You should be embarrassed. If you find those "8 years of correlation... hard to put aside" then I suggest you brush up on your critical thinking skills.
I never took a stats class, but if the odds were 50/50 that the videogame match succesfully predicted the gamewinner each year, than thats a 1 in 2^8 chance, 1 in 256, that we'd see the results they have.
So most likely, there is a correlation, the game has SOME predictive power.
It's just a repeat of our New England complaint "we don't get no respect".
If the primary way one ingame NFL team differs from another is uniform look and player stats, then Virtual Patriots are probably going to look a lot less good than they do in real life...a video game player as "coach" is no Bill Belichick, and its gotta be hard for a video game designer to model the cleverness that makes the Patriots a standout team.
And I'd wager, if the player models were set before this season, they still underestimate the Pats, given how many injuries they've had, and how many "second string" players have gotten the chance to prove their worth on the field.
I am by no means a Sony fanboy, I held out as long as possible to buy a PS2 (and still think it's weak in comparison to the other consoles, but hey.. exclusives!) But I really think that Sony has enough marketing power and brand recognition to be a contender. Heh, the only PS2 exclusive I really care abot was GTAs...including the upcoming one, which is the only reason I still keep the beast around.
I've been thinking about the early success of GB, and I think it has to do with Nintendo's franchises, getting handheld versions of Super Mario and Zelda and what not. I know I'm biased, but I think Nintendo's first-party and other exclusive series are something that Sony just doesn't have to as nearly as high a degree, and while Sony's sheer quanity of games combined w/ backwards compatability make it formidable on the home console front, I'm not sure if its gonna map down as well, especially if they mess up on the form factor or price fronts.
Exactly. It's almost like this article is a list of portable console's that weren't number one. Which is literally every other portable out there
It's not so much that they weren't number one, it's that they didn't have a big impact on the market...I mean, back in the day, it wouldn't be that remarkable if a friend had an SNES. Or a Genesis. But having a Game Gear would be almost eyebrow raising, worthy of note. (Same with some other systems...I was surprised that a girlfriend's family had an atari 7800...)
Basically, every handheld system save for Nintendo's have been niche items.
And everyone says "it's the battery life"...I think that helps a bit, but really, I think the GB was the first instance of Nintendo REALLY being able to bank on its franchise series, creating (and getting created) downsized versions of NES greats, like Super Mario and what not. And the killer-app Tetris didn't hurt. I'd put games and form factor ahead of battery life and price in terms of how Nintendo got where it is in the handheld market. (BTW, form factor is, no pun intended, huge, from handheld games to PDAs to cellphones)
I doubt the ones that write for Wired will have to worry. Well, at least until Wired goes under.
You know, I think Wired has shown some pretty remarkable resiliency through this whole boom and bust. Consistently they have articles I find interesting. I still subscribe out of loyalty, even though (or because?) they put almost all of their content online shortly thereafter.
cute, but I believe this is only true for the truck driver turned VB programmer types... I've had no problem maintaining my salary level throughout the bad times. Crossing my fingers and counting my blessings, same here.
I myself just started working at a small company (30 employees) and they have an incredible amount of paper-based forms and garbage that can be all but eliminated with programs that take me less than a day to write using Access and VB. They were about to spend a couple hundred dollars to hire a software company to do it.
A couple hundred dollars? That is very small change. If each person gets minimum wage, that's at least 30 * 12K = 360K in salary every year, plus god knows whatever other expenses...it's cool to make software to improve efficiency, but if you're competing against a couple hundred dollars, you're not goint to "make a killing"
I'm just wondering if other people are seeing a great deal of Internet congestion, or if it's just something local to me and my employer over my lunch break...a lot of sites are seeming slooooow...
It seems like it still hasn't recovered, as of noon Eastern on Tuesday.
Not a ringing endorsement for its Python backend.
For that matter, any site dedicated to a computer that has a history of advocacy war better put its house in order, server-wise, because even if the server has nothing to do with the computer system in question, it invites ridicule...
Being able to program something (graphical no less) in a built-in BASIC is an openess that almost all of today's computers lack...
The thing about PCs was that the sound and graphics were always an add-on, most other computers had a higher (but less upgradeable) A/V capability out of the box. They were more like gaming consoles in that regard.
Someone mod parent up, it deserves to at least be seen.
The basic point is that people who hide behind usability studies and labwork, and say that "developer common sense" is misguided and unworthy of consideration, often miss the assumptions that their usability labwork has to make... whom are you making it easier for? The n00b, the "regular joe", the poweruser?
Though I think my biggest challegne as a developer is assuming what I'm used to is "best"...on the other hand, working like everything else is a big advantage, even if it can be "proven" that (all other things being equal, and they never are) the non-popular system is somehow "better". It's one (not nec. only) of the reasons QWERTY will be with us for as long as people use anything resembling a keyboard.
I like how Vice City was beautified to take advantage of the better Xbox hardware. It's sad to see it on the PS2. I have both versions, I don't think the Xbox is THAT much better....shiny cars, seperate fingers, better control layout. That's about it.
I've heard that the PS2's memory limitations were why you get so many things disappearing when your back is turned, so I was bummed they didn't try to improve that and kept it more of a straight port.
I'm convinced GTA:next would be so much better if it wasn't slated to first run on PS2.
I don't care what this ratio is. I only buy the gems, and I ignore the "shovelware", so it's existence doesn't harm me. What's important is how many gems there are. How much shovelware there is is only relevant if you buy games by choosing at random from those on the shelf in the store.
I think that although ps2 does have far more crap games than gc, the two have roughly the same number of gems.
Fair enough! I brought out the "ratio" argument as a pre-emptive counter to "but the PS2 has SO MANY GAMES" thinking. I agree the # of gems are probably roughly equal, but for a variety of reasons (nostalgia cashins ala Metroid and Super Smash Bros, multiplayer emphasis) I prefer Nintendo.
The only PS2 gems that really caught me were GTA:VC and then GTA3. Now that they're on Xbox (and my relatives bought 'em for me for Christmas even though I didn't ask for him, since they're not THAT much better than PS2, shinier cars and better controls) I just don't see the need for the PS2. I might tool around with some of the Ratchet and Jax and Clank and Daxter platformers, or odd stuff like Ico, and curse the arrangement that means GTA:next will come out on PS2 with that system's limitations in mind, but that's it. (YMMV, depending on the genres you like)
You're right though, the shovelware ratio isn't a general argument, since few gamers buy all the games or just randomly select from the entire library...
You know, you can buy an adapter to allow you to use more controller ports for games that support it on the PS2. Just like how you can buy a remote to watch DVDs on an X-Box.
Yes, but I have pet theories that by requiring users to buy an extra piece of middleware, roughly the cost of a controller but with no other tangible benefit, far fewer game companies put 4 player modes into their games then would if it was 4 ports in the basic hardware.
I started with a GC, and its still may favorite...the first party stuff can't be touched, and for multiplayer (Smash Bros, Monkey Ball 2, Mario Kart) and other exclusives (the first Rogue Squadron game on it, at least) make it the last one I'd give up.
Then I got a PS2...ugh. I got it for WDL:Thundertanks, hoping it would be another "Battle Tanx", but it sucked. For a while its saving grace was GTA3 and GTA:VC, but now it's only the thought that the sequel to those will be on this system first that have me keep it around. There are some other good games, but overall the gem/shovelware ratio is way too small to justify the expense of the system. I really think that "first mover advantage" combined with the leverage of playing PSone games (which in turn had a huge first mover advantage) as well as being untouchable for specific genres I don't care about (sports, RPGs) are what make this system the leader.
I got an Xbox lastly, and its made a tremendous impression on me. It follows in the Microsoft tradition of not really innovating much, but copying some of the very best parts of other systems. It's a buttugly huge console but it has the best controllers (the S-version, the original were just clones + minor enhancements and great enlargements of what the DC had) and some of the games are sweet...Halo and Crimson Skies in particular. It is very likely THE biggest horsepower console out now, and it shows.
So while my heart is still with Nintendo, I've really been impressed with what Xbox has done. And will probably never really forgive PS2 for the dumbness of only putting 2 controller ports on without a multitap...
We're a hell of a long way before we start talking about the morality of deleting a computer program.
Probably. At least with the typical AI in a typical game...we should no more worry about those guys than, say, taking penicillin. They "act much smarter than they are", incredibly brittle, situation-specific intelligence.
But it's not outside the realm of possibility that in 10-20 we'll see a more general intelligence in the labs, and shortly thereafter something similar will be ported into games. What then? Will we be biased, that intelligences worth "caring" about can only be based on squishy stuff? Will there be caps on how intelligent you can make an artifical construct w/o getting special permission to "turn it off"?
Sure, this is still science fiction talk, and "real AI" has been "just around the corner" for decades. But as our AIs get better...and our understanding of the transitory and heuristic nature of our own intelligences gets stronger... there may well be issues that raise serious moral dilemnas, if we don't sweep them under the rug.
You can play sim-sex-conquest all you want in some European countries and Asia (esp. Japan).
Can you think of any specific examples? I've heard about a few Japanese games, but those seem mostly bathroom fetish oriented.
Honestly, it is mostly intellectual curiosity at this point, it's interesting seeing what cultures will allow. If it runs on a console (as opposed to a PC) I'm sure it has to be semi-illegal or at least unauthorized, I get the feeling the console makers won't license anything along those lines...
He should have referred to the mission "Waste the Wife", an assination mission where a guy wants the wife dead, and hires you to kill her. Yeah...that one actually sticks out in my mind, because the wife seems more or less innocent (I don't remember if they mention why she's wanted dead) and genuinely horrified that this maniac keeps bashing into her car...I don't think she begs for mercy, but does say "Oh my god!!!" a few times. (Plus, it's not an easy mission, usually you have to swap cars halfway through and keep at it, no "whoops, sorry, you're dead, easy come easy go")
It does make me wonder...all the pedestrians in GTA are pretty clearly very low level AIs. But if games start cranking up the AI to the point where they're, say, about as smart as a dog or cat...will it ever be morally questionable to kill them, not because of their resemblance to real humans, but just because of what they are in and of themselves.
If the imagination of our game designers is limited to "Filler... filler... filler.... Now let's make a really hard boss by giving him extra special armor and lots of hit points," that's the problem. Making the "bosses" harder and harder to compensate for a total lack of imagination is just sad. Well, for one thing, I'm not into boss fights being gratuitously difficult, just enough so they might take a few tries and force a strategy to be developed.
Many games have too main components: fighting, and exploration. Both fighting and exploration can have puzzle solving aspects, as well as "show me something cool" parts.
A game that's big into exploration will probably keep with small combat w/o many bosses, like Halo.
But a game that tries to make the combat interesting...a boss is just a way of personifying big combat. A good boss has TONS of imagination, isn't just a normal character w/ cranked up stats. It does something neat, looks cool and imposing, and you have to figure out what will bring 'em down.
Also, note to designers, creating games that require higher and higher hardware threshholds to get a decent frame rate is just plain inflation, and doesn't add much to my experience.
Ah, the old "graphics should be secondary to gameplay" line of arguing. True to a certain extent, but I don't think ALL high hardwre requirements are without merit, making visually compelling "realistic" and details worlds is a noble goal.
'Course I just play consoles, so a couple hundred bucks ever 4 or 5 years keeps me up to date.
As an aside, I'm actually amazed they thought ANY games were good on the Atari 2600. You had to have a serious power of imagination to play ANY game on that thing...:-) Are those three green blocks a tree? Ah, yes...
Nah, some of the games were pretty visually impressive, all things considered. Just browse through the screenshots at...very few block based games...Adventure comes to mind, but that was such a good game in other ways. (And the dragons are ducks, not squares...)
Overall, my favorite arcade-to-2600 conversion, better than the original, is Battlezone...very pretty looking, they switched to a behind the tank view (the treads move realistically as you go and turn), and though they had to remove the random shapes littering the landscape, they made it so you fight two tanks at once. (Much better 3D model than Robot Tank...in Battlezone you can hear a shot fired offscreen, throw it into reverse, and watch the bullet pass harmlessly in front of you...)
Now that we're well beyond using hand-drawn sprites, I wish we saw more games (are there any?) that didn't just have 4 or 5 basic types that were all clones of each other, but ones where enemies or bystanders come in a wider variety of body types and other variations...
I find bosses to be some of the most compelling and interesting parts of a number of games, unique parts of every game, whereas everything else kind of repeats.
Most everything else is just lame running around and beating up so so, no challenge enemies.
This doesn't apply to all games: GTA:VC is a new breed of game where the world is interesting and flexible enough that even the small stuff is interesting, and "bosses" are just barely enhaced regular people with heavy weaponry.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to beat a good joke down: 1 in 256.
You should be embarrassed. If you find those "8 years of correlation... hard to put aside" then I suggest you brush up on your critical thinking skills.
I never took a stats class, but if the odds were 50/50 that the videogame match succesfully predicted the gamewinner each year, than thats a 1 in 2^8 chance, 1 in 256, that we'd see the results they have.
So most likely, there is a correlation, the game has SOME predictive power.
Absolute? Unlikely. But still.
It's just a repeat of our New England complaint "we don't get no respect".
If the primary way one ingame NFL team differs from another is uniform look and player stats, then Virtual Patriots are probably going to look a lot less good than they do in real life...a video game player as "coach" is no Bill Belichick, and its gotta be hard for a video game designer to model the cleverness that makes the Patriots a standout team.
And I'd wager, if the player models were set before this season, they still underestimate the Pats, given how many injuries they've had, and how many "second string" players have gotten the chance to prove their worth on the field.
I am by no means a Sony fanboy, I held out as long as possible to buy a PS2 (and still think it's weak in comparison to the other consoles, but hey.. exclusives!) But I really think that Sony has enough marketing power and brand recognition to be a contender.
Heh, the only PS2 exclusive I really care abot was GTAs...including the upcoming one, which is the only reason I still keep the beast around.
I've been thinking about the early success of GB, and I think it has to do with Nintendo's franchises, getting handheld versions of Super Mario and Zelda and what not. I know I'm biased, but I think Nintendo's first-party and other exclusive series are something that Sony just doesn't have to as nearly as high a degree, and while Sony's sheer quanity of games combined w/ backwards compatability make it formidable on the home console front, I'm not sure if its gonna map down as well, especially if they mess up on the form factor or price fronts.
Exactly. It's almost like this article is a list of portable console's that weren't number one. Which is literally every other portable out there
It's not so much that they weren't number one, it's that they didn't have a big impact on the market...I mean, back in the day, it wouldn't be that remarkable if a friend had an SNES. Or a Genesis. But having a Game Gear would be almost eyebrow raising, worthy of note. (Same with some other systems...I was surprised that a girlfriend's family had an atari 7800...)
Basically, every handheld system save for Nintendo's have been niche items.
And everyone says "it's the battery life"...I think that helps a bit, but really, I think the GB was the first instance of Nintendo REALLY being able to bank on its franchise series, creating (and getting created) downsized versions of NES greats, like Super Mario and what not. And the killer-app Tetris didn't hurt. I'd put games and form factor ahead of battery life and price in terms of how Nintendo got where it is in the handheld market. (BTW, form factor is, no pun intended, huge, from handheld games to PDAs to cellphones)
I doubt the ones that write for Wired will have to worry. Well, at least until Wired goes under.
You know, I think Wired has shown some pretty remarkable resiliency through this whole boom and bust. Consistently they have articles I find interesting. I still subscribe out of loyalty, even though (or because?) they put almost all of their content online shortly thereafter.
cute, but I believe this is only true for the truck driver turned VB programmer types... I've had no problem maintaining my salary level throughout the bad times.
Crossing my fingers and counting my blessings, same here.
I myself just started working at a small company (30 employees) and they have an incredible amount of paper-based forms and garbage that can be all but eliminated with programs that take me less than a day to write using Access and VB. They were about to spend a couple hundred dollars to hire a software company to do it.
A couple hundred dollars? That is very small change. If each person gets minimum wage, that's at least 30 * 12K = 360K in salary every year, plus god knows whatever other expenses...it's cool to make software to improve efficiency, but if you're competing against a couple hundred dollars, you're not goint to "make a killing"
I'm just wondering if other people are seeing a great deal of Internet congestion, or if it's just something local to me and my employer over my lunch break...a lot of sites are seeming slooooow...
It seems like it still hasn't recovered, as of noon Eastern on Tuesday.
Not a ringing endorsement for its Python backend.
For that matter, any site dedicated to a computer that has a history of advocacy war better put its house in order, server-wise, because even if the server has nothing to do with the computer system in question, it invites ridicule...
Being able to program something (graphical no less) in a built-in BASIC is an openess that almost all of today's computers lack...
The thing about PCs was that the sound and graphics were always an add-on, most other computers had a higher (but less upgradeable) A/V capability out of the box. They were more like gaming consoles in that regard.
Someone mod parent up, it deserves to at least be seen.
The basic point is that people who hide behind usability studies and labwork, and say that "developer common sense" is misguided and unworthy of consideration, often miss the assumptions that their usability labwork has to make... whom are you making it easier for? The n00b, the "regular joe", the poweruser?
Though I think my biggest challegne as a developer is assuming what I'm used to is "best"...on the other hand, working like everything else is a big advantage, even if it can be "proven" that (all other things being equal, and they never are) the non-popular system is somehow "better". It's one (not nec. only) of the reasons QWERTY will be with us for as long as people use anything resembling a keyboard.
I like how Vice City was beautified to take advantage of the better Xbox hardware. It's sad to see it on the PS2.
I have both versions, I don't think the Xbox is THAT much better....shiny cars, seperate fingers, better control layout. That's about it.
I've heard that the PS2's memory limitations were why you get so many things disappearing when your back is turned, so I was bummed they didn't try to improve that and kept it more of a straight port.
I'm convinced GTA:next would be so much better if it wasn't slated to first run on PS2.
I don't care what this ratio is. I only buy the gems, and I ignore the "shovelware", so it's existence doesn't harm me. What's important is how many gems there are. How much shovelware there is is only relevant if you buy games by choosing at random from those on the shelf in the store.
I think that although ps2 does have far more crap games than gc, the two have roughly the same number of gems.
Fair enough! I brought out the "ratio" argument as a pre-emptive counter to "but the PS2 has SO MANY GAMES" thinking. I agree the # of gems are probably roughly equal, but for a variety of reasons (nostalgia cashins ala Metroid and Super Smash Bros, multiplayer emphasis) I prefer Nintendo.
The only PS2 gems that really caught me were GTA:VC and then GTA3. Now that they're on Xbox (and my relatives bought 'em for me for Christmas even though I didn't ask for him, since they're not THAT much better than PS2, shinier cars and better controls) I just don't see the need for the PS2. I might tool around with some of the Ratchet and Jax and Clank and Daxter platformers, or odd stuff like Ico, and curse the arrangement that means GTA:next will come out on PS2 with that system's limitations in mind, but that's it. (YMMV, depending on the genres you like)
You're right though, the shovelware ratio isn't a general argument, since few gamers buy all the games or just randomly select from the entire library...
It's true about the theoretical advantage of two multitaps...but I think it's used far less often than 4 player mode is left out...
(after all, splitting a screen into 8 bits is getting a little silly, 4 seems to be a good amount, for complex interaction among players and all.)
Stuff likes Halo lets you link up LAN-wise, that's about it...after a while it gets expensive to render all those viewpoints...
You know, you can buy an adapter to allow you to use more controller ports for games that support it on the PS2. Just like how you can buy a remote to watch DVDs on an X-Box.
Yes, but I have pet theories that by requiring users to buy an extra piece of middleware, roughly the cost of a controller but with no other tangible benefit, far fewer game companies put 4 player modes into their games then would if it was 4 ports in the basic hardware.
I have all 3 of the current "big 3" systems.
I started with a GC, and its still may favorite...the first party stuff can't be touched, and for multiplayer (Smash Bros, Monkey Ball 2, Mario Kart) and other exclusives (the first Rogue Squadron game on it, at least) make it the last one I'd give up.
Then I got a PS2...ugh. I got it for WDL:Thundertanks, hoping it would be another "Battle Tanx", but it sucked. For a while its saving grace was GTA3 and GTA:VC, but now it's only the thought that the sequel to those will be on this system first that have me keep it around. There are some other good games, but overall the gem/shovelware ratio is way too small to justify the expense of the system. I really think that "first mover advantage" combined with the leverage of playing PSone games (which in turn had a huge first mover advantage) as well as being untouchable for specific genres I don't care about (sports, RPGs) are what make this system the leader.
I got an Xbox lastly, and its made a tremendous impression on me. It follows in the Microsoft tradition of not really innovating much, but copying some of the very best parts of other systems. It's a buttugly huge console but it has the best controllers (the S-version, the original were just clones + minor enhancements and great enlargements of what the DC had) and some of the games are sweet...Halo and Crimson Skies in particular. It is very likely THE biggest horsepower console out now, and it shows.
So while my heart is still with Nintendo, I've really been impressed with what Xbox has done. And will probably never really forgive PS2 for the dumbness of only putting 2 controller ports on without a multitap...
We're a hell of a long way before we start talking about the morality of deleting a computer program.
Probably. At least with the typical AI in a typical game...we should no more worry about those guys than, say, taking penicillin. They "act much smarter than they are", incredibly brittle, situation-specific intelligence.
But it's not outside the realm of possibility that in 10-20 we'll see a more general intelligence in the labs, and shortly thereafter something similar will be ported into games. What then? Will we be biased, that intelligences worth "caring" about can only be based on squishy stuff? Will there be caps on how intelligent you can make an artifical construct w/o getting special permission to "turn it off"?
Sure, this is still science fiction talk, and "real AI" has been "just around the corner" for decades. But as our AIs get better...and our understanding of the transitory and heuristic nature of our own intelligences gets stronger... there may well be issues that raise serious moral dilemnas, if we don't sweep them under the rug.
You can play sim-sex-conquest all you want in some European countries and Asia (esp. Japan).
Can you think of any specific examples? I've heard about a few Japanese games, but those seem mostly bathroom fetish oriented.
Honestly, it is mostly intellectual curiosity at this point, it's interesting seeing what cultures will allow. If it runs on a console (as opposed to a PC) I'm sure it has to be semi-illegal or at least unauthorized, I get the feeling the console makers won't license anything along those lines...
He should have referred to the mission "Waste the Wife", an assination mission where a guy wants the wife dead, and hires you to kill her.
Yeah...that one actually sticks out in my mind, because the wife seems more or less innocent (I don't remember if they mention why she's wanted dead) and genuinely horrified that this maniac keeps bashing into her car...I don't think she begs for mercy, but does say "Oh my god!!!" a few times. (Plus, it's not an easy mission, usually you have to swap cars halfway through and keep at it, no "whoops, sorry, you're dead, easy come easy go")
It does make me wonder...all the pedestrians in GTA are pretty clearly very low level AIs. But if games start cranking up the AI to the point where they're, say, about as smart as a dog or cat...will it ever be morally questionable to kill them, not because of their resemblance to real humans, but just because of what they are in and of themselves.
If the imagination of our game designers is limited to "Filler... filler... filler.... Now let's make a really hard boss by giving him extra special armor and lots of hit points," that's the problem. Making the "bosses" harder and harder to compensate for a total lack of imagination is just sad.
Well, for one thing, I'm not into boss fights being gratuitously difficult, just enough so they might take a few tries and force a strategy to be developed.
Many games have too main components: fighting, and exploration. Both fighting and exploration can have puzzle solving aspects, as well as "show me something cool" parts.
A game that's big into exploration will probably keep with small combat w/o many bosses, like Halo.
But a game that tries to make the combat interesting...a boss is just a way of personifying big combat. A good boss has TONS of imagination, isn't just a normal character w/ cranked up stats. It does something neat, looks cool and imposing, and you have to figure out what will bring 'em down.
Also, note to designers, creating games that require higher and higher hardware threshholds to get a decent frame rate is just plain inflation, and doesn't add much to my experience.
Ah, the old "graphics should be secondary to gameplay" line of arguing. True to a certain extent, but I don't think ALL high hardwre requirements are without merit, making visually compelling "realistic" and details worlds is a noble goal.
'Course I just play consoles, so a couple hundred bucks ever 4 or 5 years keeps me up to date.
I'm still waiting for Spacewar! 2.
It's been here since the early 1990s. They call it "Star Control".
It has its own set of sequels as well...
As an aside, I'm actually amazed they thought ANY games were good on the Atari 2600. You had to have a serious power of imagination to play ANY game on that thing... :-) Are those three green blocks a tree? Ah, yes...
Nah, some of the games were pretty visually impressive, all things considered. Just browse through the screenshots at...very few block based games...Adventure comes to mind, but that was such a good game in other ways. (And the dragons are ducks, not squares...)
Overall, my favorite arcade-to-2600 conversion, better than the original, is Battlezone...very pretty looking, they switched to a behind the tank view (the treads move realistically as you go and turn), and though they had to remove the random shapes littering the landscape, they made it so you fight two tanks at once. (Much better 3D model than Robot Tank...in Battlezone you can hear a shot fired offscreen, throw it into reverse, and watch the bullet pass harmlessly in front of you...)
Now that we're well beyond using hand-drawn sprites, I wish we saw more games (are there any?) that didn't just have 4 or 5 basic types that were all clones of each other, but ones where enemies or bystanders come in a wider variety of body types and other variations...
I can't disagree more.
I find bosses to be some of the most compelling and interesting parts of a number of games, unique parts of every game, whereas everything else kind of repeats.
Most everything else is just lame running around and beating up so so, no challenge enemies.
This doesn't apply to all games: GTA:VC is a new breed of game where the world is interesting and flexible enough that even the small stuff is interesting, and "bosses" are just barely enhaced regular people with heavy weaponry.