weight or anything else. I'm not aware that any of my friends have, either.
As far as media go, video games would be far down on the list in terms of influences on society. Music, movies, television...These three clearly exert greater influences on society in terms of shaping the way the majority thinks. Video games, if anything, tend to reflect the rest of society - and, more significantly, the rest of the media - as opposed to exerting any force on their own.
I would write more here, but my thoughts keep getting derailed by your snide, somewhat pathetic jab about "porno gaming" and I don't think it's worth responding to your militant attitude in any more detail.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's true that you can find as many kids and other annoying people online, you get to choose. You don't have to play against someone just because they happen to be there and you don't have to listen to someone's inane prattle if you don't want to (yummy Xbox Live mute button). Plus, you don't have to be stuck waiting in line for a machine to open up since every machine - or every two machines for online - is it's own arcade box.
As Itagaki said, they're using a modified version of the DOAXBV engine to redo the DOA2 part of the game, so I'd imagine that not only will there be plenty of bounce but probably a great many outfits that will frame that bounce in the most pleasing "fashion" possible...I suspect we'll be getting some bikini fighting excitement too - after all, the textures are already sitting there just crying out to be used again.
Excellent point. I don't even see in the article where it says something like "a State Department official declined comment" or "a US Customs representative refused to comment until an internal investigation was completed."
It seems like an organization of "reporters" should take the time to investigate a story before simply slapping it on a web page (and if they did investigate the other side, surely that should be in the story).
Even more striking is the fact that a few games (most notably the recent Need for Speed 2: Hot Pursuit) can actually SUFFER in the transition because the developers don't optimize their code for Xbox at all. This can result in games that are even worse for the Xbox than the PS2 because of sloppiness.
Overall, though, games are indeed better on Xbox if only because most developers are smart enough to enable Dolby Digital. It's the one area where I think Xbox completely blows away the competition - Pro Logic II and software DTS (in rare PS2 games) are just no competition. Even when games ignore the center channel (which happens too often), the level of sonic immersion is immeasurably better on the Xbox.
Anyway, my point is that multi-console people should find out as much as they can from users, pro reviews, etc. before settling on which version of a multi-console game they will get instead of assuming that the Xbox version will be a lot better...Unless it has Xbox Live compatibility, in which case the choice is absolutely crystal clear. :)
In short, Sega discounting sports games foe the Gamecube, even without the royalty restructuring, would probably be a smart move in any case because of the lack of online play.
For Sega, which has been in financial trouble for quite a while (since the 32X?), this could give them a much-needed boost by exposing more people to their games and, maybe more importantly, their characters/franchises (Sonic in particular).
I'm not a die-hard Nintendo fan (or Xbox fan or PS2 fan for that matter) but I certainly hope this, combined with the Gamecube/Gameboy Playter deal (amazing at $150), gives Nintendo the boost they're looking for. If it does, it could portend a similar drop in prices for first Xbox games and finally PS2 games (Sony has the least incentive to drop prices due to their current "mega-dominance").
Kudos to Nintendo for once again leading the way in terms of bringing down prices.
Way to misquote/misinterpret. Let me say it plainly: I don't like real life violence at all and, what the heck, I'll also state plainly that violence against police officers should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (short of capital punishment which I'm against).
Video games, on the other hand, should INDEED be protected by the first amendment (no matter what). They tell stories, they are visually artistic and sometimes they advocate points of view, all of which should get them the same protection as any other artform. This, to me, should be true whether the video game contains violence against police officers, drug dealers, African-Americans, Hispanics, Caucasions, fat people, blonde people, midgets, Catholics, Arabs, Muslims, the French, the British, the Ugandans, the Russians, the handicapped, the retarded, etc., ad infinitum....or not.
They might disgust people in general and they might disgust me in specific, but I think part of the price we pay for freedom is that some people are always going to be doing or saying something that we don't like.
I call bullshit. There's no evidence that "anti-police" rap songs or video games "condition" kids to think it's okay to kill a police officer. That kind of conditioning comes from actual people they are exposed to and/or bad experiences with police officers - or just good ole sociopathy.
I would ask how much "crushing guilt" police officers feel when someone dies needlessly in a "bad" (read poor) neighborhood because it took 30 minutes after a 9-1-1 call for police to arrive? Or how much guilt they feel when they pull over a completely innocent citizen because they're the "wrong" color to drive in a particular neighborhood (or even down the Interstate in the "wrong" county)?
I respect the fact that police officers are exposed to a lot of dangerous situations and that they protect others before they protect themselves. There's no doubt that it's heroism in the true sense of the word. But trying to relate the danger police officers are in to media influences is stupid. Worse, it shows a lack of understanding of the criminal mind which, in the long run, could be even more dangerous.
You're implying that there's some kind of glut of games tjat jave anti-police content when it's not even nearly the case. I just took a look at my console game collection (+/= 30 games at the moment including some out on loan) and only THREE (GTA3, GTA:VC and Splinter Cell) include violence against police officers. Splinter Cell barely counts since the police you might kill during the game (you don't always have to) are corrupt and are more criminal than cop.
This law is an over-reaction to NOTHING. I can't think of a single incident of a police officer getting shot that was subsequently blamed (with reason) on the fact that the shooter played video games that included cop-killing. That being the case, where is the justification? The answer of course, is that it's a form of Orwellian mind control attempting to discourage people from even thinking about violence against police officers. If I did a painting depicting Rodney King taking a baton and beating the hell out of one of his assailants, would THAT be illegal to sell or show to a minor?
I vote for more shocking games (appropriately rated) as long as they're fun. On the other hand, I also have no problems with laws officially restricting minor access to M-rated video games. But singling out one particular activity in a game, and more importantly one particular activity aimed at one particular group, is asinine.
Consider this future possibility: Imagine if GBA titles could not only be given 802.11b (or g or z or whatever) compatibility for communication directly between GBAs, but could also be bridged onto the Internet allowing two (or four) people with GBAs across town or across the country to hook up and play on their handhelds. Nokia's N-Gage is supposed to have something along those lines across the cellular network so it's certainly possible. Combining that kind of connectivity with a device as prolific as the GBA, and with its attendant game quality, would be amazing.
My only question is how big can this possibly be? While it would be "cool" to play multiplayer on GBAs located in different rooms or across the room, you would be paying three or four times the cost of an old-fashioned link cable. I guess the best use for this would be with four-player connectivity since dealing with four cords and arranging appropriate seating for four people tethered by cords would be more troublesome. But there again you're talking about $120-160 spent between four people to get the ball rolling. You'd have to play connected games a LOT to get a decent return on your investment.
Before anyone says anything, I know that the Afterburner was a huge success. But that product gave value to EVERY GBA owner since one player or four, the screen was still lit instead of dark.
Again, though, in terms of the "cool factor" and the ambition factor, Triton certainly can't be faulted. They might just help drive Nintendo to more changes. If they succeed, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a Gameboy Advance SPX in a year or so that integrates bluetooth right into the package.
Having many different servers doesn't help, either. If people think that they will make the developers give them something new by destroying Freeport (to continue using that example from EQ), then it will simply be done on every server (guaranteed). Plus, what's to stop the players from tearing across an entire continent, or the entire world, that way? I've met plenty of people who, if they were able, would kill an NPC just as someone was about to finish a quest out of sheer bloodymindedness - how frustrating would it be to be on the way to Freeport in order to finish a long quest only to find that it's gone and your work has been for naught? Extend the griefing impulse (which entire guilds can be/have been built upon) to big effects on the game world and, again, lots of people lose out on their fun.
At this point in time, I just don't think a dynamic massively multiplayer world like that is feasible unless you're just going to make everything completely random which I think dispells any immersion one might have developed. The world has to be static overall in order to keep the most people involved. Chaos would just drive people away.
I've said before that I have no problem with people modding their Xboxen for whatever legal purposes they're interested in pursuing, and I don't personally think that Microsoft should have the right to stop it. I did, though, think that your middle two uses [for a modded Xbox] were a bit silly, but that's just me. :)
2) You can rip A LOT of CDs onto an unmodded Xbox. You may already have OGG files but how much trouble could it possibly be to buy an Xbox and have it ripping CDs for a couple days while you're doing other things?
3) Futurama (and many others) are available on DVD, so you can play those on an unmodded Xbox too (but then you couldn't steal - I mean, download - copyrighted video and play them).
4) Huh? Webcam/DVR? For the car? No comprende.
10.5. Be sure to mention that you bought an Xbox but then traded or sold it so you could get a PS2 or Gamecube because there just weren't any games. Everyone will believe that you know what you're talking about since you owned one (haha) in the past.
That's not to say that I think people shouldn't be able to mod their Xboxen. As long as the person modding isn't pirating software then I myself don't see the big deal. But that quote from the article reads like the kind of paranoid spouting off that we read every day from posters on Slashdot...to those people, EVERYTHING is a "slippery slope."
The truth is that I think Microsoft wants to "lock down" the Xbox hardware so that people can't play pirated games and not as some sort of diabolical plot that has something to do with Windows, Office and the Illuminati. I consider their stance on this matter reasonable (though maybe not defensible) considering that any money they make from the Xbox comes from software licensing.
The "nerds need to get laid" joke (using the term loosely) has been done so much that it's just as easy to make fun of the anti-nerds that still use it.
The biggest problem with making the game world completely malleable by the players is best described in two parts:
1. Players who aren't online when a galaxy-shattering event occurs (like killing Darth Vader or Princess Leia being turned to the dark side or whatever) miss out. As in my first sentence, it seems like it would be no more fun or involving if those characters reverted (back to life or back to good in my examples) after a specified time, effectively resetting the game.
2. If the game changes too significantly (and doesn't reset) then it destroys what the developers have created. To use the example of Everquest, if Freeport were permitted to be destroyed by dark elvish players then everything the developers put in Freeport (including quests, NPCs, dock, etc.) is lost content that would need to be replaced. The developer would essentially have to build a new game multiple times just to keep up with "Players Gone Wild."
In an MMORPG like this, you either accept the internal logic or you don't. If you don't, it's probably just not the right game for you. For a bigger influence on events in the Star Wars universe, you might want to watch for Knights of The Republic - single-player RPG - coming later this year for Xbox (and I believe for PC as well, though that version will come a bit later).
SWG's concept works because you can create a character in a vast star wars like world. You're not bound by orders or uniform oath. :)
Actually, your perception of what things will be like in SWG is just like what could be done in a Star Trek MMORPG. After all, the Empire has buckets of Imperial Star Destroyers but you'r not going to play a crewer on one of them becaue, as you said, that would be boring. It would be the same as being an ensign on a Starfleet ship.
BUT, you could still be a Federation citizen just as you can be an Imperial citizen in SWG. Furthermore, you could be in Starfleet just as you can be in the Imperial military. You're looking at it as everything being done at the behest of a commanding officer, while in the MMORPG tradition you could look at it as being assigned a quest.
For example, let's say you're an Imperial trooper. You receive a mission from a superior officer telling you to go and secure blaster batteries. You're told that a particular merchant has these batteries, so you go to see him. The merchant resists your Imperial authority (or is an agent of the Rebellion) and therefore you must kill him (and presumably his cronies), locate the batteries and either bring them back or call in for a pickup once the area is secure. Boom, you've just followed orders from a superior officer and it could very well have been fun to do so. It's little different from going to a guild leader in Everquest and receiving a mission to go out and kill giant possums for their fur so that coats can be made.
As I noted above, similar things could be done if you were a Starfleet officer in a Star Trek MMORPG. An example might be that a settlement of sentient lifeforms was found on a planet but the ship that detected it didn't have time to investigate further. Your mission might be to go to this planet, locate the settlement and make contact with them if permitted by The Prime Directive (or take close-in tricorder readings for later analysis). Along the way, you might run into hostile wild animals, Breen who are active for some reason on the planet, etc. Again, the "orders" can simply be equated to being given a quest.
Making things to do in an MMORPG isn't tough, regardless of the setting. The tough part is making sure there's enough to do and injecting enough variety into the tasks to keep people interested.
This argument against the movie I just can't understand. Anyone exposed to the entertainment media (meaning just about everyone, and certainly people going opening weekend) knows that the third movie is coming out by the end of this year so a cliffhanger was inevitable...It's like booing the ending of Fellowship of the Ring.
A valid point...but one I offered, however briefly, in my initial post.
You're reading something into my screed that just isn't there.
If you mean the voice chat software, then I guess, but Xbox Live does voice chat without doing anyting besides the usual cache on the hard drive - and since I detect little delay (besides normal net latency) in XBL voice communication I suspect that they're running it right through main memory. Sony might need a different method, though, since they have less main memory to work with.
In the side-scrolling Mario games, the perspective is quite unnatural in that your character moves in only one dimension. Adding to that problem (?) is that what you are seeing isn't necessarily all that Mario would see. For example, if there's a big pit coming up and I'm running as fast as I can, my avatar should be seeing that pit before it appears on my screen (and I inevitably go running right over the edge). In 3D platforming games, I get to see everything (depending on the camera and the depth rendered) that my character could see. So, if I'm going straight ahead, I'm going to see any osbstructions or pitfalls that are straight ahead of my character.
That's the mechanical side, but then there's the comfort side. I'm quite used to moving [rarely] in three dimensions in real life, and that translates to me feeling more comfortable playing a game that simulates that kind of natural movement.
I suppose small children and new gamers may find the simplicity inherent in side scrollers to be easier, and Miyamoto may be referring to those kinds of gamers instead of the gaming world overall (very possible since I think Miyamoto is the kind of game designer who wants to get new people hooked - "Try it once. It feels good."). Of course, I wonder if he would have preferred to design Pikmin in 2D (I doubt it).
In short, for me, if the controls and camera are working I have a much easier time gaming in 3D than I have in 2D...though I'm still going to get Viewtiful Joe. :)
As an individual, I can categorically deny that I've ever pressured any woman to wear makeup, change her clothes, lose weight or anything else. I'm not aware that any of my friends have, either.
As far as media go, video games would be far down on the list in terms of influences on society. Music, movies, television...These three clearly exert greater influences on society in terms of shaping the way the majority thinks. Video games, if anything, tend to reflect the rest of society - and, more significantly, the rest of the media - as opposed to exerting any force on their own.
I would write more here, but my thoughts keep getting derailed by your snide, somewhat pathetic jab about "porno gaming" and I don't think it's worth responding to your militant attitude in any more detail.