This is what I think is fascinating: they are not girly guys, like not at all.
Those fashion trends you talk about are for music pop stars most of the time, which are made to appeal to girls. So these characters are actually fashioned to attract girls, meaning to be beautiful. How can this become girly guys for some cultures, or rather for some guys? I wonder.
There's a small problem in your argument, though. They're designed, as you said, to appeal to girls. Men are actually manliest when they're trying to impress other guys, not girls. I remember in high school at an all-class assembly, the speaker asked us why we thought men acted tough and who we thought they were trying to impress. I knew right away. I'm sure a lot of other guys around me knew, too. But the first three answers from the audience were all from girls who said something like "they're trying to impress girls." Finally a guy from the audience shouted out "to impress other guys" and the speaker validated it. I'll always remember that because it's really so true. It's why guys are more into action movies starring the likes of Arnold or Stallone, or games like Gear of War.
I'm not an expert on Japanese culture, so I can't say whether Japanese guys feel the same way or not, but if these so-called pop stars are being made up that way to attract girls, that really doesn't say anything about how they are considered amongst Japanese males.
Actually, what I hated the most about 8 was those parts where you had to play in the past as those three dudes. I can't even remember why I hated it, but I did. Maybe because you had to reequip them or you didn't have all your magic or something. eh, I can't remember.
Wow. Thanks for bringing that up. I'd almost forgot about it, but the Playonline integration in the strategy guide really, REALLY pissed me off. I had a tradition with all the FF games I played. I would beat the game by myself, then replay it with a strategy guide to see all the stuff I missed. FF9 was the first FF game I failed to beat the second time simply because of how terrible the strategy guide was. Looking back, I should have asked for my money back.
The xbox now allows you to store games on the harddrive. At worst, this means an initial instillation of the disks and nothing more. I guarantee if this game is large and fits onto one blue ray, the ps3 will STILL require you to upload it to your harddrive just like it does with Metal Gear Solid. So it's really the same for both systems.
HORRIBLE anology. You're talking about a decidedly racist organization exterminating the reanimated dead bodies of the people they sought to eliminate. If Chris Redfield wore a KKK bed sheet, then yes, I could understand someone taking offense.
But this is not about ANY racist organization, unless you consider the entire white race to be one. Taking offense to a game like this seems to imply that it is culturally insensitive to have a white protagonist fact off against black antagonists regardless of the context. To me, that is an unreasonable qualification for racism.
Why didn't Uncharted cause as much uproar? I mean, the game was great and everything, but in that game you had a white man shooting Asians, Latinos and black men. Hell, the only bad white guy in the game gets betrayed and killed by his Latino partner. The scrutinizing watchdogs of cultural sensitivity really dropped the ball on that one. I bet Al Sharpton gave them a stern talking to after that one slipped through.
"Last gen Nintendo made the most money despite being in last place while MS blew billions because that was their strategy."
Well, first, I'm honestly very skeptical that Nintendo made the most money last Gen. I'd wager that honor goes to Sony, but I don't have any concrete data on that. Second, MS blowing tons of money kind of speaks to my point, doesn't it? There's little doubt Sony and Nintendo made money last gen, but MS lost tons of it. If it were almost any other company, they wouldn't have survived. I think that demonstrates perfectly how the market has traditionally been a two console market.
You speak of the PS360, stating how both systems tend to have the same features and appeal to the same kind of players, and that this tends to split the market into a Wii versus PS360 mentality. I believe that's mostly true. And because of this, I also believe that, should the market tighten, the real competition would be between the 360 and the PS3, and the Wii would be relatively safe. Again, second place would become a very important position at that point.
The idea, as you seem to imply, that it's first place versus second and third is a mistake in my humble opinion. Should the market tighten, I'd wager its far more likely that two systems would come out on top and one would drop off, rather than the contrary opinion that the Wii would be the sole survivor. I simply say, don't underestimate the importance of second place.
Fortunately, the gaming market is going strong with no signs of slowing down, so we may never know.
"Anyway, taking second place from the 360 is a worthless goal since..."
Actually, it's really not. This is a business, remember, not a race. Pepsi has been second to Coke since as long as they've existed, but because the cola market can easily support two competing companies, this means Pepsi can still turn a profit.
If there's one thing I've learned about the console gaming market over my twenty years experience with it, it's that the phrase "two is company, three's a crowd" has often been historically correct. At almost every point during the last four or five console generations, two consoles seemed to coast easily while every other console struggled or failed. A two-console market seemed to be the sweet spot, but the ability for the gaming market to sustain three consoles was always finicky at best. In fact, if it wasn't for Nintendo's incredibly strong handheld market, many people believe they wouldn't have survived the last generation when the Gamecube started to see stiff competition from the original Xbox. Before the Wii became a resounding success, many people predicted Nintendo was going to end up like Sega.
Of course, the market has changed quite a bit in the last few years. I personally believe that at this point, it's strong enough to maintain all three consoles. But there's no telling what the future might bring, especially in these economic times. If things start to get tight, I guarantee you the difference between first place and second place won't be nearly as important as the difference between second place and third.
"A lot of publishers AREN'T making everything for the PS3. The 360 seems to be the best supported console. Which is still odd, since it seems like it should be the wii."
It's only odd until you look a little closer at it. I'd say there's two main points about the Wii that make 3rd party developer a bit weary about the system.
1. The games that seem to sell the best are the ones made by Nintendo. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule (Guitar Hero, Carnival Games), but just a quick glance at NPD's charts seems to suggest that, despite the larger user base, the user base seems primarily loyal to Nintendo products and may overlook a 3rd party title.
2. It's much harder to identify whether a game will be successful on the Wii or not. Face it, casual gamers are much harder to classify than core gamers, mostly due to the inherent diversity of the casual crowd (children, women, and old people) versus the core crowd (young males). There's that and the fact that casual gamers prefer casual games, and casual games are cheaper to produce which means the casual gaming market tends to get a bit flooded (as it currently is). Even a quality casual game like BoomBlox can get lost in the crowd.
Given that the casual gaming market on the Wii is flooded and the core gaming market tends to be overlooked, it's not surprising to me that a lot of developers still prefer the 360 or PS3. Whether this will eventually change or not is arguable.
"You can't beat a keyboard/mouse combo for FPS, a D-pad for platformers"
Wow, I can't believe I'm replying to such a passing statement, but I can't help myself. I'm a nerd, after all.
I just thought I'd point out that the anolog sticks on a console controller work far better than the D-pad for platformers. However, some people would argue the D-pad works better for fighting games and side-scrollers (but even that's arguable).
The only game I listed above that I know had additional auto-aim added to it on the console is unreal tournament. Even then, you have the option to turn it off. I am unable to find any information about auto-aim on the other four games.
But slower game speeds? Wider fudge factors? I'm fairly certain every level of the above five games was ported authentically from its PC counterpart. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. Hell, if you could point me to some evidence of these claims, I'd mod you up myself if I could. But modding parent up and me down because he claims "slower game speeds" and "wider fudge-factors" are "pretty common" without any examples or evidence absolutely demonstrates how modding here on slashdot has very little to do with making insightful remarks, and far more to do with making remarks the modders want to agree with. Hell, even his claim of "auto-aim", while potentially true, wasn't backed up with anything verifiable, and he certainly didn't address how adding some auto-aim to a game to compensate for the more difficult control scheme amounts to a "watered down" game. We at least could have had a somewhat decent conversation about that.
But no. He simply states that console fps games ported from the pc have additional auto-aim (sometimes true, but not always, think Left 4 Dead), are slowed down (can't think of a single example) and have larger fudge-factors (what does that even mean), and then he gets modded up because the modders apparently want him to be right and me to be wrong. At least I provided examples to back up my point.
Making a claim and calling it "pretty common" doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't make it insightful. You modders should be ashamed. Hell, if you have to mod someone up, mod the other guy who replied to me. While his post about Shadowrun completely missed the point I was trying to make about PC ports, at least it was interesting.
"In the case of FPS and RTS games for consoles, you also need to dumb it down a bit, since there's no way you can control these games with a game controller with the same precision and speed that a mouse would afford in a computer."
Five games that I have played on the console that were ported from the PC. What, exactly, was dumbed down about these games? Last I checked they were almost identical to their PC counterparts.
Honestly, if you don't like playing a FPS on a console because its too difficult for you, then that's fine. But calling console FPSs dumbed-down versions of their PC counterparts is insulting to more capable gamers who don't have such problems and to the developers of these games who, I'm sure, wouldn't want you spreading such misinformation.
I will concede, however, that Halo Wars seems like a bit of a watered-down RTS to me.
"The reason why I don't prefer the lower accuracy of a game controller is that it often gives an edge on spraying an area with bullets rather than aiming."
I vehemently disagree. And I think the error lies in the wording. On a console, it's not that all players will have low accuracy. It's that being accurate will be harder. Let's face it. Everyone's an expert at aiming on the PC. Headshots are easy. But on a console, the range of skill is even greater than it is on a PC. I've can show you clips of people that are so ridiculously accurate with a controller, they rival most PC gamers with their accuracy. But of course, these people are the cream-of-the-crop rather than the standard. After playing for only a short while against people like this, it becomes clear to any console player that the pay-and-spray method isn't going to work if one seeks to become good.
There's no use trying, man. This is slashdot, home of the PC elitists. Honestly, for some reason, admitting Halo did ANYTHING worthy of noting is a sin to most PC players. It's probably because, for years, the FPS genre was seen as a PC only thing. It was one of several good reasons to be a PC gamer. But lately, the PC has been suffering a bit. I suppose that could account for the instant defensiveness a PC gamer gets when you suggest that, just maybe, a good FPS game has been done on the console. What kills me the most is I absolutely LOVE Half-life 2. It's my favorite FPS. I played it on the 360. It pains me to think what I would have missed out on if I had dismissed it simply because it did not premiere on my system of choice.
Maybe because it's not a mindless smash-the-minions game. That's a common misconception made about God of War, usually from people who've only played it a couple of hours or who played it on easy. Truth is, after the second hour, mindless smashing doesn't work anymore. You really have to learn which combos work against wich creatures. You have to learn how to counter-block. You have to learn how to use your magic. I really, really enjoyed God of War and it pains me when people call in a mindless smasher. I'm forgiving, though, since that's exactly what I expected to get when I first saw it. I was pleased to find it had much more depth.
Actually, I think lack of skill could be stupidity or ignorance. Stupidity is a lack of ability to understand. Is someone is mathematically stupid, it's not that they haven't tried to understand it, it's that they DID try to understand it and were not able to. This would be a "lack of skill" due to stupidity. However, ignorance also manifests itself as "lack of skill". I, for example, am ignorant of car repair. That doesn't mean I couldn't understand it if I tried, but I haven't, so I don't know. But because I don't know of it, I lack car repair skill.
I think it's better to define stupidity as "the inability to understand".
"Uh, well I do give them money for these games, so certainly they owe me something."
See, that's where you fail. You paid them money for a game. They supplied you the game. There should be no expectations beyond that. But you've turned their generous nature into an obligation. That's unreasonable. If you want to be disappointed, I suppose that's a natural response. But to chastise them so quickly and so vehemently simply because they may have chosen, in this instance, to act in a way that is not unlike most other gaming companies today, it makes you come across as a spoiled, ungrateful consumer. Here's a hint. Stop expecting free stuff. That way, you'll be happy when you get it, and content when you don't. Save your fervor for things you should really be upset about, like EA's DRM.
Wow. So, give you free stuff, or you'll be pissed, eh? It amazes me how much entitlement some pc gamers have. As a pc gamer myself, I FULLY recognize that pc gaming revenue has been dropping steadily over the last decade. The appeal of PC game development has been waning. Most pc gamers choose not to recognize this fact. Valve is one of the few companies that is still focused on PC development firt, but even they have been forced by the rough PC market to cater somewhat to the console crowd. If Valve decided to charge for the additional content, I wouldn't whine about it. After all, they're still giving out the SDK for free. That's worth much more than the DLC in my opinion. Why don't you be grateful to the company for providing years of entertainment at a more than reasonable price, rather than instantly bitching the moment they decide to supplement their revenue. You act like they owe you something. But their success was of their own making. They don't owe you anything.
I was with you until now. I'm an avid videogame player. I'm also an uncle. I've always been supportive of the ESRB. I'm not ignorant enough to claim that there is not some evidence to suggest that children may be affected by violent videogames. I'm certainly not ignorant enough to claim there is equal evidence to the contrary. But this really isn't an issue simply about what impact violent videogames have on children. It's an issue about government interference.
I'm not one of those people who are inherently against government interference. I think most (but not all) government limitations are justified. Surely letting 5-year-olds drive would be a mistake. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. As you can see, I tend not to think in general idealisms. I've always been more comfortable recognizing the gray area then pretending it doesn't exist.
So for me, justifying an action such as the government placing warning labels on videogames is much more complex than simply determining whether or not videogames can be linked to increased aggression in children. There are many, many other issues to consider. Here's a few:
1. Are videogames a significant public threat?
Well, there's a good chance they cause increased aggression in children, but how many long-term studies have been done? Is there enough to justify government intervention? To what extent does this increased aggression manifest itself? If it leads to a significant increase in the potential for one to commit a violent crime, then sure, slap a label on there. But if it merely makes someone more likely to give someone the finger on the highway, then I'm really not that concerned. Frankly, there's not a lot of research (that I am aware of) that predicts how this aggression might manifest itself.
2. Is there a precedent for government interference in media?
Well, sure there is. In my state, it's illegal for a person under the age of 18 to buy pornographic material. The FCC also regulates and censors publically accessible broadcasts. But in my view, videogames are closer in practice to the music and movie industry. While it has been argued that the affects of videogames might be increased because the player is initiating the violence rather than simply viewing it, the research to support that seems sketchy at best.
3. What doors does this open?
There are people that don't see any problem with placing a label on videogames. It can't hurt, can it? How can it be bad for the government to stick a warning label on a videogame? Placing a warning label on a videogame is equal in my eyes to a condemnation of the work it's placed on. What gives the government the right to decide that one videogame is violent enough to warrant the label and another is not? Does Halo have as much affect on aggressive behavior as Grand Theft Auto? Laws tend to be as concrete as possible. Defining what constitutes "dangerous enough to be labeled" seems highly ambiguous to me. I'm extremely weary of government passing judgment on media, even if it seems to be something as harmless as a label.
4. Would the label even be affective?
The games already have labels that suggest their content. How would a government label fair better.
5. Can we justify the tax expense?
Despite what you think, this IS an issue of tax dollars. Believe it or not, creating an organization to review EVERY game and determine if it is violent enough to necessitate a warning would probably be very expensive.
I'm not a scientist. I don't read a lot of journals on the subject, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I have a hard time believing the harm associated with video games is SO severe that it should necessitate government interference. Call me a skeptic if you must.
"PS3 vs 360 flamewars are getting retarded anyway"
I totally agree. So are rants about how much better the Wii is doing over either of those systems, as though there's some kind of point in a statement like that. Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears sell a lot of records. That doesn't really testify to the quality of their music, though, does it?
I don't have anything against the Wii. In fact, I think the Wii serves a vital purpose, which is to pull in new gamers and help insure future relevance for the gaming industry. That's all well and good, but as someone who's been gaming for over 15 years, I've long since passed the point where mini-games and simple games can hold my attention for very long. This is not a trend specific to videogames. Growing up, I watched cheesy Nickelodeon shows with joy. I went to movies with generic plots and walked away happy. I read R.L. Stine and thought his books were awesome. But as with most things, eventually I grew tired of the simplicity and generic quality of such things and moved onto things with a little more complexity and emotion.
A common trend in a lot of Wii-friendly posts (including yours) is that Nintendo got it right by creating a system geared more towards simplicity. If we're speaking in terms of dollar signs, then it's hard to disagree. But if we're speaking about stretching the boundaries of what games are capable of doing, I have to give the edge to the 360 and the ps3. I'm sorry, but aside from the awesome control scheme (hands down the best thing about the Wii) I have to give the edge to the other systems in almost every other aspect. Online console capability is a relatively new dimension, and the Wii is easily the farthest behind in this aspect. Graphics, memory, performance; you speak about such things with such contempt, as though they don't matter. I'm sorry to say, but they do.
I always say, there is such thing as a good silent movie (I love Charlie Chaplin), but I never regretted the day movies acquired sound and color. A more powerful system doesn't guarantee more creativity, but it does broaden the potential for it. Need proof? Portal probably couldn't have been done on the Wii. The new Prince of Persia, Mirror's Edge, Left 4 Dead and Little Big Planet probably couldn't have been done on the Wii. All of these games were released this year and they all have an aspect of freshness and originality to them that couldn't have been accomplished as successfully without the technical prowess to accommodate them. From what I've seen on the Wii, there are very few games that don't feel very reminiscent of titles I've seen many times before. Instead, the Wii is filled with mini-games and established Nintendo franchises. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing if one considers that such a direction can (and obviously does) appeal to less veteran gamers who are less discerning. In time, these so-called "casual" gamers could find themselves in search of more engaging games, and then, without even knowing it, they'll find themselves nestled comfortably beside the rest of the "hardcore" posse. But I hardly think that that sentiment alone justifies such contempt for the two other, more powerful systems. And financial success is even more irrelevant. There's more to it than sales figures.
Overall, I liked 4 better than WAW. I agree with you that there aren't as many "Wow" moments in WAW, but there is one thing WAW did better than 4. One of my biggest complaints about number 4 was the never-ending spawn of enemies. At seemingly random times, players would have to progress through enemies that never stopped coming. One of my least favorite parts of 4 was such an occasion, near the beginning at the TV station. In the large room with lots of computers and stuff, I must have killed two dozen guys before I finally realized the only way I was going to pass through it was to run to the other side and hope for the best. 4 had a lot of awkward parts like this where you either had to be scuicidally aggressive, or you had to hide somewhere and wait for pickup while the hordes kept coming and coming.
WAW still has a lot of these never-ending spawn spots, but they're much easier to recognize and, even better, you can progress through them slowly without having to be scuicidally aggressive. Taking a room one cover at a time feels very satisfying, and I find myself actually enjoying the never-ending spawnage rather than being frustrated by it.
Which company would that be? Nintendo? No doubt, Nintendo is a great company. I said it myself in some other post (forget where), if someone made the argument that Nintendo was the best game developer in the world, I wouldn't argue with them. They're awesome. Even their casual games are.
But are casual gamers buying Nintendo games because they're so discerning an they recognize such high quality? Or are they buying them because they're Nintendo games, and otherwise ignoring other high quality casual games being released by 3rd parties?
Well, according to VGChartz, of the top ten games sold on the Wii, 8 of them were published by Nintendo. The two that weren't? Mario & Sonic at the olympic games at number 7, published by Sega, but starring Mario. And Guitar Hero 3 at number 10. Half those games feature mario in one aspect or another.
So the question is, how about the other 3rd party casual games. At 15 is some game called Carnival games, which recieved about a 56 on metacritic. I've never played it so I can't personally attest to it's quality, but I'm fairly skeptical. At 21 and 23 are rayman raving rabbits. I guess they're okay. Boomblox, a casual game of incredible quality, is missing from the top 50. As is Zack and Wicki.
I don't know. I'm hard pressed to believe that casual gamers really have impeccable taste, that simply differs from my own. I find it more likely that they simply buy Nintendo because Nintendo can be trusted. But with third party games, they don't have a clue. That's not an insult, it's just part of being a casual gamer.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a small problem in your argument, though. They're designed, as you said, to appeal to girls. Men are actually manliest when they're trying to impress other guys, not girls. I remember in high school at an all-class assembly, the speaker asked us why we thought men acted tough and who we thought they were trying to impress. I knew right away. I'm sure a lot of other guys around me knew, too. But the first three answers from the audience were all from girls who said something like "they're trying to impress girls." Finally a guy from the audience shouted out "to impress other guys" and the speaker validated it. I'll always remember that because it's really so true. It's why guys are more into action movies starring the likes of Arnold or Stallone, or games like Gear of War.
I'm not an expert on Japanese culture, so I can't say whether Japanese guys feel the same way or not, but if these so-called pop stars are being made up that way to attract girls, that really doesn't say anything about how they are considered amongst Japanese males.
Actually, what I hated the most about 8 was those parts where you had to play in the past as those three dudes. I can't even remember why I hated it, but I did. Maybe because you had to reequip them or you didn't have all your magic or something. eh, I can't remember.
Wow. Thanks for bringing that up. I'd almost forgot about it, but the Playonline integration in the strategy guide really, REALLY pissed me off. I had a tradition with all the FF games I played. I would beat the game by myself, then replay it with a strategy guide to see all the stuff I missed. FF9 was the first FF game I failed to beat the second time simply because of how terrible the strategy guide was. Looking back, I should have asked for my money back.
The xbox now allows you to store games on the harddrive. At worst, this means an initial instillation of the disks and nothing more. I guarantee if this game is large and fits onto one blue ray, the ps3 will STILL require you to upload it to your harddrive just like it does with Metal Gear Solid. So it's really the same for both systems.
Don't forget, you can probably pick up a few extra bucks selling your 20G harddrive on ebay or craigslist. They don't go for much, but it's something.
True, but sometimes the sequel get's it even more right. Can you imagine a world without Zelda: Ocarina of time? Or Half life 2?
I'm not opposed to well thought out sequels. It's the Electronic-Arts-sequel-every-year-regardless-of-need-or-quality that I'm opposed to.
(To EA - Keep developing games like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge and I'll stop making you the brunt of all my gripes)
HORRIBLE anology. You're talking about a decidedly racist organization exterminating the reanimated dead bodies of the people they sought to eliminate. If Chris Redfield wore a KKK bed sheet, then yes, I could understand someone taking offense.
But this is not about ANY racist organization, unless you consider the entire white race to be one. Taking offense to a game like this seems to imply that it is culturally insensitive to have a white protagonist fact off against black antagonists regardless of the context. To me, that is an unreasonable qualification for racism.
Why didn't Uncharted cause as much uproar? I mean, the game was great and everything, but in that game you had a white man shooting Asians, Latinos and black men. Hell, the only bad white guy in the game gets betrayed and killed by his Latino partner. The scrutinizing watchdogs of cultural sensitivity really dropped the ball on that one. I bet Al Sharpton gave them a stern talking to after that one slipped through.
"Last gen Nintendo made the most money despite being in last place while MS blew billions because that was their strategy."
Well, first, I'm honestly very skeptical that Nintendo made the most money last Gen. I'd wager that honor goes to Sony, but I don't have any concrete data on that. Second, MS blowing tons of money kind of speaks to my point, doesn't it? There's little doubt Sony and Nintendo made money last gen, but MS lost tons of it. If it were almost any other company, they wouldn't have survived. I think that demonstrates perfectly how the market has traditionally been a two console market.
You speak of the PS360, stating how both systems tend to have the same features and appeal to the same kind of players, and that this tends to split the market into a Wii versus PS360 mentality. I believe that's mostly true. And because of this, I also believe that, should the market tighten, the real competition would be between the 360 and the PS3, and the Wii would be relatively safe. Again, second place would become a very important position at that point.
The idea, as you seem to imply, that it's first place versus second and third is a mistake in my humble opinion. Should the market tighten, I'd wager its far more likely that two systems would come out on top and one would drop off, rather than the contrary opinion that the Wii would be the sole survivor. I simply say, don't underestimate the importance of second place.
Fortunately, the gaming market is going strong with no signs of slowing down, so we may never know.
"Anyway, taking second place from the 360 is a worthless goal since..."
Actually, it's really not. This is a business, remember, not a race. Pepsi has been second to Coke since as long as they've existed, but because the cola market can easily support two competing companies, this means Pepsi can still turn a profit.
If there's one thing I've learned about the console gaming market over my twenty years experience with it, it's that the phrase "two is company, three's a crowd" has often been historically correct. At almost every point during the last four or five console generations, two consoles seemed to coast easily while every other console struggled or failed. A two-console market seemed to be the sweet spot, but the ability for the gaming market to sustain three consoles was always finicky at best. In fact, if it wasn't for Nintendo's incredibly strong handheld market, many people believe they wouldn't have survived the last generation when the Gamecube started to see stiff competition from the original Xbox. Before the Wii became a resounding success, many people predicted Nintendo was going to end up like Sega.
Of course, the market has changed quite a bit in the last few years. I personally believe that at this point, it's strong enough to maintain all three consoles. But there's no telling what the future might bring, especially in these economic times. If things start to get tight, I guarantee you the difference between first place and second place won't be nearly as important as the difference between second place and third.
"A lot of publishers AREN'T making everything for the PS3. The 360 seems to be the best supported console. Which is still odd, since it seems like it should be the wii."
It's only odd until you look a little closer at it. I'd say there's two main points about the Wii that make 3rd party developer a bit weary about the system.
1. The games that seem to sell the best are the ones made by Nintendo. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule (Guitar Hero, Carnival Games), but just a quick glance at NPD's charts seems to suggest that, despite the larger user base, the user base seems primarily loyal to Nintendo products and may overlook a 3rd party title.
2. It's much harder to identify whether a game will be successful on the Wii or not. Face it, casual gamers are much harder to classify than core gamers, mostly due to the inherent diversity of the casual crowd (children, women, and old people) versus the core crowd (young males). There's that and the fact that casual gamers prefer casual games, and casual games are cheaper to produce which means the casual gaming market tends to get a bit flooded (as it currently is). Even a quality casual game like BoomBlox can get lost in the crowd.
Given that the casual gaming market on the Wii is flooded and the core gaming market tends to be overlooked, it's not surprising to me that a lot of developers still prefer the 360 or PS3. Whether this will eventually change or not is arguable.
"You can't beat a keyboard/mouse combo for FPS, a D-pad for platformers"
Wow, I can't believe I'm replying to such a passing statement, but I can't help myself. I'm a nerd, after all.
I just thought I'd point out that the anolog sticks on a console controller work far better than the D-pad for platformers. However, some people would argue the D-pad works better for fighting games and side-scrollers (but even that's arguable).
The only game I listed above that I know had additional auto-aim added to it on the console is unreal tournament. Even then, you have the option to turn it off. I am unable to find any information about auto-aim on the other four games.
But slower game speeds? Wider fudge factors? I'm fairly certain every level of the above five games was ported authentically from its PC counterpart. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. Hell, if you could point me to some evidence of these claims, I'd mod you up myself if I could. But modding parent up and me down because he claims "slower game speeds" and "wider fudge-factors" are "pretty common" without any examples or evidence absolutely demonstrates how modding here on slashdot has very little to do with making insightful remarks, and far more to do with making remarks the modders want to agree with. Hell, even his claim of "auto-aim", while potentially true, wasn't backed up with anything verifiable, and he certainly didn't address how adding some auto-aim to a game to compensate for the more difficult control scheme amounts to a "watered down" game. We at least could have had a somewhat decent conversation about that.
But no. He simply states that console fps games ported from the pc have additional auto-aim (sometimes true, but not always, think Left 4 Dead), are slowed down (can't think of a single example) and have larger fudge-factors (what does that even mean), and then he gets modded up because the modders apparently want him to be right and me to be wrong. At least I provided examples to back up my point.
Making a claim and calling it "pretty common" doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't make it insightful. You modders should be ashamed. Hell, if you have to mod someone up, mod the other guy who replied to me. While his post about Shadowrun completely missed the point I was trying to make about PC ports, at least it was interesting.
"In the case of FPS and RTS games for consoles, you also need to dumb it down a bit, since there's no way you can control these games with a game controller with the same precision and speed that a mouse would afford in a computer."
Half-life 2. FEAR. Call of Duty 3. Doom 3. Unreal Tournament.
Five games that I have played on the console that were ported from the PC. What, exactly, was dumbed down about these games? Last I checked they were almost identical to their PC counterparts.
Honestly, if you don't like playing a FPS on a console because its too difficult for you, then that's fine. But calling console FPSs dumbed-down versions of their PC counterparts is insulting to more capable gamers who don't have such problems and to the developers of these games who, I'm sure, wouldn't want you spreading such misinformation.
I will concede, however, that Halo Wars seems like a bit of a watered-down RTS to me.
"The reason why I don't prefer the lower accuracy of a game controller is that it often gives an edge on spraying an area with bullets rather than aiming."
I vehemently disagree. And I think the error lies in the wording. On a console, it's not that all players will have low accuracy. It's that being accurate will be harder. Let's face it. Everyone's an expert at aiming on the PC. Headshots are easy. But on a console, the range of skill is even greater than it is on a PC. I've can show you clips of people that are so ridiculously accurate with a controller, they rival most PC gamers with their accuracy. But of course, these people are the cream-of-the-crop rather than the standard. After playing for only a short while against people like this, it becomes clear to any console player that the pay-and-spray method isn't going to work if one seeks to become good.
There's no use trying, man. This is slashdot, home of the PC elitists. Honestly, for some reason, admitting Halo did ANYTHING worthy of noting is a sin to most PC players. It's probably because, for years, the FPS genre was seen as a PC only thing. It was one of several good reasons to be a PC gamer. But lately, the PC has been suffering a bit. I suppose that could account for the instant defensiveness a PC gamer gets when you suggest that, just maybe, a good FPS game has been done on the console. What kills me the most is I absolutely LOVE Half-life 2. It's my favorite FPS. I played it on the 360. It pains me to think what I would have missed out on if I had dismissed it simply because it did not premiere on my system of choice.
Maybe because it's not a mindless smash-the-minions game. That's a common misconception made about God of War, usually from people who've only played it a couple of hours or who played it on easy. Truth is, after the second hour, mindless smashing doesn't work anymore. You really have to learn which combos work against wich creatures. You have to learn how to counter-block. You have to learn how to use your magic. I really, really enjoyed God of War and it pains me when people call in a mindless smasher. I'm forgiving, though, since that's exactly what I expected to get when I first saw it. I was pleased to find it had much more depth.
"stupidity" implies a lack of skill
Actually, I think lack of skill could be stupidity or ignorance. Stupidity is a lack of ability to understand. Is someone is mathematically stupid, it's not that they haven't tried to understand it, it's that they DID try to understand it and were not able to. This would be a "lack of skill" due to stupidity. However, ignorance also manifests itself as "lack of skill". I, for example, am ignorant of car repair. That doesn't mean I couldn't understand it if I tried, but I haven't, so I don't know. But because I don't know of it, I lack car repair skill.
I think it's better to define stupidity as "the inability to understand".
"Uh, well I do give them money for these games, so certainly they owe me something."
See, that's where you fail. You paid them money for a game. They supplied you the game. There should be no expectations beyond that. But you've turned their generous nature into an obligation. That's unreasonable. If you want to be disappointed, I suppose that's a natural response. But to chastise them so quickly and so vehemently simply because they may have chosen, in this instance, to act in a way that is not unlike most other gaming companies today, it makes you come across as a spoiled, ungrateful consumer. Here's a hint. Stop expecting free stuff. That way, you'll be happy when you get it, and content when you don't. Save your fervor for things you should really be upset about, like EA's DRM.
Wow. So, give you free stuff, or you'll be pissed, eh? It amazes me how much entitlement some pc gamers have. As a pc gamer myself, I FULLY recognize that pc gaming revenue has been dropping steadily over the last decade. The appeal of PC game development has been waning. Most pc gamers choose not to recognize this fact. Valve is one of the few companies that is still focused on PC development firt, but even they have been forced by the rough PC market to cater somewhat to the console crowd. If Valve decided to charge for the additional content, I wouldn't whine about it. After all, they're still giving out the SDK for free. That's worth much more than the DLC in my opinion. Why don't you be grateful to the company for providing years of entertainment at a more than reasonable price, rather than instantly bitching the moment they decide to supplement their revenue. You act like they owe you something. But their success was of their own making. They don't owe you anything.
I was with you until now. I'm an avid videogame player. I'm also an uncle. I've always been supportive of the ESRB. I'm not ignorant enough to claim that there is not some evidence to suggest that children may be affected by violent videogames. I'm certainly not ignorant enough to claim there is equal evidence to the contrary. But this really isn't an issue simply about what impact violent videogames have on children. It's an issue about government interference.
I'm not one of those people who are inherently against government interference. I think most (but not all) government limitations are justified. Surely letting 5-year-olds drive would be a mistake. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. As you can see, I tend not to think in general idealisms. I've always been more comfortable recognizing the gray area then pretending it doesn't exist.
So for me, justifying an action such as the government placing warning labels on videogames is much more complex than simply determining whether or not videogames can be linked to increased aggression in children. There are many, many other issues to consider. Here's a few:
1. Are videogames a significant public threat?
Well, there's a good chance they cause increased aggression in children, but how many long-term studies have been done? Is there enough to justify government intervention? To what extent does this increased aggression manifest itself? If it leads to a significant increase in the potential for one to commit a violent crime, then sure, slap a label on there. But if it merely makes someone more likely to give someone the finger on the highway, then I'm really not that concerned. Frankly, there's not a lot of research (that I am aware of) that predicts how this aggression might manifest itself.
2. Is there a precedent for government interference in media?
Well, sure there is. In my state, it's illegal for a person under the age of 18 to buy pornographic material. The FCC also regulates and censors publically accessible broadcasts. But in my view, videogames are closer in practice to the music and movie industry. While it has been argued that the affects of videogames might be increased because the player is initiating the violence rather than simply viewing it, the research to support that seems sketchy at best.
3. What doors does this open?
There are people that don't see any problem with placing a label on videogames. It can't hurt, can it? How can it be bad for the government to stick a warning label on a videogame? Placing a warning label on a videogame is equal in my eyes to a condemnation of the work it's placed on. What gives the government the right to decide that one videogame is violent enough to warrant the label and another is not? Does Halo have as much affect on aggressive behavior as Grand Theft Auto? Laws tend to be as concrete as possible. Defining what constitutes "dangerous enough to be labeled" seems highly ambiguous to me. I'm extremely weary of government passing judgment on media, even if it seems to be something as harmless as a label.
4. Would the label even be affective?
The games already have labels that suggest their content. How would a government label fair better.
5. Can we justify the tax expense?
Despite what you think, this IS an issue of tax dollars. Believe it or not, creating an organization to review EVERY game and determine if it is violent enough to necessitate a warning would probably be very expensive.
I'm not a scientist. I don't read a lot of journals on the subject, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I have a hard time believing the harm associated with video games is SO severe that it should necessitate government interference. Call me a skeptic if you must.
"PS3 vs 360 flamewars are getting retarded anyway"
I totally agree. So are rants about how much better the Wii is doing over either of those systems, as though there's some kind of point in a statement like that. Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears sell a lot of records. That doesn't really testify to the quality of their music, though, does it?
I don't have anything against the Wii. In fact, I think the Wii serves a vital purpose, which is to pull in new gamers and help insure future relevance for the gaming industry. That's all well and good, but as someone who's been gaming for over 15 years, I've long since passed the point where mini-games and simple games can hold my attention for very long. This is not a trend specific to videogames. Growing up, I watched cheesy Nickelodeon shows with joy. I went to movies with generic plots and walked away happy. I read R.L. Stine and thought his books were awesome. But as with most things, eventually I grew tired of the simplicity and generic quality of such things and moved onto things with a little more complexity and emotion.
A common trend in a lot of Wii-friendly posts (including yours) is that Nintendo got it right by creating a system geared more towards simplicity. If we're speaking in terms of dollar signs, then it's hard to disagree. But if we're speaking about stretching the boundaries of what games are capable of doing, I have to give the edge to the 360 and the ps3. I'm sorry, but aside from the awesome control scheme (hands down the best thing about the Wii) I have to give the edge to the other systems in almost every other aspect. Online console capability is a relatively new dimension, and the Wii is easily the farthest behind in this aspect. Graphics, memory, performance; you speak about such things with such contempt, as though they don't matter. I'm sorry to say, but they do.
I always say, there is such thing as a good silent movie (I love Charlie Chaplin), but I never regretted the day movies acquired sound and color. A more powerful system doesn't guarantee more creativity, but it does broaden the potential for it. Need proof? Portal probably couldn't have been done on the Wii. The new Prince of Persia, Mirror's Edge, Left 4 Dead and Little Big Planet probably couldn't have been done on the Wii. All of these games were released this year and they all have an aspect of freshness and originality to them that couldn't have been accomplished as successfully without the technical prowess to accommodate them. From what I've seen on the Wii, there are very few games that don't feel very reminiscent of titles I've seen many times before. Instead, the Wii is filled with mini-games and established Nintendo franchises. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing if one considers that such a direction can (and obviously does) appeal to less veteran gamers who are less discerning. In time, these so-called "casual" gamers could find themselves in search of more engaging games, and then, without even knowing it, they'll find themselves nestled comfortably beside the rest of the "hardcore" posse. But I hardly think that that sentiment alone justifies such contempt for the two other, more powerful systems. And financial success is even more irrelevant. There's more to it than sales figures.
"The online play is limited to MS/Sony servers"
Not true. Left 4 Dead uses servers not owned by MS/Sony. They're owned by Valve.
Overall, I liked 4 better than WAW. I agree with you that there aren't as many "Wow" moments in WAW, but there is one thing WAW did better than 4. One of my biggest complaints about number 4 was the never-ending spawn of enemies. At seemingly random times, players would have to progress through enemies that never stopped coming. One of my least favorite parts of 4 was such an occasion, near the beginning at the TV station. In the large room with lots of computers and stuff, I must have killed two dozen guys before I finally realized the only way I was going to pass through it was to run to the other side and hope for the best. 4 had a lot of awkward parts like this where you either had to be scuicidally aggressive, or you had to hide somewhere and wait for pickup while the hordes kept coming and coming.
WAW still has a lot of these never-ending spawn spots, but they're much easier to recognize and, even better, you can progress through them slowly without having to be scuicidally aggressive. Taking a room one cover at a time feels very satisfying, and I find myself actually enjoying the never-ending spawnage rather than being frustrated by it.
Which company would that be? Nintendo? No doubt, Nintendo is a great company. I said it myself in some other post (forget where), if someone made the argument that Nintendo was the best game developer in the world, I wouldn't argue with them. They're awesome. Even their casual games are.
But are casual gamers buying Nintendo games because they're so discerning an they recognize such high quality? Or are they buying them because they're Nintendo games, and otherwise ignoring other high quality casual games being released by 3rd parties?
Well, according to VGChartz, of the top ten games sold on the Wii, 8 of them were published by Nintendo. The two that weren't? Mario & Sonic at the olympic games at number 7, published by Sega, but starring Mario. And Guitar Hero 3 at number 10. Half those games feature mario in one aspect or another.
So the question is, how about the other 3rd party casual games. At 15 is some game called Carnival games, which recieved about a 56 on metacritic. I've never played it so I can't personally attest to it's quality, but I'm fairly skeptical. At 21 and 23 are rayman raving rabbits. I guess they're okay. Boomblox, a casual game of incredible quality, is missing from the top 50. As is Zack and Wicki.
I don't know. I'm hard pressed to believe that casual gamers really have impeccable taste, that simply differs from my own. I find it more likely that they simply buy Nintendo because Nintendo can be trusted. But with third party games, they don't have a clue. That's not an insult, it's just part of being a casual gamer.