Thank you for that video. It was the feel good story of the year. A hot girl gamer? Now there's hope. Now if only I could get a copy of Prince of Persia with the awesome "You win, advance to level 2" message, I could lure her over to my place.
Damn tepples. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I will, however, comment on you Guitar Hero statement. Here's how I see it.
I feel it's more fun to play Guitar Hero on the Guitar controller. I probably wouldn't play the game if it wasn't for the controller.
That being said, I take no issue to a person saying "I prefer to play FPS with a mouse and keyboard". That is equatable to me saying that I prefer to play Guitar hero with the guitar. What I do take issue with is the "playing a FPS with a controller is impossible/dumb" attitude that a lot of PC gamers adhere to. If I met someone who played Guitar Hero with a controller, what place would I have to try to call him out on it. It's how he chooses to play, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Tetris is considered a casual game, which does not mean that it can't be taken to the hardcore levels (want proof? look up Tetris on youtube). What makes Tetris a casual game is that it's far more accessible than games labeled "hardcore". Truthfully, I don't really like the concept of Hardcore/Casual but as long as it's around, I think it's important to recognize that a casual game can appeal to a hardcore player and there's no shame in that. Still, calling Tetris a hardcore game is a bit of a stretch.
He made that point in a reply to a reply to his original post. I admit, he seemed less elitist in his reply. But his original post was a little flamebait-ish.
"No sitting on the living room floor playing with a controller for me. 8 buttons ain't enough. I need all 104. And I can't STAND trying to sniper with a joy nub!"
I play consoles. I don't sit on the floor. And "joy nub" sounds condescending.
That has to be the most hilarious thing I've ever heard someone say in a rant. It's kinda like me saying to you, "no offense, but you're a complete idiot."
Are you kidding? You do know Game Spot is one of the toughest reviewers on top tier games. Why, Gerstmann received virtual death threats for his 8.9 review of the recent Wii Zelda. They also gave Bioshock a 9.0, which is significantly below the average.
This is simply a case of some idiot upper management flexing his muscles because he can. Gerstmann states in the interview that he feels the reviewers at Gamespot have integrity. I don't think it's far to punish the entirety of Gamespot and question the credibility of the remaining reviewers simply because of some dick supervisor.
But therein lays the predicament. Often times, freedom comes at the expense of story and character development. If I had to choose between the awesome story and charming characters of HL2, or a more open environment, I'd choose the former.
Mass effect, Halo 3, Bioshock, The Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, Crysis, and some others I probably missed. You may not like all of these games, but they are AAA titles.
"42%" is certainly a thing of the past. What bothers be about reviewers today is how they describe their rating's scale. 5/10, they say, is average, yet very few games ever get scored below that. It's almost as if the game reviewers are afraid to say "this game is below average", so they create a fictitious average and hope the readers and publishers don't notice.
75% of parents are worried, eh? Yet, when a Fox affiliate interviewed a group of parents about the parental control settings on the Xbox 360, most of them had no idea there were controls and the ones who did had no idea how to set them. Laziness > Concern.
Yeah, the lack of a death penalty made the game pretty easy, but what spoiled the game for me a bit was the absolute obviousness of the game's objectives. 90 percent of the time there is an arrow pointing you in the right direction, not to mention the map and the hints. The only time the arrow didn't help was during the collection-type missions, but if you were told to collect 3 of item X from some place, their would be 10 of that item in various locations. Now I know they give you the option to turn the arrow off, but I always figure that default settings are usually the way the developers intend you to play a game, so I rarely mess with them. Bioshock, while great, was one of the easiest games I've played in a long while. I bet the sequel won't be as easy.
I think you're missing the point of this conversation. I'm not saying anything about the actual moral implications of playing videogames. This is not a conversation as to whether or not playing videogames is good or bad for someone. This is a conversation about the potential to mimick real life moral choices inside of a videogame and present them in a way that would be convincing to the participant. The article says, in a nutshell, that videogames don't reach their full potential in this endeavor as one potential way to create an emotional impact through games. I tend to agree with him.
Because video games are an interactive media. A movie is something you watch but don't participate in. Hannibal Lector is the one doing the killing, not you. A video game has the potential to put the moral implications in your hands. I think tracking such things in a gamerscore is kind of a stupid idea, but I do tend to agree that the potential for emotional impact in games is not being reached, do to both risk and difficulty.
Wow, that's actually a really good idea. In all the recent games I've played, Alyx is by far the most interesting NPC. I can honestly say that if Valve threw a decision like that into episode 3, it'd be an epic decision to make. I think part of the reason so games are lacking in the emotional scale is that most of the so-called decisions that we make have little impact on the main points of the story line and instead focus on peripheral characters. In Bioshock, for example, "harvesting" might have been a little more difficult if the little girls actually had some kind of unique individual character instead of being cloned copies of each other you barely interacted with. But developers are scared to offer these kinds of decisions with marquee characters for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the problems it creates with the sequel potential.
wow, you REALLY think Sony is in the red with the PS1 and PS2? You might argue that they never made much money off the hardware, but they raked in the dough with the licensing. Sony made money off of EVERY game ever sold on their system. I'd bet you large sums of money that Sony made a significant profit in the last two generations. And lets not kid ourselves about the Gamecube. It might have made a small profit, but it was the GBA and the DS that was keeping Nintendo in business. They weren't livin on Gamecube sales, that's for sure.
crap. I said I wasn't going to reply, and now I'm gonna make myself a liar. I'm just really bored today I guess.
To say that Microsoft has a monopoly on their own console is a truism and there's really no point in it. The fact that the videogame industry is now able to support three consoles instead of two goes to show that lack of choice isn't much of an issue. "Monopoly" is just a buzz word people love to throw around whenever speaking of Microsoft and sticking it into a truism just to validate it goes to show how much bias there is towards Microsoft in the console market.
But that's all beside the main point. What it comes down to is choice. If you want to play a free, yet less robust gaming service, you have that choice with the PS3 and the Nintendo. If you want a stronger online system and don't mind paying the fee, go with the xbox.
As for the whole Blizzard/Square-Enix thing, I don't blame them one bit for charging 15 dollars per month to play. But to be fair, WOW is only for 1 game and is three times as much as xbox live. Xbox live is only five bucks (less if bought in bulk) and works for all games that have multiplayer on the system, even future expected MM games (which I guarantee will have their own dedicated servers). I love that Sony gives it out for free and I respect them for that (if little else this generation), but I don't blame Microsoft for charging to use their service, that's how things usually work.
I also just noticed another argument that you made that I'm a little uncomfortable with. I kind of passed by it previously but it caught my eye today. You stated that Microsoft was abusing it's monopoly status. How does Microsoft have a monoply in the console arena? Last time I checked, Sony and Nintendo had both sold more units (current and last gen) than Microsoft has. That's not really a monopoly. It kind of makes me wonder if you would get so upset about the five dollars a month if it was anyone other than Microsoft. I'm sure Microsoft isn't the only company charging to use a service that others give out for free (Blizzard and SquareEnix, for example).
I guess in the end, I'm not really arguing with your original point, dedicated servers seem like a natch' thing for a pay-to-play service, but the fact that matchmaking works so well in it's absence and nearly all other aspects of the service are top notch, I simply had a lot of trouble buying the whole "fucking absurd" argument. But hey, to each his own.
Okay, this thread needs to die so I won't respond anymore. You can have the last word.
well, I think I can name a few things you get for your five dollars a month. First, the matchmaking service. Sure, it's not as good as dedicated servers, but it is a service, isn't it? Second, a friends list to keep you in contact with your fellow gamers. That too is a service. Third, instant messaging and voice chat that works inside any game. Fourth, downloadable content, a lot of which is free (I got hooked on the Heroes series after watching the first episode for free off xbox live).
I could go on listing little things the service provides, but I probably won't convince you so why bother. We live in a time where everyone feels "entitled" to things. I think that's sad.
Well, I guess what you and I consider "fucking absurd" varies greatly. I tend to save extreme expletives for more dire situations. Five dollars a month doesn't quite cut it. I spend more on lunch each day than that. Besides, aside from the whole dedicated server thing, x-box live is awesome, easily the best online service available for consoles. And let's not forget, any company is free at anytime to create dedicated servers for their own games. Apparently EA does it for a lot of their games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live).
Truthfully, I haven't had many problems with the peer-to-peer system of the xbox live service. There are times when the lag is noticeable, but more often then not the games play just fine. I do agree that dedicated servers would be nice but I tend to think "fucking absurd" is a bit of an exageration. Why are people always so polarized in these forums?
How is this hard to understand? No offense, but it's spelled out right at the beginning of that particular level why you're being referred to as an android. The room with all the turrets is a room designed for testing androids, but because of a problem with the human testing counterpart to that room, you're forced to complete the android version instead. Of course, there is the deeper question of whether the room actually was designed for android testing or if GLADOS is simply messing with you, but on the superficial surface, the whole android thing is pretty clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for that video. It was the feel good story of the year. A hot girl gamer? Now there's hope. Now if only I could get a copy of Prince of Persia with the awesome "You win, advance to level 2" message, I could lure her over to my place.
Damn tepples. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I will, however, comment on you Guitar Hero statement. Here's how I see it.
I feel it's more fun to play Guitar Hero on the Guitar controller. I probably wouldn't play the game if it wasn't for the controller.
That being said, I take no issue to a person saying "I prefer to play FPS with a mouse and keyboard". That is equatable to me saying that I prefer to play Guitar hero with the guitar. What I do take issue with is the "playing a FPS with a controller is impossible/dumb" attitude that a lot of PC gamers adhere to. If I met someone who played Guitar Hero with a controller, what place would I have to try to call him out on it. It's how he chooses to play, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Tetris is considered a casual game, which does not mean that it can't be taken to the hardcore levels (want proof? look up Tetris on youtube). What makes Tetris a casual game is that it's far more accessible than games labeled "hardcore". Truthfully, I don't really like the concept of Hardcore/Casual but as long as it's around, I think it's important to recognize that a casual game can appeal to a hardcore player and there's no shame in that. Still, calling Tetris a hardcore game is a bit of a stretch.
He made that point in a reply to a reply to his original post. I admit, he seemed less elitist in his reply. But his original post was a little flamebait-ish.
"No sitting on the living room floor playing with a controller for me. 8 buttons ain't enough. I need all 104. And I can't STAND trying to sniper with a joy nub!"
I play consoles. I don't sit on the floor. And "joy nub" sounds condescending.
wow, an AC gets it right. I agree, those two statements are not the same.
"not to sound like a troll..."
That has to be the most hilarious thing I've ever heard someone say in a rant. It's kinda like me saying to you, "no offense, but you're a complete idiot."
Are you kidding? You do know Game Spot is one of the toughest reviewers on top tier games. Why, Gerstmann received virtual death threats for his 8.9 review of the recent Wii Zelda. They also gave Bioshock a 9.0, which is significantly below the average.
This is simply a case of some idiot upper management flexing his muscles because he can. Gerstmann states in the interview that he feels the reviewers at Gamespot have integrity. I don't think it's far to punish the entirety of Gamespot and question the credibility of the remaining reviewers simply because of some dick supervisor.
But therein lays the predicament. Often times, freedom comes at the expense of story and character development. If I had to choose between the awesome story and charming characters of HL2, or a more open environment, I'd choose the former.
Poor little middle-class kiddies. I guess this year they'll have to settle for being warm and well-fed. The world truly is a horrific place.
Assassin's Creed, Guitar Hero 3, Rockband... Damn it's a great year to be a gamer.
Mass effect, Halo 3, Bioshock, The Orange Box, Mario Galaxy, Crysis, and some others I probably missed. You may not like all of these games, but they are AAA titles.
"42%" is certainly a thing of the past. What bothers be about reviewers today is how they describe their rating's scale. 5/10, they say, is average, yet very few games ever get scored below that. It's almost as if the game reviewers are afraid to say "this game is below average", so they create a fictitious average and hope the readers and publishers don't notice.
75% of parents are worried, eh? Yet, when a Fox affiliate interviewed a group of parents about the parental control settings on the Xbox 360, most of them had no idea there were controls and the ones who did had no idea how to set them. Laziness > Concern.
Yeah, the lack of a death penalty made the game pretty easy, but what spoiled the game for me a bit was the absolute obviousness of the game's objectives. 90 percent of the time there is an arrow pointing you in the right direction, not to mention the map and the hints. The only time the arrow didn't help was during the collection-type missions, but if you were told to collect 3 of item X from some place, their would be 10 of that item in various locations. Now I know they give you the option to turn the arrow off, but I always figure that default settings are usually the way the developers intend you to play a game, so I rarely mess with them. Bioshock, while great, was one of the easiest games I've played in a long while. I bet the sequel won't be as easy.
I think you're missing the point of this conversation. I'm not saying anything about the actual moral implications of playing videogames. This is not a conversation as to whether or not playing videogames is good or bad for someone. This is a conversation about the potential to mimick real life moral choices inside of a videogame and present them in a way that would be convincing to the participant. The article says, in a nutshell, that videogames don't reach their full potential in this endeavor as one potential way to create an emotional impact through games. I tend to agree with him.
I second that. While rare, I've occasionally seen a -1 flamebait that was anything but. Glad I'm not missing out.
Because video games are an interactive media. A movie is something you watch but don't participate in. Hannibal Lector is the one doing the killing, not you. A video game has the potential to put the moral implications in your hands. I think tracking such things in a gamerscore is kind of a stupid idea, but I do tend to agree that the potential for emotional impact in games is not being reached, do to both risk and difficulty.
Wow, that's actually a really good idea. In all the recent games I've played, Alyx is by far the most interesting NPC. I can honestly say that if Valve threw a decision like that into episode 3, it'd be an epic decision to make.
I think part of the reason so games are lacking in the emotional scale is that most of the so-called decisions that we make have little impact on the main points of the story line and instead focus on peripheral characters. In Bioshock, for example, "harvesting" might have been a little more difficult if the little girls actually had some kind of unique individual character instead of being cloned copies of each other you barely interacted with. But developers are scared to offer these kinds of decisions with marquee characters for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the problems it creates with the sequel potential.
wow, you REALLY think Sony is in the red with the PS1 and PS2? You might argue that they never made much money off the hardware, but they raked in the dough with the licensing. Sony made money off of EVERY game ever sold on their system. I'd bet you large sums of money that Sony made a significant profit in the last two generations. And lets not kid ourselves about the Gamecube. It might have made a small profit, but it was the GBA and the DS that was keeping Nintendo in business. They weren't livin on Gamecube sales, that's for sure.
crap. I said I wasn't going to reply, and now I'm gonna make myself a liar. I'm just really bored today I guess.
To say that Microsoft has a monopoly on their own console is a truism and there's really no point in it. The fact that the videogame industry is now able to support three consoles instead of two goes to show that lack of choice isn't much of an issue. "Monopoly" is just a buzz word people love to throw around whenever speaking of Microsoft and sticking it into a truism just to validate it goes to show how much bias there is towards Microsoft in the console market.
But that's all beside the main point. What it comes down to is choice. If you want to play a free, yet less robust gaming service, you have that choice with the PS3 and the Nintendo. If you want a stronger online system and don't mind paying the fee, go with the xbox.
As for the whole Blizzard/Square-Enix thing, I don't blame them one bit for charging 15 dollars per month to play. But to be fair, WOW is only for 1 game and is three times as much as xbox live. Xbox live is only five bucks (less if bought in bulk) and works for all games that have multiplayer on the system, even future expected MM games (which I guarantee will have their own dedicated servers). I love that Sony gives it out for free and I respect them for that (if little else this generation), but I don't blame Microsoft for charging to use their service, that's how things usually work.
I also just noticed another argument that you made that I'm a little uncomfortable with. I kind of passed by it previously but it caught my eye today. You stated that Microsoft was abusing it's monopoly status. How does Microsoft have a monoply in the console arena? Last time I checked, Sony and Nintendo had both sold more units (current and last gen) than Microsoft has. That's not really a monopoly. It kind of makes me wonder if you would get so upset about the five dollars a month if it was anyone other than Microsoft. I'm sure Microsoft isn't the only company charging to use a service that others give out for free (Blizzard and SquareEnix, for example). I guess in the end, I'm not really arguing with your original point, dedicated servers seem like a natch' thing for a pay-to-play service, but the fact that matchmaking works so well in it's absence and nearly all other aspects of the service are top notch, I simply had a lot of trouble buying the whole "fucking absurd" argument. But hey, to each his own. Okay, this thread needs to die so I won't respond anymore. You can have the last word.
well, I think I can name a few things you get for your five dollars a month. First, the matchmaking service. Sure, it's not as good as dedicated servers, but it is a service, isn't it? Second, a friends list to keep you in contact with your fellow gamers. That too is a service. Third, instant messaging and voice chat that works inside any game. Fourth, downloadable content, a lot of which is free (I got hooked on the Heroes series after watching the first episode for free off xbox live).
I could go on listing little things the service provides, but I probably won't convince you so why bother. We live in a time where everyone feels "entitled" to things. I think that's sad.
Well, I guess what you and I consider "fucking absurd" varies greatly. I tend to save extreme expletives for more dire situations. Five dollars a month doesn't quite cut it. I spend more on lunch each day than that. Besides, aside from the whole dedicated server thing, x-box live is awesome, easily the best online service available for consoles. And let's not forget, any company is free at anytime to create dedicated servers for their own games. Apparently EA does it for a lot of their games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live).
Truthfully, I haven't had many problems with the peer-to-peer system of the xbox live service. There are times when the lag is noticeable, but more often then not the games play just fine. I do agree that dedicated servers would be nice but I tend to think "fucking absurd" is a bit of an exageration. Why are people always so polarized in these forums?
How is this hard to understand? No offense, but it's spelled out right at the beginning of that particular level why you're being referred to as an android. The room with all the turrets is a room designed for testing androids, but because of a problem with the human testing counterpart to that room, you're forced to complete the android version instead. Of course, there is the deeper question of whether the room actually was designed for android testing or if GLADOS is simply messing with you, but on the superficial surface, the whole android thing is pretty clear.