fair enough. i didn't own a playstation, and no-one i know had games that used more than one CD. (outside FF, but that seemed mostly due gratuitous fmv) maybe they did need to increase storage size. i stand corrected.
but you're saying that playing CD's was a strength of the ps is kind of my point.
Sony has always made decisions to compete against nintendo (and now MS) with multifunction devices.
consider the PSP specs. it isn't just going to just do video games. they are intentionally specifying mpeg4 decoding (so they can get 2 hrs of FMV on their media disc) mp3, aac, and ATRAC support. none of these are necessary for successful portable gaming -- nintendo has shown that. in fact, nintendo is only releasing the gameboy video player in america now, imo, to combat the multifunctionality of the PSP.
i hate to get up on teh soap box, but just in case you weren't just playing devils advocate (or slashdot troll)...
here in america we have this thing called 'free speech' and a 'free market'. if protected free speech is found 'inappropriate' by most the 'free market' - people don't buy it and it goes away.
we don't need laws to keep a sexual predator sim off the store shelves - we leave that up to distributors and consumers. if businesses don't want it on the shelf, and consumers don't want to buy it - it quickly disappears - if it ever got published in the first place. if it only exists in someone's private space - then why should I care if no person or animal is harmed?
Canada is starting down the slippery slope of defining 'appropriate'ness of free speech. and once that truly happens then it won't be long before it all goes.
after all, if child molestation and rape depictions aren't protected, then why should murder be protected? and what about fistfighting or war? you can't have a willing recipient of an assault rifle after all. what about obscure sexual fetishes that violate current canadian law? (think scat, beastiality, probably even things such a multipartner and oral/anal if its anything like most archaic US state laws)... then you'll lose unnecessarily harsh or ill-timed criticisms (of government, citizens, religion), etc, etc...
furthermore, there is nothing in art today that hasn't be created before. human civilization hasn't fallen apart for depicting nudity, sex, murder, rape, or even child molestation in art or literature in the 4000 years of recorded history. (rape was a core concept in the original tale of Sleeping Beauty & child abduction and molestation was the prominent event in the myth of Zeus and Ganymede)
Don't get me wrong, I loathe and despise child molesters and rapists, and the people who would create content to promote or condone such acts.
But much as I hate them, I feel strongly enough about our rights to free speech that I would vote to support their rights to say, write, and draw anything they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. I wouldn't go into a store that sold that kind of product, and I wouldn't associate with anyone who purchased it -- but I'm smart enough to realize that the individuals in society are mature enough to decide these things for themselves.
if they -had- to increase storage size for game developers then why didn't sony just develop a custom dvd-rom like nintendo to cut down on piracy and keep unit price down?
they're sony after all - they already have all the plants and parts to do a custom optical drive. it'd have been even cheaper for them to do than nintendo.
clearly they felt a multifunction device had more market strength than a single-function device.
funny how grand theft auto is really nothing but an interactive version of Scarface (which Vice City makes nearly a literal translation) -- yet scorcese is a visionary while the video game needs to be banned. cute hypocracy.
at lest this guy isn't calling for a ban on violent content in video games. oh wait... no... he essentially is by calling the rating system 'unenforceable' (no more unenforceable than the MPAAs rating system) and by suggesting the legitimacy of spurious game-blame lawsuits (suits that contend games make people killers)
the silver lining is that the medium is still gaining momentum. i just hope it sticks to its guns and lets developers make whatever they want, and lets the gamers decide what gets supported with their money.
american media industries that -have- stuck to their guns: literature, painting, rock music, sculpture, film
american media industries that haven't stuck to their guns: roleplaying games, comic books, cartoons
one set of these media is heralded as art, as 'legitimate'. individual works are judged on merit and the media itself carries no preconceived notions of 'allowable' or 'appropriate' content.
the other set of these media is heralded as fit only for children. why? because of self-censorship of content. TSR took 'offensive' material out of D&D. ensuring that under no circumstances would anything other than cartoony child-safe good and evil be depicted. similarly with comic books and cartoons.
these industries willfully decided that only child-safe content should be created in their styles and media. so now their content is wholly marginalized and looked down upon based solely on its media.
consider japanese anime and their comics. sure, we make jokes about tentacle pron but they are not regarded derisively as child's materials in japan. they are individually judged on content, not with a blanket assumption based on its media. why? because their industry -didn't- decide that tentacle pron was inappropriate for comics, or nudity and demons inappropriate for roleplaying games.
a service just needs to crop up that offers indie game developers site/game-downloadhosting, and secure payment for a basic monthly fee (to cover hosting) and then a small cut of any profits (to cover CC transactions).
offering optional web design service, marketing service, and software protection/activation service would be a plus, but not particularly necessary.
Another handy thing would be a gaming press that actually paid attention to the indy scene, instead of just the mainstream scene or the japanese import scene.
Indie developers just need someone to let them start taking sales when and if they ever get done. mixing it with the most primary community building/advertising tool (the official website) is just natural.
i dunno, all these other 'channels' like shockwave and such seem like unnecesary overhead. sure those sites can drive people to your game - but so could ads on those sites, or more importantly ads on sites known to garner serious gamers. the kind of people who -know- indie gaming isn't all inside the stereotypes (as pointed out above).
the problem is, traditionally 'publishers' are the people indies -want- to talk to, because they have seed money to help the thing happen. Personally i don't think any indy should go that route, and i don't think any game that does go that route can be called 'indy'. quite simply - big business will never be interested in fringe and unproven games (unless from a multiply proven team) - and quite frankly they shouldn't be. it isn't good business to keep taking big risks.
Furthermore, not having a publisher is rather the bit that keeps most indy games what they are. true to the intent and spirit of the designer: not marketing, not sales, not focus groups, not suits.
well, for the bulk price of the xbox's 8gb drive in 2000 you can get a ~40gb drive today - so pvr-necessary capacity is quite likely. dvd playback already requires mpeg2 decoding, and encoding hardware is only ~$15 for the part itself.
getting it to work together might throw a total of $30 in cost into the machine. while this might seem high, remember that the ps2 and xbox successfully launched at $100 more than any console before them. MS has already taken steps to dramatically reduce the xbox2's costs (custom cpu, newer, cheaper vid tech deal with ati). bumping up initial unit prices to $350 would not likely send anyone running to the hills.
the major justification though, is that PVR functionality is something that is ready for a breakthrough, just like DVD playback was last generation. including it in the next generation consoles could lead to that explosive widespread early adoption that the ps2 saw at release due it's dvd playback.
Sony took a hit in unit pricing to put then-expensive DVD technology into its system, that no video game it published would need. but it was added purely to add multifunctionality to the device. they didn't add a DVD-ROM because game designers were running out of space for their games and demanding it.
and people wouldn't be buying it as a convergence device: they'd be buying it as a cheap pvr that happened to have dvd playing and video game functionality.
simply looking at game sales charts will show Sony's ps2 market dominance has not translated into vastly more game sales. it has 5-10x the console installed base, but doesn't sell nearly 5-10x more games than MS/Nintendo. many many people bought the ps2 that don't have a strong interest in gaming -- yet they ran out and bought one.
this would have been a bad thing for anyone other than sony, as they all take a hit on selling the console itself. with a large section of the customers not buying video games, it could have been a huge net loss. However, Sony also profits from the expanded adoption of dvds overall. hence Sony promoted its multifunctionality, while MS (who do not profit from dvd movie sales and so would only lose if people bought their box as a dvd player) downplayed such multifunctionality (and charge $30 for a $1 remote if you want it).
as you point out - the market is bearing a monthly subscription for PVR untility. this wipes out the fears of not making their money off people who buy the box but don't buy games - and indeed broadens their potential market and adds another revenue stream.
imo (and remember that's all this is, opinion): adding PVR tech to the next generation of consoles is the necessary step for one of the giants to achieve clear market dominance. Nintendo really doesn't have to because of its first-party title strength.
i'm not attacking morrowwind. i understand it's a well respected game with a deep story and a dedicated fanbase. i'm saying it ain't my cup of tea and it's not exactly the same style of rpg as, for instance, nwn.
both good, both do their own thing, one is what i prefer.
my personal problem with marrowwind was that it was -so- open-ended I had a hard time keeping straight which thread was the main story thread. when i was done wandering and exploring (things i do enjoy and appreciate) i found it difficult to determine where to go to get back on the main story. it's been a year since i rented it - i remember either no autojournal, or an autojournal that didn't take down important details about names and locations. the distinct emotion it evoked was a feeling that i no longer had the taste for an rpg that required me to keep my own notes to avoid getting lost.
maybe on the PC with a 'personal journal' option where i could type in notes, it'd be less of an issue. but i'm talking about morrowind as a console rpg here.
maybe i'm a dumb console rpg'er spoiled by blinking dots on my overhead maps, i dunno. i just found that the openness, combined with the lack of direction was frustrating. perhaps i was fighting more with the interface than the game, i dunno.
perhaps if i'd played earlier games the culture-shock from jumping into the game would be lessened. but keep in mind, i'm not saying it's a -bad- game, i'm just saying it isn't -my- kind of game. certainly not my kind of -console- game. maybe in a different mood, on a different day i'd be more inclined to play, i dunno.
but as it stands, it isn't my preference - and perhaps as such i'm unnecessarily harsh in my judgement of the intent of the designers decision to differentiate the world and leave everything so player-driven, without a clearcut sense of urgency, player history or enemy.
but it's all just an opinion - and me stating my opinion does not invalidate yours.
yes, my not reading the books in the bookshop is my problem. but if the designers want me to play their game - it does become the game's problem.
if they have enough customers and everyone else likes it the way it is - then clearly it's not much of a problem for them. but neither is my not liking the game your problem.
i've got a brother who works on a naval cruiser, and he says pretty much it's the box of preference for the guys. there's at least one in each of the lounges.
besides, i'd think it'd have to do with the good tools and good performance with very little console-specific coding.
you gotta have an experienced ps2 developer to pull out the graphics a dime-a-dozen pc developer can do on the xbox.
and the xbox is a sealed unit. it isn't going to be a security risk, it isn't going to be a maintenance draw, it isn't going to be as expensive ($200+tv $400 + monitor).
i rented KOTOR, loved it. plan on buying it with holiday cash.
but it got me right into the story because it -did- have cliched elements. you -knew- the universe. Jedi are predominantly good, wookies are predominantly good, rhodians are questionable, etc. The story set up who you are, what you did, what the call to adventure is, what you 'should' do next, and where you shouldn't go. it left things open but you knew where to go to move 'forward' when you were done exploring a given area.
what i'm complaining about is games like morrowind, where the world is different simply for the sake of being different, and the story is so openended that you end up spending just as much time trying to figure out where you can and can not safely travel at your particular 'level' as you do investigating the story.
open ended gameplay like that isn't bad - but i prefer either a cliche setting with traditional rules (goblins are weak, etc), or some better 'intro' into the world to establish who-hates-who and which direction outside of town you don't walk in as a newbie.
like i said, if i could get KOTOR-quality in a fantasy setting, i'd be a happy man. i won't deny it, i though i loved KOTOR, i simply prefer fantasy for my RPGs. scifi imo lends itself more easily to action/rpg ala Deus Ex or Jedi Outcast
exactly. developers are essentially trying to charge people for matching services again.
-massive- people. c'mon. i can hop on battle net for free to get that kind of 'instanced' play. (never understood pso for that same reason)
the most fun in -massive- online games is the stuff that crops up that you didn't -plan- on doing. the raids, or events, or people you meet. i mean, some degree of instancing is fine. if you want to instance a few dungeons or something, that's fine, i can see how it'd be useful to mitigate stress or crowding during peak. but it shouldn't be the -whole- damn game.
i'm thinking the market will show this game to the door. the question is, is RG's ego too big to fit through it?
I just don't have faith in the guy as a 'visionary' when he was quoted as saying the only mistake EA made in UO's launch, was that they didn't charge enough for the monthly fee.
it's a similar problem all massmogs face - which is hording and maintenance.
the hardcore players of massmogs love to 'collect', and really hate the idea of 'their stuff' being 'taken away'. they don't like paying tax, they don't like decay, they don't like other players to be able to destroy or steal 'their stuff'.
if virtual money flows in, and doesn't flow out - it always accumulates in the form of 'stuff'.
in this situation, it's much worse than in adventuring massmogs. building is, i dare say, 'the point'. so if one guy owns all the prims in a sim - he essentially 'owns' the sim as no-one else can build there, and his monthly fee alone does not cover the cost of running a single sim.
contrary to other massmogs, where 1 character hoarding items/buildings can create lag, but doesn't actually consume an entire machine.
good luck to the developer. they really have an intriguing problem, that I don't even have a peanut gallery suggestion of how to address.
all i want is a good xbox fantasy rpg. something like kotor, but in a fantasy setting. and morrowind just didn't do it for me. (a little -too- open-ended. the main story didn't pull me in whatsoever). and i'm beginning to doubt fable actually exists.
that jade empire thing... meh, i like my fantasy a little more generic. i know, i'm not hardcore, something must be wrong with me, etc, etc. but i don't care to 'explore' a world that tries to deviate from the tolkien-archetypes for no reason.
If the story demands an eastern setting, that'd be fine. but i get the sinking suspicion that, like every 'oriental adventures' rpg before it, the story will have little eastern feel. it'll be a new setting for its own sake, and that's nauseating.
just touch up the kotor engine, switch 'force' to 'magic', 'blasters' to 'crossbows' and give me a good story.
You can't argue preference. some people like some stuff, some don't.
Halo on the PC wasn't particularly well received by the hardcore because it was 3 years behind PC fps, there wasn't coop in the PC port, and the PC market is overly concerned with multiplayer deathmatch, whereas console gaming (at the point of HALO's release) adds deathmatch only as an afterthought.
Frankly, i can still play halo over and over again because the vehicles, the lack of load times, the excellent coop story, and the AI being so much better than the FPS that have come before (AI debatable re: half-life's human enemies).
the deathmatch modes were a bit uninspired, mostly because contemporary multiplayer modes weren't in demand at its release. but again, the vehicles make for great replayability if you could get yourself a LAN party with a couple xboxs.
and co-op story mode is an absolute necessity for replayable FPS. deathmatch has its place, and I have UT for that. but for a single player experience, no fps save deus ex or half-life is even close.
HALO -is- the best FPS the console world has to offer. and yes, its multiplayer modes are not at all comparable to what is available for the PC due to its design focus.
So it all depends on which camp you're judging it from. oh, and HALO being on the top 10 PC sales charts since it was released kinda conflicts with your estimation that it 'flopped'. it may not be the most popular, but gamers are snapping it up.
a company astroturfing a community, lying about specs to keep people 'in', aggressively hyping a game that's 3 years behind in the press(*cough*romero*cough*), photoshopping screenshots, passing renders off for in-game shots, giving 'exclusive' demo downloads to pay sites, etc -- these are the bad things.
when the company is -creating- the press it's bad. when you get yourself excited from the mere idea, that's fine.
Half-life 2 is an example of a game where they didn't overmarket the thing before it is/was done. Fable is an example of a game where they -are- overmarketing the thing before it's done.
for the love of baby jebus, could someone please make a pda/phone/mp3 player/digital camera with a compactflash slot?
i dig all these devices. i don't dig carrying them -all- around. i also enjoy the no-DRM and healthy competitive market in CF memory cards, as opposed to SD/MemoryStick.
I realize it'd be fairly bulky - larger than any one of those devices, but judging from the size of the individual items all rolled together, i'd expect it could be about the size of the Dell Axim, and maybe 1.5 times as thick.
cuz the philips 2mp keychain digital camera is supersmall, as is the iRiver. and phone/pda's aren't any bigger than the axim - so i don't think i'm being unreasonable. and some decent battery life would be nice too. like ~8 hrs mp3/pda gaming time. and naturally more if all i'm doing is light calendaring and digital standby/talk.
anyway, that's what i want for next year santa... get them elves working on it.
I have to agree with you there. I mean, Korea has more broadband subscribers than america. Not in a percentage either, straight up number of accounts. that's staggering.
A huge slice of their society participates in gaming - much more than just about anywhere else, except perhaps japan.
That said, think for a second, the ps2 in almost 2 years managed 600k sales. the same ps2 that's sold what? they say like 50m in the states.
clearly korea just isn't a very big console market.
that said, showing up late, and with a very weak eastern-appealing lineup - it's the same mistakes they made in japan.
They'll straighten it out, or 'lose' - it doesn't really matter. No market has any particular bearing over any other.
I mean, in this day and age, when the hype monster is birthed roughly at the same time as the project is green-lit for a full team - 'looking forward' to games is synonymous with 'setting yourself up for disappointment.'
All you do is feed the downward spiral when you buy into any of the proprieters of 'exclusive previews' and 'preorders' of years-away games.
all that said, i can't help myself - Halo 2 has caught me. Halo delivered like Half-life delivered 5 years ago. Half-life 2 I am hungry for as well, the only difference being, i think Halo2 will be released first;p
But this excitement has nothing to do with marketing bullet-points or 'previews' or 'screen shots' from e3. it has to do with me still believing in a developer to deliver a good game.
let me clarify my whole position: Fans looking ahead, making sites, getting excited -- this is fine. But the selling of this excitement has gotten out of hand.
I thought that myself for a while. but I played Diablo -much- longer than I played the Sims. I 'got it' more. Similarly with all of my male gaming friends that played both. (some gamers still won't touch anything with mass market appeal::shrug::)
but hardcore gamers seem to -get- the hunt. the chase. we -get- maximizing our character to make them the best they can possibly be in the ultimate conflict between 'us' and 'the other'.
but with the sims, you aren't necessarily 'hunting' anything. you can't -chase- anywhere. you can maximize your character very easily. There isn't an 'other' you physically conflict with. There isn't much in the game you can't have in a very short time, and before long there isn't -any- goal you have to keep playing for, to keep hunting. there are only so many expensive items, only so many stat points, only so many 'friends'.
I've watch my wife and her friends play the game and talk about it.
It's completely different. They aren't having their sim work out when they know the low body score is the only thing preventing their promotion at work. They aren't gunning for the best paying jobs, or keeping a sim home to craft lawn gnomes all day because it's more efficient.
They just play the game so different. Now don't get me wrong, it isn't a male/female thing. The Sims demographic is only 60% female after all... there are guys out there who get it, and I don't believe for a second that women are somehow genetically predisposed to -not- liking violence or horror, and so The Sims appeals to them on some hormonal level. No, there have been too many market failures based on that idea for it to have any weight.
It's just that there's apparently a whole market of casual gamers who -get- something from the gameplay of The Sims that they -don't- get from Diablo. And it can't be reduced to chasing new/different stuff.
I thought I'd simplified it down to hardcore gamers finding the fun in hunting for cool, whereas these casual gamers find their fun in -making- the cool. But sometimes... it doesn't seem like anyone is really -making- anything. I honestly think they're primarily using The Sims to tell stories.
which is interesting, because most games tell a story through conflict and travel. Whereas with this game, its stories can only be told without physical conflict, or travel.
They're restricted to being much more interpersonal and social. It all winds up more like 'Friends', or 'Seinfeld' than 'GI Joe', or 'Alias'. Which may actually be the draw.
fine, 'threat' was a bad choice of words, and apparently there is a steady supply of adventure games that fit your preferences. and while adventure gaming isn't completely dead, the numbers of released and sold 'pure' adventure games is certainly a very small number compared to other genre's, and is down quite a bit from where it once was.
similarly, i never suggested anyone change their tastes to fit with the mass market. I'm not saying you should change; I'm not saying any gamer should change.
I am saying that what is considered 'feature' by the purists is not seen as a feature by the mass market. so while you should not change - if the fans of the genre want growth, want more attention, big-budget games, press, etc for the more 'pure' adventure games -- they will have to accept that changes are necessary.
Not necessarily sweeping changes, but they need to be open to admitting there is room for improvement, to make the games more palatteable for a wider audience.
Again if no-one wants to change again, that's great for you guys. But you just have to accept then, that you will not get more fans, press, developers, attention, etc. I'm not attacking, I'm answering.
If growth is desired, then change is required. That's it. If you read anything more into it than that, then you're assuming things I never wrote.
I'm not saying they should incorporate running and gunning, or jump puzzles or any of that crap. The point was that 'action elements' are regarded as 'bastardization'. It's the mindset that anything that hasn't been done before in the 2d and text roots is anathema.
And I only describe the shortcomings as being the -mass market acceptance- obstacles. If you dig that stuff, of course you see them as features. But the overwhelming majority of fans don't - and gaming isn't big enough for your fringe to garner attention from the mainstream developers, publishers, or press.
As for the genre being dead for you... well I hate to break it to you - but it already is. Your threat to stop buying games altogether is fairly idle - as that is what most 'adventure' gamers already did.
Being open to new ideas doesn't necessarily mean 'add twitch combat'. It means: be open to exploring new storytelling methods, new technology -- don't write off a game just because of a rendering engine or camera angle decision, and don't just stick to the conventions of the previous games.
Aknowledging the genre's shortcomings doesn't mean 'add what currently popular games do'. it means: realize the 'puzzles' are ridiculous, the stories are repetitive, the character design is largely nonexistant, and the back-and-forth 'you can't do this now, you have to come back and do it later' 'design' is broken.
Maybe adventure games as they were is all adventure gamers ever want -- and to that I say, good for you guys.
But then don't keep wondering aloud where the new titles are, where the mainstream support is, where the new stories are, or where the fans all went. if you aren't doing that wondering, again, fine - i'm replying to the people that -are-. the people that regularly post articles like the one in question and make discussion threads asking 'why' adventure games went away.
And i'm just letting them know -- when you close yourself off to new ideas, when you refuse to question tradition and convention, you -can't- innovate. and your old ideas in new clothing are just not continually appealing to the mass market.
And the choices given the market reality is simply: innovate, or be comfortable in your niche.
But if you think I'm going to advocate the bastardization of adventure games through the inclusion of action elements, you are wrong.
I nearly wrote a rant about how assinine a name 'Adventure' is for this genre that really means 'ass backwards dream logic'. But that's not the point.
the point is, the absolute refusal of any genre, to accept a blend of good elements from other genres is the mark of death. If you refuse to accept new ideas - you will stagnate and die. It's that simple.
The games that revitalize and create genres blur traditional boundaries. Diablo, Thief, Half-Life, Deus Ex, GTA -- they're great -games- regardless of what 'genre' you try to lump them into.
Adventure games are dead because they weren't fun anymore: developers and purists refused to aknowledge that their genre -needs- a shot in the arm.
The stories were no longer compelling, and the puzzles were overly ludicrous in the name of making them 'clever'.
Most Adventure purists reviled at even the idea of 3d engines, with first person or chase cam views. I mean, a camera angle? Is your genre so incredibly fragile that changing the camera angle or rendering style is enough to destroy everything about it? christ.
Adventure games as these people define them are better off dead. Any genre that refuses to aknowledge its own shortcomings does not merit anything more than a fringe, niche market.
this game is so diametrically opposed to the hardcore gaming crowd, it makes me laugh.
I mean, we nitpick all of the balancing and bugs and shit - but really all we're saying is 'i don't get it'.
we just don't see where the fun part is, that makes dealing with the headaches worthwhile. I mean, the games we love have some stupid AI, some minor bugs that make the game annoying, but not unplayable. But we -get- those games. We see the fun part, and put up with the dumb stuff to get there. but not for the Sims. it's a foreign beast.
anyways... point is - it isn't our kind of game, it never was. the people who like it must -like- to micromanage the people. they must not -mind- the idea that they can't maximize their sims effectiveness. they must revel in the idea that there -isn't- a story or a point.
I had a bit of fun with it for a couple days, and like you guys, i moved on. It was a decent diversion, a novelty.
But my wife and a couple of her friends, they are so -hooked- it amazes me. I mean, they don't play all the time or anything, but when they play games, more often than not, that's the one they play. And they can't describe to me -why- or -how- the Sims is fun... not in terms I consider fun anyway.
So I've come to begrudgingly admire this game I don't understand. Mostly because it sells the pants off the games I -do- understand, and I have no real idea -why-.
People stick to fantasy because..... fantasy sells.
maybe it's because the big two sci fi massmogs were giant bug lists at release, which ran well only on high-end systems. i dunno. (anarchy online, starwars galaxies)
but fantasy makes up for the vast majority of massmog subscriptions, so why would you target a niche, in an already niche market?
mass-market aimed media (film, tv, games) very rarely features creativity, only because that market doesn't reward creativity.
basic threading: message list pane, rmb->'group by'->'conversation'
easy enough... and tons of ability to extend grouping and sorting preferences
of course they are talking about refining the threaded discussion interface to more appropriately apply to email.
Eg. preferences to show/hide how many children of a thread (paging), how to display responses best from multiple parties (group by conversation, sender, date? or conversation, date, sender?)
After all, it only takes a few dozen messages in a single thread to make you realize that a simple nested tree interface isn't the end-all.
but yeah, just about every email app has basic threading -- but there's plenty of room for improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
fair enough. i didn't own a playstation, and no-one i know had games that used more than one CD. (outside FF, but that seemed mostly due gratuitous fmv) maybe they did need to increase storage size. i stand corrected.
but you're saying that playing CD's was a strength of the ps is kind of my point.
Sony has always made decisions to compete against nintendo (and now MS) with multifunction devices.
consider the PSP specs. it isn't just going to just do video games. they are intentionally specifying mpeg4 decoding (so they can get 2 hrs of FMV on their media disc) mp3, aac, and ATRAC support. none of these are necessary for successful portable gaming -- nintendo has shown that. in fact, nintendo is only releasing the gameboy video player in america now, imo, to combat the multifunctionality of the PSP.
but i digress.
i hate to get up on teh soap box, but just in case you weren't just playing devils advocate (or slashdot troll)...
here in america we have this thing called 'free speech' and a 'free market'. if protected free speech is found 'inappropriate' by most the 'free market' - people don't buy it and it goes away.
we don't need laws to keep a sexual predator sim off the store shelves - we leave that up to distributors and consumers. if businesses don't want it on the shelf, and consumers don't want to buy it - it quickly disappears - if it ever got published in the first place. if it only exists in someone's private space - then why should I care if no person or animal is harmed?
Canada is starting down the slippery slope of defining 'appropriate'ness of free speech. and once that truly happens then it won't be long before it all goes.
after all, if child molestation and rape depictions aren't protected, then why should murder be protected? and what about fistfighting or war? you can't have a willing recipient of an assault rifle after all. what about obscure sexual fetishes that violate current canadian law? (think scat, beastiality, probably even things such a multipartner and oral/anal if its anything like most archaic US state laws)... then you'll lose unnecessarily harsh or ill-timed criticisms (of government, citizens, religion), etc, etc...
furthermore, there is nothing in art today that hasn't be created before. human civilization hasn't fallen apart for depicting nudity, sex, murder, rape, or even child molestation in art or literature in the 4000 years of recorded history. (rape was a core concept in the original tale of Sleeping Beauty & child abduction and molestation was the prominent event in the myth of Zeus and Ganymede)
Don't get me wrong, I loathe and despise child molesters and rapists, and the people who would create content to promote or condone such acts.
But much as I hate them, I feel strongly enough about our rights to free speech that I would vote to support their rights to say, write, and draw anything they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. I wouldn't go into a store that sold that kind of product, and I wouldn't associate with anyone who purchased it -- but I'm smart enough to realize that the individuals in society are mature enough to decide these things for themselves.
if they -had- to increase storage size for game developers then why didn't sony just develop a custom dvd-rom like nintendo to cut down on piracy and keep unit price down?
they're sony after all - they already have all the plants and parts to do a custom optical drive. it'd have been even cheaper for them to do than nintendo.
clearly they felt a multifunction device had more market strength than a single-function device.
funny how grand theft auto is really nothing but an interactive version of Scarface (which Vice City makes nearly a literal translation) -- yet scorcese is a visionary while the video game needs to be banned. cute hypocracy.
at lest this guy isn't calling for a ban on violent content in video games. oh wait... no... he essentially is by calling the rating system 'unenforceable' (no more unenforceable than the MPAAs rating system) and by suggesting the legitimacy of spurious game-blame lawsuits (suits that contend games make people killers)
the silver lining is that the medium is still gaining momentum. i just hope it sticks to its guns and lets developers make whatever they want, and lets the gamers decide what gets supported with their money.
american media industries that -have- stuck to their guns:
literature, painting, rock music, sculpture, film
american media industries that haven't stuck to their guns:
roleplaying games, comic books, cartoons
one set of these media is heralded as art, as 'legitimate'. individual works are judged on merit and the media itself carries no preconceived notions of 'allowable' or 'appropriate' content.
the other set of these media is heralded as fit only for children. why? because of self-censorship of content.
TSR took 'offensive' material out of D&D. ensuring that under no circumstances would anything other than cartoony child-safe good and evil be depicted. similarly with comic books and cartoons.
these industries willfully decided that only child-safe content should be created in their styles and media. so now their content is wholly marginalized and looked down upon based solely on its media.
consider japanese anime and their comics. sure, we make jokes about tentacle pron but they are not regarded derisively as child's materials in japan. they are individually judged on content, not with a blanket assumption based on its media.
why? because their industry -didn't- decide that tentacle pron was inappropriate for comics, or nudity and demons inappropriate for roleplaying games.
a service just needs to crop up that offers indie game developers site/game-downloadhosting, and secure payment for a basic monthly fee (to cover hosting) and then a small cut of any profits (to cover CC transactions).
offering optional web design service, marketing service, and software protection/activation service would be a plus, but not particularly necessary.
Another handy thing would be a gaming press that actually paid attention to the indy scene, instead of just the mainstream scene or the japanese import scene.
Indie developers just need someone to let them start taking sales when and if they ever get done. mixing it with the most primary community building/advertising tool (the official website) is just natural.
i dunno, all these other 'channels' like shockwave and such seem like unnecesary overhead. sure those sites can drive people to your game - but so could ads on those sites, or more importantly ads on sites known to garner serious gamers. the kind of people who -know- indie gaming isn't all inside the stereotypes (as pointed out above).
the problem is, traditionally 'publishers' are the people indies -want- to talk to, because they have seed money to help the thing happen. Personally i don't think any indy should go that route, and i don't think any game that does go that route can be called 'indy'. quite simply - big business will never be interested in fringe and unproven games (unless from a multiply proven team) - and quite frankly they shouldn't be. it isn't good business to keep taking big risks.
Furthermore, not having a publisher is rather the bit that keeps most indy games what they are. true to the intent and spirit of the designer: not marketing, not sales, not focus groups, not suits.
well, for the bulk price of the xbox's 8gb drive in 2000 you can get a ~40gb drive today - so pvr-necessary capacity is quite likely. dvd playback already requires mpeg2 decoding, and encoding hardware is only ~$15 for the part itself.
getting it to work together might throw a total of $30 in cost into the machine. while this might seem high, remember that the ps2 and xbox successfully launched at $100 more than any console before them. MS has already taken steps to dramatically reduce the xbox2's costs (custom cpu, newer, cheaper vid tech deal with ati). bumping up initial unit prices to $350 would not likely send anyone running to the hills.
the major justification though, is that PVR functionality is something that is ready for a breakthrough, just like DVD playback was last generation. including it in the next generation consoles could lead to that explosive widespread early adoption that the ps2 saw at release due it's dvd playback.
Sony took a hit in unit pricing to put then-expensive DVD technology into its system, that no video game it published would need. but it was added purely to add multifunctionality to the device. they didn't add a DVD-ROM because game designers were running out of space for their games and demanding it.
and people wouldn't be buying it as a convergence device: they'd be buying it as a cheap pvr that happened to have dvd playing and video game functionality.
simply looking at game sales charts will show Sony's ps2 market dominance has not translated into vastly more game sales. it has 5-10x the console installed base, but doesn't sell nearly 5-10x more games than MS/Nintendo. many many people bought the ps2 that don't have a strong interest in gaming -- yet they ran out and bought one.
this would have been a bad thing for anyone other than sony, as they all take a hit on selling the console itself. with a large section of the customers not buying video games, it could have been a huge net loss. However, Sony also profits from the expanded adoption of dvds overall. hence Sony promoted its multifunctionality, while MS (who do not profit from dvd movie sales and so would only lose if people bought their box as a dvd player) downplayed such multifunctionality (and charge $30 for a $1 remote if you want it).
as you point out - the market is bearing a monthly subscription for PVR untility. this wipes out the fears of not making their money off people who buy the box but don't buy games - and indeed broadens their potential market and adds another revenue stream.
imo (and remember that's all this is, opinion): adding PVR tech to the next generation of consoles is the necessary step for one of the giants to achieve clear market dominance. Nintendo really doesn't have to because of its first-party title strength.
i'm not attacking morrowwind. i understand it's a well respected game with a deep story and a dedicated fanbase. i'm saying it ain't my cup of tea and it's not exactly the same style of rpg as, for instance, nwn.
both good, both do their own thing, one is what i prefer.
my personal problem with marrowwind was that it was -so- open-ended I had a hard time keeping straight which thread was the main story thread. when i was done wandering and exploring (things i do enjoy and appreciate) i found it difficult to determine where to go to get back on the main story. it's been a year since i rented it - i remember either no autojournal, or an autojournal that didn't take down important details about names and locations. the distinct emotion it evoked was a feeling that i no longer had the taste for an rpg that required me to keep my own notes to avoid getting lost.
maybe on the PC with a 'personal journal' option where i could type in notes, it'd be less of an issue. but i'm talking about morrowind as a console rpg here.
maybe i'm a dumb console rpg'er spoiled by blinking dots on my overhead maps, i dunno. i just found that the openness, combined with the lack of direction was frustrating. perhaps i was fighting more with the interface than the game, i dunno.
perhaps if i'd played earlier games the culture-shock from jumping into the game would be lessened. but keep in mind, i'm not saying it's a -bad- game, i'm just saying it isn't -my- kind of game. certainly not my kind of -console- game. maybe in a different mood, on a different day i'd be more inclined to play, i dunno.
but as it stands, it isn't my preference - and perhaps as such i'm unnecessarily harsh in my judgement of the intent of the designers decision to differentiate the world and leave everything so player-driven, without a clearcut sense of urgency, player history or enemy.
but it's all just an opinion - and me stating my opinion does not invalidate yours.
yes, my not reading the books in the bookshop is my problem. but if the designers want me to play their game - it does become the game's problem.
if they have enough customers and everyone else likes it the way it is - then clearly it's not much of a problem for them. but neither is my not liking the game your problem.
i've got a brother who works on a naval cruiser, and he says pretty much it's the box of preference for the guys. there's at least one in each of the lounges.
besides, i'd think it'd have to do with the good tools and good performance with very little console-specific coding.
you gotta have an experienced ps2 developer to pull out the graphics a dime-a-dozen pc developer can do on the xbox.
and the xbox is a sealed unit. it isn't going to be a security risk, it isn't going to be a maintenance draw, it isn't going to be as expensive ($200+tv $400 + monitor).
i rented KOTOR, loved it. plan on buying it with holiday cash.
but it got me right into the story because it -did- have cliched elements. you -knew- the universe. Jedi are predominantly good, wookies are predominantly good, rhodians are questionable, etc. The story set up who you are, what you did, what the call to adventure is, what you 'should' do next, and where you shouldn't go. it left things open but you knew where to go to move 'forward' when you were done exploring a given area.
what i'm complaining about is games like morrowind, where the world is different simply for the sake of being different, and the story is so openended that you end up spending just as much time trying to figure out where you can and can not safely travel at your particular 'level' as you do investigating the story.
open ended gameplay like that isn't bad - but i prefer either a cliche setting with traditional rules (goblins are weak, etc), or some better 'intro' into the world to establish who-hates-who and which direction outside of town you don't walk in as a newbie.
like i said, if i could get KOTOR-quality in a fantasy setting, i'd be a happy man. i won't deny it, i though i loved KOTOR, i simply prefer fantasy for my RPGs. scifi imo lends itself more easily to action/rpg ala Deus Ex or Jedi Outcast
exactly. developers are essentially trying to charge people for matching services again.
-massive- people. c'mon. i can hop on battle net for free to get that kind of 'instanced' play. (never understood pso for that same reason)
the most fun in -massive- online games is the stuff that crops up that you didn't -plan- on doing. the raids, or events, or people you meet. i mean, some degree of instancing is fine. if you want to instance a few dungeons or something, that's fine, i can see how it'd be useful to mitigate stress or crowding during peak. but it shouldn't be the -whole- damn game.
i'm thinking the market will show this game to the door. the question is, is RG's ego too big to fit through it?
I just don't have faith in the guy as a 'visionary' when he was quoted as saying the only mistake EA made in UO's launch, was that they didn't charge enough for the monthly fee.
it's a similar problem all massmogs face - which is hording and maintenance.
the hardcore players of massmogs love to 'collect', and really hate the idea of 'their stuff' being 'taken away'. they don't like paying tax, they don't like decay, they don't like other players to be able to destroy or steal 'their stuff'.
if virtual money flows in, and doesn't flow out - it always accumulates in the form of 'stuff'.
in this situation, it's much worse than in adventuring massmogs. building is, i dare say, 'the point'. so if one guy owns all the prims in a sim - he essentially 'owns' the sim as no-one else can build there, and his monthly fee alone does not cover the cost of running a single sim.
contrary to other massmogs, where 1 character hoarding items/buildings can create lag, but doesn't actually consume an entire machine.
good luck to the developer. they really have an intriguing problem, that I don't even have a peanut gallery suggestion of how to address.
all i want is a good xbox fantasy rpg. something like kotor, but in a fantasy setting. and morrowind just didn't do it for me. (a little -too- open-ended. the main story didn't pull me in whatsoever). and i'm beginning to doubt fable actually exists.
that jade empire thing... meh, i like my fantasy a little more generic. i know, i'm not hardcore, something must be wrong with me, etc, etc. but i don't care to 'explore' a world that tries to deviate from the tolkien-archetypes for no reason.
If the story demands an eastern setting, that'd be fine. but i get the sinking suspicion that, like every 'oriental adventures' rpg before it, the story will have little eastern feel. it'll be a new setting for its own sake, and that's nauseating.
just touch up the kotor engine, switch 'force' to 'magic', 'blasters' to 'crossbows' and give me a good story.
You can't argue preference.
some people like some stuff, some don't.
Halo on the PC wasn't particularly well received by the hardcore because it was 3 years behind PC fps, there wasn't coop in the PC port, and the PC market is overly concerned with multiplayer deathmatch, whereas console gaming (at the point of HALO's release) adds deathmatch only as an afterthought.
Frankly, i can still play halo over and over again because the vehicles, the lack of load times, the excellent coop story, and the AI being so much better than the FPS that have come before (AI debatable re: half-life's human enemies).
the deathmatch modes were a bit uninspired, mostly because contemporary multiplayer modes weren't in demand at its release. but again, the vehicles make for great replayability if you could get yourself a LAN party with a couple xboxs.
and co-op story mode is an absolute necessity for replayable FPS. deathmatch has its place, and I have UT for that. but for a single player experience, no fps save deus ex or half-life is even close.
HALO -is- the best FPS the console world has to offer. and yes, its multiplayer modes are not at all comparable to what is available for the PC due to its design focus.
So it all depends on which camp you're judging it from. oh, and HALO being on the top 10 PC sales charts since it was released kinda conflicts with your estimation that it 'flopped'. it may not be the most popular, but gamers are snapping it up.
fan anticipation is fine.
a company astroturfing a community, lying about specs to keep people 'in', aggressively hyping a game that's 3 years behind in the press(*cough*romero*cough*), photoshopping screenshots, passing renders off for in-game shots, giving 'exclusive' demo downloads to pay sites, etc -- these are the bad things.
when the company is -creating- the press it's bad. when you get yourself excited from the mere idea, that's fine.
Half-life 2 is an example of a game where they didn't overmarket the thing before it is/was done.
Fable is an example of a game where they -are- overmarketing the thing before it's done.
for the love of baby jebus, could someone please make a pda/phone/mp3 player/digital camera with a compactflash slot?
i dig all these devices. i don't dig carrying them -all- around. i also enjoy the no-DRM and healthy competitive market in CF memory cards, as opposed to SD/MemoryStick.
I realize it'd be fairly bulky - larger than any one of those devices, but judging from the size of the individual items all rolled together, i'd expect it could be about the size of the Dell Axim, and maybe 1.5 times as thick.
cuz the philips 2mp keychain digital camera is supersmall, as is the iRiver. and phone/pda's aren't any bigger than the axim - so i don't think i'm being unreasonable. and some decent battery life would be nice too. like ~8 hrs mp3/pda gaming time. and naturally more if all i'm doing is light calendaring and digital standby/talk.
anyway, that's what i want for next year santa... get them elves working on it.
I have to agree with you there. I mean, Korea has more broadband subscribers than america. Not in a percentage either, straight up number of accounts. that's staggering.
A huge slice of their society participates in gaming - much more than just about anywhere else, except perhaps japan.
That said, think for a second, the ps2 in almost 2 years managed 600k sales. the same ps2 that's sold what? they say like 50m in the states.
clearly korea just isn't a very big console market.
that said, showing up late, and with a very weak eastern-appealing lineup - it's the same mistakes they made in japan.
They'll straighten it out, or 'lose' - it doesn't really matter. No market has any particular bearing over any other.
I mean, in this day and age, when the hype monster is birthed roughly at the same time as the project is green-lit for a full team - 'looking forward' to games is synonymous with 'setting yourself up for disappointment.'
;p
All you do is feed the downward spiral when you buy into any of the proprieters of 'exclusive previews' and 'preorders' of years-away games.
all that said, i can't help myself - Halo 2 has caught me. Halo delivered like Half-life delivered 5 years ago. Half-life 2 I am hungry for as well, the only difference being, i think Halo2 will be released first
But this excitement has nothing to do with marketing bullet-points or 'previews' or 'screen shots' from e3. it has to do with me still believing in a developer to deliver a good game.
let me clarify my whole position:
Fans looking ahead, making sites, getting excited -- this is fine.
But the selling of this excitement has gotten out of hand.
I thought that myself for a while. but I played Diablo -much- longer than I played the Sims. I 'got it' more. Similarly with all of my male gaming friends that played both. (some gamers still won't touch anything with mass market appeal ::shrug::)
but hardcore gamers seem to -get- the hunt. the chase. we -get- maximizing our character to make them the best they can possibly be in the ultimate conflict between 'us' and 'the other'.
but with the sims, you aren't necessarily 'hunting' anything. you can't -chase- anywhere. you can maximize your character very easily. There isn't an 'other' you physically conflict with. There isn't much in the game you can't have in a very short time, and before long there isn't -any- goal you have to keep playing for, to keep hunting. there are only so many expensive items, only so many stat points, only so many 'friends'.
I've watch my wife and her friends play the game and talk about it.
It's completely different. They aren't having their sim work out when they know the low body score is the only thing preventing their promotion at work. They aren't gunning for the best paying jobs, or keeping a sim home to craft lawn gnomes all day because it's more efficient.
They just play the game so different. Now don't get me wrong, it isn't a male/female thing. The Sims demographic is only 60% female after all... there are guys out there who get it, and I don't believe for a second that women are somehow genetically predisposed to -not- liking violence or horror, and so The Sims appeals to them on some hormonal level. No, there have been too many market failures based on that idea for it to have any weight.
It's just that there's apparently a whole market of casual gamers who -get- something from the gameplay of The Sims that they -don't- get from Diablo. And it can't be reduced to chasing new/different stuff.
I thought I'd simplified it down to hardcore gamers finding the fun in hunting for cool, whereas these casual gamers find their fun in -making- the cool. But sometimes... it doesn't seem like anyone is really -making- anything. I honestly think they're primarily using The Sims to tell stories.
which is interesting, because most games tell a story through conflict and travel. Whereas with this game, its stories can only be told without physical conflict, or travel.
They're restricted to being much more interpersonal and social. It all winds up more like 'Friends', or 'Seinfeld' than 'GI Joe', or 'Alias'. Which may actually be the draw.
fine, 'threat' was a bad choice of words, and apparently there is a steady supply of adventure games that fit your preferences. and while adventure gaming isn't completely dead, the numbers of released and sold 'pure' adventure games is certainly a very small number compared to other genre's, and is down quite a bit from where it once was.
similarly, i never suggested anyone change their tastes to fit with the mass market. I'm not saying you should change; I'm not saying any gamer should change.
I am saying that what is considered 'feature' by the purists is not seen as a feature by the mass market. so while you should not change - if the fans of the genre want growth, want more attention, big-budget games, press, etc for the more 'pure' adventure games -- they will have to accept that changes are necessary.
Not necessarily sweeping changes, but they need to be open to admitting there is room for improvement, to make the games more palatteable for a wider audience.
Again if no-one wants to change again, that's great for you guys. But you just have to accept then, that you will not get more fans, press, developers, attention, etc. I'm not attacking, I'm answering.
If growth is desired, then change is required. That's it. If you read anything more into it than that, then you're assuming things I never wrote.
I'm not saying they should incorporate running and gunning, or jump puzzles or any of that crap. The point was that 'action elements' are regarded as 'bastardization'. It's the mindset that anything that hasn't been done before in the 2d and text roots is anathema.
And I only describe the shortcomings as being the -mass market acceptance- obstacles. If you dig that stuff, of course you see them as features. But the overwhelming majority of fans don't - and gaming isn't big enough for your fringe to garner attention from the mainstream developers, publishers, or press.
As for the genre being dead for you... well I hate to break it to you - but it already is. Your threat to stop buying games altogether is fairly idle - as that is what most 'adventure' gamers already did.
Being open to new ideas doesn't necessarily mean 'add twitch combat'. It means: be open to exploring new storytelling methods, new technology -- don't write off a game just because of a rendering engine or camera angle decision, and don't just stick to the conventions of the previous games.
Aknowledging the genre's shortcomings doesn't mean 'add what currently popular games do'. it means: realize the 'puzzles' are ridiculous, the stories are repetitive, the character design is largely nonexistant, and the back-and-forth 'you can't do this now, you have to come back and do it later' 'design' is broken.
Maybe adventure games as they were is all adventure gamers ever want -- and to that I say, good for you guys.
But then don't keep wondering aloud where the new titles are, where the mainstream support is, where the new stories are, or where the fans all went. if you aren't doing that wondering, again, fine - i'm replying to the people that -are-. the people that regularly post articles like the one in question and make discussion threads asking 'why' adventure games went away.
And i'm just letting them know -- when you close yourself off to new ideas, when you refuse to question tradition and convention, you -can't- innovate. and your old ideas in new clothing are just not continually appealing to the mass market.
And the choices given the market reality is simply: innovate, or be comfortable in your niche.
...You might think that - until you see the motorcycle chase scene in the film.
yeah. This ain't your daddy's Isaac Asimov...
it remains to be seen if it is anyone's Isaac Asimov.
stupid hollywood.
But if you think I'm going to advocate the bastardization of adventure games through the inclusion of action elements, you are wrong.
I nearly wrote a rant about how assinine a name 'Adventure' is for this genre that really means 'ass backwards dream logic'. But that's not the point.
the point is, the absolute refusal of any genre, to accept a blend of good elements from other genres is the mark of death. If you refuse to accept new ideas - you will stagnate and die. It's that simple.
The games that revitalize and create genres blur traditional boundaries. Diablo, Thief, Half-Life, Deus Ex, GTA -- they're great -games- regardless of what 'genre' you try to lump them into.
Adventure games are dead because they weren't fun anymore: developers and purists refused to aknowledge that their genre -needs- a shot in the arm.
The stories were no longer compelling, and the puzzles were overly ludicrous in the name of making them 'clever'.
Most Adventure purists reviled at even the idea of 3d engines, with first person or chase cam views. I mean, a camera angle? Is your genre so incredibly fragile that changing the camera angle or rendering style is enough to destroy everything about it? christ.
Adventure games as these people define them are better off dead. Any genre that refuses to aknowledge its own shortcomings does not merit anything more than a fringe, niche market.
this game is so diametrically opposed to the hardcore gaming crowd, it makes me laugh.
I mean, we nitpick all of the balancing and bugs and shit - but really all we're saying is 'i don't get it'.
we just don't see where the fun part is, that makes dealing with the headaches worthwhile. I mean, the games we love have some stupid AI, some minor bugs that make the game annoying, but not unplayable. But we -get- those games. We see the fun part, and put up with the dumb stuff to get there. but not for the Sims. it's a foreign beast.
anyways... point is - it isn't our kind of game, it never was. the people who like it must -like- to micromanage the people. they must not -mind- the idea that they can't maximize their sims effectiveness. they must revel in the idea that there -isn't- a story or a point.
I had a bit of fun with it for a couple days, and like you guys, i moved on. It was a decent diversion, a novelty.
But my wife and a couple of her friends, they are so -hooked- it amazes me. I mean, they don't play all the time or anything, but when they play games, more often than not, that's the one they play. And they can't describe to me -why- or -how- the Sims is fun... not in terms I consider fun anyway.
So I've come to begrudgingly admire this game I don't understand. Mostly because it sells the pants off the games I -do- understand, and I have no real idea -why-.
People stick to fantasy because..... fantasy sells.
maybe it's because the big two sci fi massmogs were giant bug lists at release, which ran well only on high-end systems. i dunno. (anarchy online, starwars galaxies)
but fantasy makes up for the vast majority of massmog subscriptions, so why would you target a niche, in an already niche market?
mass-market aimed media (film, tv, games) very rarely features creativity, only because that market doesn't reward creativity.
basic threading:
message list pane, rmb->'group by'->'conversation'
easy enough... and tons of ability to extend grouping and sorting preferences
of course they are talking about refining the threaded discussion interface to more appropriately apply to email.
Eg. preferences to show/hide how many children of a thread (paging), how to display responses best from multiple parties (group by conversation, sender, date? or conversation, date, sender?)
After all, it only takes a few dozen messages in a single thread to make you realize that a simple nested tree interface isn't the end-all.
but yeah, just about every email app has basic threading -- but there's plenty of room for improvement.