A third-party shop contracted to make a sequel - perhaps that makes a bit more sense. Particularly for Ubisoft, who've been shipping out sequel work to small developers for some time.
Of course, my understanding is that XIII wasn't too well received - so who knows. Maybe it was just wishful thinking that we'd get something new.
. timelessly, irrefutably 'bad' guys. (Perhaps the Japanese could have a partial beef with that, but after the Rape of Nan-King, I doubt many would agree.)
. Widely accepted to be a war entered for a just cause by the West.
. Near enough to present time to have involved fairly familiar technology. (no-one was marching in rows as in WWI and before, or picking targets with a GPS device as in Kuwait and after)
. far enough away from present time so that the entire experience wasn't dominated by air power (air combat is less personal, less dramatic).
. high number of drafted soldiers and fairly tense and desperate combat situations gives plenty of opportunities for solid dramatic stories.
. plenty of action in a variety of settings (land/sea/air - forest/pasture/desert - etc.)
. Very few political cockups at the outcome that could inflame sensibilities. (Much of the tension in the middle east is due to League of Nations' Mandates granted to, and screwed-up by France and Britain following World-War I. Iraq and Israel/Palestine were notable 'creations' from that era that were later abandoned to much chaos.)
and the biggest one:
. Tons of old-media sources to plunder for ideas.
Given the working title 'Baker's Dozen' - One's forced to assume this will be a stab at 1967's Dirty Dozen.
That story revolved around a US officer given 12 convicted murders to train (during WWII of course), for a mission to assassinate a host of German Officers. Sounds like a solid video game premise to me.
Gaia spirits are a little too deep for Joe Popcorn I think
Or maybe the movie just wasn't that good at all? If you enjoyed it, more power to you. But you'd be the only person I've ever heard say it was anything less than 'bad'.
Most people have much more strong terms to use for its quality level. And none of them ever mention Gaia as a shortcoming. It has everything to do with the lame characters, the insipid dialogue, the predictable story path, and the overall feeling of 'whatever' that occurs when a story fails to emotionally or dramatically engage the audience.
They make good games - but their movie had bigger problems than trying (and failing) to do photorealism.
Actually, some of the earlier free downloadable objects for The Sims were: a McDonalds cart, (with which your Sim could crafty burgers that had better in-game effects than a regularly prepared meal), a Pepsi Soda Machine, and an Intel-branded computer.
Who knows what they've got now. (let alone with user-created-content) But at least even the 'official' product tie-ins were a thoroughly optional downloads.
As for people liking authentic tie-ins - It's one thing for a consumer to craft these things in his spare time, or a publisher to add them as free downloads later. It's quite another to have paid billboards placed throughout the game, or blatant product placement.
Even more egregious is the assertion that players prefer real advertisement, simply because they prefer identifiable content in certain genres. Naturally they don't spend any time qualifying that the 'preferred' tie-ins are limited to real-world products in genres that cover real-world pop culture.
Nielsen might assume that because players might prefer to jack a 'Corvette' instead of a 'Stinger' in GTA means they wouldn't mind seeing a Chevy Ad. More likely players simply prefer the 'genuine' brand the way they prefer playing a football game with actual NFL teams and players.
Clearly the pitch from the publishers will be: "It'll help us defray costs and let us get more, better games to market for a lower cost to the consumer!"
Not that there's any chance of that happening. I might give a purely ad-supported free game a shot. Similarly to how I'm not philosophically opposed to catching such 'free' content from TV/radio broadcasting.
But this new craze of putting ads in consumer-funded-content is pure BS. Product placement shots in films haven't kept the price of tickets from going up. The ads thrown in amongst the trailers at the movies haven't kept ticket prices from going up. The ever-increasing quantity of ads in magazines and papers haven't kept their prices from going up.
Of course, no-one's started voting with their wallet just yet - so why should advertisers and publishers care?
The quicktime torrent is indeed fullscreen, my mistake.
However the Divx torrent is not. Perhaps the divx was made from the fullscreen quicktime source - but the result is noticeably smaller, darker, and more compressed.
I can't complain given the turnaround time of the first divx.torrent - but I would like to see a better quality version.
They're considered a problem because they can walk into a collaborative environment and disrupt it. Sure it's not always catastrophic, and it's often times just a temporary diversion until the pre-existing cooperative decides to tune her out through whatever means. And if those bothered just roll their eyes and work in the MS, everyone might well wind up having a great time.
But the disruptive events are a frequent enough occurrence that FFRP players see it as a serious problem. Essentially, it's the only problem FFRPers can ever have with their game - so by default it's the most serious one.
Frankly, I don't do FFRP with strangers, so I don't have insight into whether anyone's actually get worked up about it, or if its just a slight annoyance in practice. I also likely don't know the extent of the friction they might create in a persistent online community (E.g. a MOO/MUSH, where their presence wouldn't be as easy to/ignore).
I was just outlining what they are, what they do, and how I feel that makes it a fundamentally different situation from the munchkin/powergamer arguments in rules-based RPGs.
It's really not at all like the powergamer/munchkin rants. It's a seperate situation that's really only a 'problem', in games where one person literally can not be more powerful than any other.
You don't mind powergamers, because they don't bother you while you play a game. With Free form Role Playing (FFRP), Mary Sues can and do get in the way of other player's stories.
Mary-Sues are a trend that's only 'a problem' in free-form roleplaying MUSHES, MOOS and IRC RP (FFRP). These games have no hard and fast 'rule' systems, and leave all aspects of storytelling up to the players -- a sort of authorship anarchy. The only rules regarding character design and interaction are social rules.
If you want your vampire to have the BFG9000 that destroys Chicago - you can have it. Players might choose to ignore you, or even warn/ban egregious offenders - but they can't actually stop you from doing it. Similarly, there is no BFG, there is no Chicago, and there is no result of your destruction - unless other players decide to react to it.
If you've never seen it done, it likely seems entirely arbitrary, or at least, off-the-wall. Even after you've seen it done - most wonder how it can be consistantly fun. But that's neither here nor there. People do enjoy it - but it relies on everyone to cooperate. It's more communal authorship, or spontaneous play-acting, than traditional game playing.
Mary Sue's are unavoidable in FFRP, because while everyone likes to play games - not everyone is a good author. Free-form Roleplaying relies on players to not step on each other's toes and to be at least decent storytellers.
It's for that reason that 'idealized' characters are looked down upon. Not because they're 'best' but because those characters have been done to death - and their stories are old hat.
Even well-behaved 'perfect' Mary Sues are considered undesireable because their perfection denies the opportunity for character growth through storytelling. Their flawless moral compass removes any chance at dramatic tension, or emotional weight to conflict (because the perfect Mary-Sue will always win).
Archetyped Mary Sues (E.g. knockoff Drizzts, Rasputins, and Sherlocks) are considered undesireable because those characters have been done to death. Few people want to read yet another story where Holmes catches the villain whilst everyone else bumbles about. So in the average social setting, most people won't want to cooperate with the stories such players want to tell.
Much of the 'fun' people have in FFRP, is in the creation of their own character, and the discovery of other characters. With Mary Sue's - this entire aspect is lost.
In other persistent worlds that have rule systems (MUDs/EQ/UO/etc), at the worst Mary Sues becomes snicker-worthy. Someone might roleplay a Mary Sue in EQ, but just because they want to be the greatest warrior ever doesn't mean anything. They have to work through the system like everyone else. They don't automatically have the power to completely derail the story being told by others. (arguably because there isn't one, not in the same way as in an FFRP)
"All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"/Monty Python's Life of Brian
Well, the article was talking about formal studies, and the OP was downplaying the justification for more than a token 400 level course for the purpose.
Also, my use of the word 'formal' was meant only to apply to instruction, or instructor-led investigation in a formalized setting: E.g. an accredited collegiate course. It was not meant to imply any lack of quality of existing material, in any way.
My point was to suggest that there is room/need/justification for a formal design education. There is so much that can be learned through study, that it easily justifies a specialized degree.
Of course formal study is never required for any field - and the existence of formal study does not invalidate informal study or analysis. But the game industry is large enough, and game design specialized enough, to validate formal study as a legitimate persuance.
The idea of having a Bachelor of Arts in Game Design shouldn't be relegated to the comical. It's at least as valid and legitimate as film or literary studies.
Unfortunately game design isn't as well understood as narrative design.
Narratives have been studied for centuries, resulting in our understanding of pacing, foreshadowing, dramatic irony, and such.
Interactives on the other hand are still very new. How much interaction is too much? too little? When should we simulate, and when should we emulate? How do you pace an interactive? What makes a puzzle frustrating, and what makes it fun? How does camera angle selection affect the player? How does unlimited save/reload affect tension and flow? What is the impact of having gameplay elements hinge upon/random/ events?
Furthermore, for narratives, there is a wealth of traditional study of classic pieces. By studying those works and the critiques of them - writers can be made aware of the less immediate reactions to their creations: the abstracted interpretations, allegories, metaphors and conventions.
For interactives, there are classic works to study(though not as many) - but there has been no formal analysis of them. No one has looked into/why/ pacman was so popular when crystal castles was not. There has been no formal study of games beyond their technical specifications.
Compare video game reviews to book reviews, or even film reviews. Film critics don't spend time discussing the technical proficiency of the editing or color balancing in movies (except in extreme cases). They discuss what the color balancing adds. They talk about whether the editing fits the flow of the film, or detracts from it - whether the framing lends the appropriate feelings.
While designers can learn a bit from classical studies, and while even one good course would be better than none - there is certainly enough material to at least justify a specialized degree.
Re:Talking about insanely short-sighted...
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That wasn't just our belief. Germany was indeed well on its way, and we succeeded in being 'first' mainly due to a large number of clandestine operations by the Allies/SOE.
Several such events were the destruction of a norwegian heavy water plant, a borked raid on a deuterium-oxide facility and the sinking of a heavy water shipment en route to Germany.
Assault in Norway: Sabotaging the Nazi Nuclear Bomb. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975 Blood and Water Dan Kurzman, 1997
It was going to happen far sooner than 50 more years down the line.
Chris Knight could not be reached for comment.
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
Mitch: This is coherent light. Mitch's dad: Oh, so it talks./Real Genius
There was a NWN2, BG3 rumor circulating from a probably mis-translated interview with Trent Oster of Bioware not too long ago.
Their official forums have a flat-out denial (Stanley Woo, 1/3rd down the thread). Which is quite a bit more substantive than the standard 'no comment' -- such as Mr Woo gives regarding KOTOR2 in his sig.
Bioware already has 3 titles in development (Jade Empire, and 2 new titles 'based on two new intellectual properties, created and owned by Bioware' -- press release). I understand they've grown a bit over the last decade, but I doubt they have enough staff to do even 4 games simultaneously, let alone 5.
Besides, Bioware has been not-so-slowly backing away from the official campaign for NWN since it released (due the generally 'less positive' reactions of the vocal fans). Note how even the expansions didn't come close to touching that story, or that style of adventuring (hub style). I sincerely doubt they'd be picking that hot potato back up. Not to mention that the extra engineering they did to make their toolset doesn't seem to have earned them a corresponding reward from the market. I think they see themselves as better off spending that time crafting the incredible story and interactions people loved from BG(x) and KOTOR.
If Atari is doing the sequels -- who knows who'd they be tapping for the content work. Particularly since Atari nee Interplay closed Black Isle back in December (killing another sequel in the process: Fallout 3).
This sounds more like Sony marketing to me. Remember all the promises they made regarding the PS2, during the run-up to, and launch of, the Dreamcast?
This is likely just Sony throwing smoke to steal the thunder from Microsoft, and snow the existing Sony userbase into thinking the PS3 will be much better than it really will be (just like PS2 v DC).
Either way, two versions of the same console would be gimmicky at best. It'd have the same problem all add-on hardware does: developers can't count on possibly expanded functionality being there on every box, so they don't spend time/money to leverage it in a meaningful way.
So there would be no reason for the average consumer to buy a psx+ps3 instead of just buying a ps3 and a tivo.
Perhaps they're trying to push microsoft and nintendo into budling expensive multifunction bits into their boxes -- allowing sony to punish them on unit price and take the 'high-road' of selling a box that 'just does games'.
Likely the only way Sony will 'screw up' the PS3 and allow Nintendo/MS to reclaim some of the market due their own bad decisions - is if the Cell continues to be behind, and they show up late to market with an outmatched product.
It's much more likely that any market share reclaimed by Nintendo/MS will be due/their/ own maneuvering - as opposed to Sony screwups.
...They figure out a way to make it worthwhile to talk to NPCs in the first place. Sony's NPCs don't have anything interesting to say in text, and spending resources pumping grade-C voice acting out of my speakers isn't going to change that.
Everquest's quests are a joke, and their vendors are largely ignored. Adding voice is just throwing more money into development, in an attempt to make its competitors seem less up-to-date.
It'll be interesting to see if they are spending for the kind of voice talent that they managed for Lords of Everquest, or if they're just doing it half-assed to say they did it.
I was addressing the fairly frequent accusation that Microsoft doesn't know games. If it didn't, it wouldn't have pursued Valve and Sega. Who did the developing doesn't really matter, imo. What matters is that Microsoft was sitting at the top of the decision making process, and thus their ability to identify value was tested.
As for the yearly updates - Microsoft could easily carve a niche for themselves by simply issuing roster updates and gameplay patches over XBL several times each season, and only selling updated sports games based on actual improvements. EA and madden have been getting fat off essentially selling expansion packs each year, for full price. There is quite a bit of gamer animosity against them for it.
But my point was simply that: Microsoft can and does identify quality titles and deliver them to their customers. They know good games, and they (demonstratively) have the balls to hold back games that aren't going to be top-of-the-line. (E.g. the well-documented delay of Crimson Skies until it was great, the delay of this sports lineup, and one is left to assume: the delay of halo2.)
Age of Empires Asheron's Call Flight Simulator Halo MechAssault Crimson Skies Project Gotham Racing Counter-strike Shenmue
Maybe they're not your cup of tea, but for millions of other gamers, they are great games. That Microsoft published them demonstrates an ability to identify quality games, and bring them to their gamers -- the only attribute worth having in a publisher.
In my opinion, this move only demonstrates further that Microsoft does 'get' gaming. Their sports games were also-rans, and completely unnecessary given the great lineup of third-party sports titles for their system. Cutting them was a smart move.
Slashdot Mirror
A third-party shop contracted to make a sequel - perhaps that makes a bit more sense. Particularly for Ubisoft, who've been shipping out sequel work to small developers for some time.
Of course, my understanding is that XIII wasn't too well received - so who knows.
Maybe it was just wishful thinking that we'd get something new.
The key draw of the second world war is:
. timelessly, irrefutably 'bad' guys. (Perhaps the Japanese could have a partial beef with that, but after the Rape of Nan-King, I doubt many would agree.)
. Widely accepted to be a war entered for a just cause by the West.
. Near enough to present time to have involved fairly familiar technology. (no-one was marching in rows as in WWI and before, or picking targets with a GPS device as in Kuwait and after)
. far enough away from present time so that the entire experience wasn't dominated by air power (air combat is less personal, less dramatic).
. high number of drafted soldiers and fairly tense and desperate combat situations gives plenty of opportunities for solid dramatic stories.
. plenty of action in a variety of settings (land/sea/air - forest/pasture/desert - etc.)
. Very few political cockups at the outcome that could inflame sensibilities.
(Much of the tension in the middle east is due to League of Nations' Mandates granted to, and screwed-up by France and Britain following World-War I. Iraq and Israel/Palestine were notable 'creations' from that era that were later abandoned to much chaos.)
and the biggest one:
. Tons of old-media sources to plunder for ideas.
Given the working title 'Baker's Dozen' - One's forced to assume this will be a stab at 1967's Dirty Dozen.
That story revolved around a US officer given 12 convicted murders to train (during WWII of course), for a mission to assassinate a host of German Officers.
Sounds like a solid video game premise to me.
Gaia spirits are a little too deep for Joe Popcorn I think
Or maybe the movie just wasn't that good at all?
If you enjoyed it, more power to you. But you'd be the only person I've ever heard say it was anything less than 'bad'.
Most people have much more strong terms to use for its quality level. And none of them ever mention Gaia as a shortcoming. It has everything to do with the lame characters, the insipid dialogue, the predictable story path, and the overall feeling of 'whatever' that occurs when a story fails to emotionally or dramatically engage the audience.
They make good games - but their movie had bigger problems than trying (and failing) to do photorealism.
Actually, some of the earlier free downloadable objects for The Sims were: a McDonalds cart, (with which your Sim could crafty burgers that had better in-game effects than a regularly prepared meal), a Pepsi Soda Machine, and an Intel-branded computer.
Who knows what they've got now. (let alone with user-created-content)
But at least even the 'official' product tie-ins were a thoroughly optional downloads.
As for people liking authentic tie-ins - It's one thing for a consumer to craft these things in his spare time, or a publisher to add them as free downloads later. It's quite another to have paid billboards placed throughout the game, or blatant product placement.
Even more egregious is the assertion that players prefer real advertisement, simply because they prefer identifiable content in certain genres. Naturally they don't spend any time qualifying that the 'preferred' tie-ins are limited to real-world products in genres that cover real-world pop culture.
Nielsen might assume that because players might prefer to jack a 'Corvette' instead of a 'Stinger' in GTA means they wouldn't mind seeing a Chevy Ad. More likely players simply prefer the 'genuine' brand the way they prefer playing a football game with actual NFL teams and players.
Clearly the pitch from the publishers will be: "It'll help us defray costs and let us get more, better games to market for a lower cost to the consumer!"
Not that there's any chance of that happening.
I might give a purely ad-supported free game a shot. Similarly to how I'm not philosophically opposed to catching such 'free' content from TV/radio broadcasting.
But this new craze of putting ads in consumer-funded-content is pure BS. Product placement shots in films haven't kept the price of tickets from going up. The ads thrown in amongst the trailers at the movies haven't kept ticket prices from going up. The ever-increasing quantity of ads in magazines and papers haven't kept their prices from going up.
Of course, no-one's started voting with their wallet just yet - so why should advertisers and publishers care?
The quicktime torrent is indeed fullscreen, my mistake.
.torrent - but I would like to see a better quality version.
However the Divx torrent is not. Perhaps the divx was made from the fullscreen quicktime source - but the result is noticeably smaller, darker, and more compressed.
I can't complain given the turnaround time of the first divx
That's funny, I thought he already had.
Easily the most faithful, honest, and entertaining adaptation of a comic-book character ever.
now how about a torrent to the fullscreen version?
Yeah, even this alternative to 'breakeys' has stats...
Curiously, most pieces on the market are #2's.
I guess it's an Austin Powers license.
Simply add a 'reset' button. Or something like that handy little jumper you can switch on your motherboard in case someone forgets a bios password.
A backdoor as cisco has is unacceptable in every way.
Personally, I can't stand the GC controller.
::shrug::
Of course, I'm a fan of the original XBox controllers (not the dinky S style). I suppose me and this guy here were seperated at birth.
They're considered a problem because they can walk into a collaborative environment and disrupt it. Sure it's not always catastrophic, and it's often times just a temporary diversion until the pre-existing cooperative decides to tune her out through whatever means. And if those bothered just roll their eyes and work in the MS, everyone might well wind up having a great time.
/ignore).
But the disruptive events are a frequent enough occurrence that FFRP players see it as a serious problem. Essentially, it's the only problem FFRPers can ever have with their game - so by default it's the most serious one.
Frankly, I don't do FFRP with strangers, so I don't have insight into whether anyone's actually get worked up about it, or if its just a slight annoyance in practice. I also likely don't know the extent of the friction they might create in a persistent online community (E.g. a MOO/MUSH, where their presence wouldn't be as easy to
I was just outlining what they are, what they do, and how I feel that makes it a fundamentally different situation from the munchkin/powergamer arguments in rules-based RPGs.
It's really not at all like the powergamer/munchkin rants. It's a seperate situation that's really only a 'problem', in games where one person literally can not be more powerful than any other.
You don't mind powergamers, because they don't bother you while you play a game. With Free form Role Playing (FFRP), Mary Sues can and do get in the way of other player's stories.
Mary-Sues are a trend that's only 'a problem' in free-form roleplaying MUSHES, MOOS and IRC RP (FFRP). These games have no hard and fast 'rule' systems, and leave all aspects of storytelling up to the players -- a sort of authorship anarchy. The only rules regarding character design and interaction are social rules.
If you want your vampire to have the BFG9000 that destroys Chicago - you can have it. Players might choose to ignore you, or even warn/ban egregious offenders - but they can't actually stop you from doing it. Similarly, there is no BFG, there is no Chicago, and there is no result of your destruction - unless other players decide to react to it.
If you've never seen it done, it likely seems entirely arbitrary, or at least, off-the-wall. Even after you've seen it done - most wonder how it can be consistantly fun. But that's neither here nor there. People do enjoy it - but it relies on everyone to cooperate. It's more communal authorship, or spontaneous play-acting, than traditional game playing.
Mary Sue's are unavoidable in FFRP, because while everyone likes to play games - not everyone is a good author. Free-form Roleplaying relies on players to not step on each other's toes and to be at least decent storytellers.
It's for that reason that 'idealized' characters are looked down upon. Not because they're 'best' but because those characters have been done to death - and their stories are old hat.
Even well-behaved 'perfect' Mary Sues are considered undesireable because their perfection denies the opportunity for character growth through storytelling. Their flawless moral compass removes any chance at dramatic tension, or emotional weight to conflict (because the perfect Mary-Sue will always win).
Archetyped Mary Sues (E.g. knockoff Drizzts, Rasputins, and Sherlocks) are considered undesireable because those characters have been done to death. Few people want to read yet another story where Holmes catches the villain whilst everyone else bumbles about. So in the average social setting, most people won't want to cooperate with the stories such players want to tell.
Much of the 'fun' people have in FFRP, is in the creation of their own character, and the discovery of other characters. With Mary Sue's - this entire aspect is lost.
In other persistent worlds that have rule systems (MUDs/EQ/UO/etc), at the worst Mary Sues becomes snicker-worthy. Someone might roleplay a Mary Sue in EQ, but just because they want to be the greatest warrior ever doesn't mean anything. They have to work through the system like everyone else. They don't automatically have the power to completely derail the story being told by others. (arguably because there isn't one, not in the same way as in an FFRP)
"All right
Well, the article was talking about formal studies, and the OP was downplaying the justification for more than a token 400 level course for the purpose.
Also, my use of the word 'formal' was meant only to apply to instruction, or instructor-led investigation in a formalized setting: E.g. an accredited collegiate course. It was not meant to imply any lack of quality of existing material, in any way.
My point was to suggest that there is room/need/justification for a formal design education. There is so much that can be learned through study, that it easily justifies a specialized degree.
Of course formal study is never required for any field - and the existence of formal study does not invalidate informal study or analysis. But the game industry is large enough, and game design specialized enough, to validate formal study as a legitimate persuance.
The idea of having a Bachelor of Arts in Game Design shouldn't be relegated to the comical. It's at least as valid and legitimate as film or literary studies.
Unfortunately game design isn't as well understood as narrative design.
/random/ events?
/why/ pacman was so popular when crystal castles was not. There has been no formal study of games beyond their technical specifications.
Narratives have been studied for centuries, resulting in our understanding of pacing, foreshadowing, dramatic irony, and such.
Interactives on the other hand are still very new. How much interaction is too much? too little? When should we simulate, and when should we emulate? How do you pace an interactive? What makes a puzzle frustrating, and what makes it fun? How does camera angle selection affect the player? How does unlimited save/reload affect tension and flow? What is the impact of having gameplay elements hinge upon
Furthermore, for narratives, there is a wealth of traditional study of classic pieces. By studying those works and the critiques of them - writers can be made aware of the less immediate reactions to their creations: the abstracted interpretations, allegories, metaphors and conventions.
For interactives, there are classic works to study(though not as many) - but there has been no formal analysis of them. No one has looked into
Compare video game reviews to book reviews, or even film reviews. Film critics don't spend time discussing the technical proficiency of the editing or color balancing in movies (except in extreme cases). They discuss what the color balancing adds. They talk about whether the editing fits the flow of the film, or detracts from it - whether the framing lends the appropriate feelings.
While designers can learn a bit from classical studies, and while even one good course would be better than none - there is certainly enough material to at least justify a specialized degree.
That wasn't just our belief. Germany was indeed well on its way, and we succeeded in being 'first' mainly due to a large number of clandestine operations by the Allies/SOE.
Several such events were the destruction of a norwegian heavy water plant, a borked raid on a deuterium-oxide facility and the sinking of a heavy water shipment en route to Germany.
Assault in Norway: Sabotaging the Nazi Nuclear Bomb.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975
Blood and Water Dan Kurzman, 1997
It was going to happen far sooner than 50 more years down the line.
Mitch: This is coherent light.
Mitch's dad: Oh, so it talks.
I always wondered why the logic in those Terminator units was so ridiculously stupid.
If they were just buggy MS products, it all makes sense.
There was a NWN2, BG3 rumor circulating from a probably mis-translated interview with Trent Oster of Bioware not too long ago.
Their official forums have a flat-out denial (Stanley Woo, 1/3rd down the thread). Which is quite a bit more substantive than the standard 'no comment' -- such as Mr Woo gives regarding KOTOR2 in his sig.
Bioware already has 3 titles in development (Jade Empire, and 2 new titles 'based on two new intellectual properties, created and owned by Bioware' -- press release). I understand they've grown a bit over the last decade, but I doubt they have enough staff to do even 4 games simultaneously, let alone 5.
Besides, Bioware has been not-so-slowly backing away from the official campaign for NWN since it released (due the generally 'less positive' reactions of the vocal fans). Note how even the expansions didn't come close to touching that story, or that style of adventuring (hub style). I sincerely doubt they'd be picking that hot potato back up. Not to mention that the extra engineering they did to make their toolset doesn't seem to have earned them a corresponding reward from the market. I think they see themselves as better off spending that time crafting the incredible story and interactions people loved from BG(x) and KOTOR.
If Atari is doing the sequels -- who knows who'd they be tapping for the content work. Particularly since Atari nee Interplay closed Black Isle back in December (killing another sequel in the process: Fallout 3).
This sounds more like Sony marketing to me. Remember all the promises they made regarding the PS2, during the run-up to, and launch of, the Dreamcast?
/their/ own maneuvering - as opposed to Sony screwups.
This is likely just Sony throwing smoke to steal the thunder from Microsoft, and snow the existing Sony userbase into thinking the PS3 will be much better than it really will be (just like PS2 v DC).
Either way, two versions of the same console would be gimmicky at best. It'd have the same problem all add-on hardware does: developers can't count on possibly expanded functionality being there on every box, so they don't spend time/money to leverage it in a meaningful way.
So there would be no reason for the average consumer to buy a psx+ps3 instead of just buying a ps3 and a tivo.
Perhaps they're trying to push microsoft and nintendo into budling expensive multifunction bits into their boxes -- allowing sony to punish them on unit price and take the 'high-road' of selling a box that 'just does games'.
Likely the only way Sony will 'screw up' the PS3 and allow Nintendo/MS to reclaim some of the market due their own bad decisions - is if the Cell continues to be behind, and they show up late to market with an outmatched product.
It's much more likely that any market share reclaimed by Nintendo/MS will be due
It's less annoying than April Fools.
...They figure out a way to make it worthwhile to talk to NPCs in the first place. Sony's NPCs don't have anything interesting to say in text, and spending resources pumping grade-C voice acting out of my speakers isn't going to change that.
Everquest's quests are a joke, and their vendors are largely ignored. Adding voice is just throwing more money into development, in an attempt to make its competitors seem less up-to-date.
It'll be interesting to see if they are spending for the kind of voice talent that they managed for Lords of Everquest, or if they're just doing it half-assed to say they did it.
I was addressing the fairly frequent accusation that Microsoft doesn't know games. If it didn't, it wouldn't have pursued Valve and Sega. Who did the developing doesn't really matter, imo. What matters is that Microsoft was sitting at the top of the decision making process, and thus their ability to identify value was tested.
As for the yearly updates - Microsoft could easily carve a niche for themselves by simply issuing roster updates and gameplay patches over XBL several times each season, and only selling updated sports games based on actual improvements. EA and madden have been getting fat off essentially selling expansion packs each year, for full price. There is quite a bit of gamer animosity against them for it.
But my point was simply that: Microsoft can and does identify quality titles and deliver them to their customers. They know good games, and they (demonstratively) have the balls to hold back games that aren't going to be top-of-the-line.
(E.g. the well-documented delay of Crimson Skies until it was great, the delay of this sports lineup, and one is left to assume: the delay of halo2.)
Age of Empires
Asheron's Call
Flight Simulator
Halo
MechAssault
Crimson Skies
Project Gotham Racing
Counter-strike
Shenmue
Maybe they're not your cup of tea, but for millions of other gamers, they are great games. That Microsoft published them demonstrates an ability to identify quality games, and bring them to their gamers -- the only attribute worth having in a publisher.
In my opinion, this move only demonstrates further that Microsoft does 'get' gaming. Their sports games were also-rans, and completely unnecessary given the great lineup of third-party sports titles for their system. Cutting them was a smart move.