Actually, I'd say the only real advancement Ninja Gaiden gave us was the cinema scene.
The game's basically double-speed Castlevania with no whip, annoying wall-jumps, no shot-multipliers, too-expensive subweapons and (even more) annoying enemies. And I've played through the both first two (though not since their original release).
I recently watched a friend play through a few levels, and had to say to myself, "I used to like this?" Because I did like it, back when I first played it, but I can't say it holds up these days.
Bite your tongue! Blaster Master had great graphics for its time. You can bet a lot of work went into intricately dithering all those character tiles pixel by pixel. And the attention to detail on the car, with the spinning wheels... that was eye-popping quality at the time, right there.
I've often wondered how people decide what graphics are good and what's not. These days people might complain about Mario 64's dated look, considering were a generation beyond it now, but I still think it looks perfect except for occaisional pop-up.
Yep, I'd definitely have put the original Castlevania on the list, maybe Castlevania III. Both games are special, in my mind, because the player is so *limited* in them. You can't jump that high, can't run fast, can't change direction in mid-air, are extra-vulnerable on staircases, and one stray enemy hit can kill if you're by a pit. If it weren't for the ability to trick medusa heads into appearing high, and the satisfying long reach of the player's weapon and subweapons, the game might be unplayable. As it is, I can just beat the first cycle without having to continue if I'm having a good day.
Symphony of the Night and Aria of Sorrow (the best Metroid-style CVs) wouldn't make the list however, not because they aren't great but because Metroid's already there, having pioneered their innovation years ahead of time.
Interestingly, I've played nine of the ten games on the list (Ghosts & Goblins is the one I've never seen), and agree with what he said about every game. (Though Mega Man 2 may have been a better choice, Mega Man was a little too frustrating in places.)
One other notable absense is Blaster Master. The Metroid-style dynamic coupled with a slightly more rigid world structure and some of the best graphics of the NES era. And car is lots of fun to control.
It's interesting, I've not found it *excessively* hard either, except in places (Bosses from Another Joe on, and some rooms in the last level).
I'm currently taking a break from the game, but I have a game at Fire Leo on Ultra-V mode, which is probably the hardest thing in the game according to GameFAQs, because his pattern is somewhat chaotic, and the only way to get good damage on him is to dodge his tornado attacks to make him dizzy, and in Ultra-V rated, there are no skull marks to warn you whether he's attacking high or low. You have to rely on the (somewhat subtle) differences in the sounds he makes before each attack.
I think the game is well-balanced, with Kids and Adult mode for casual players, and the two V-Rated modes for obsessives like myself. Kids mode really isn't that hard, I'd say. And lest you still believe Japanese gamers get harder games than the U.S., they released an updated version of the game with an *even easier* mode in that market.
Creative industries may seem to be hit-oriented these days, but it hasn't always been so.I believe there are reasons to consider the hit-driven nature of most modern entertainment to be a symptom of our times, and potentially transient.
I think it's dangerous to assume a creative business needs to have a hit structure, even if it seems to be prevalent. I'm not convinced it will always be this way, though frankly I couldn't tell you why at the moment.
And the fact remains that even in the music industry, it's possible to get unique visions onto store shelves, while it's very difficult in game development. Many very successful companies who might want to produce a risky, creative game, the kinds of ideas necessary to push gaming ahead, are not, not even occasionally. And some companies (Nintendo and Sega currently, Atari in the old days) do continue to produce wildly inventive games, and make a good profit off of them.
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one (even though I frankly hate that phrase). While other entertainment forms have broken out into the mainstream, gaming still caters primarily to young male adults.
I used to consider what you said, about games being easier to do in your garage, to be true, but the art and music burden alone would put any truly professional-looking project outside the reach of most individual developers.
You're right about movies, but it's easier to get a team together if you're doing a garage project.
By the way, a bit off the topic... how is Age of Mythology ruined by the mythos? I'd think a game like that would basically live or die off the gameplay alone, but I've never played it.
But the success of things like Snood (which I believe is *not* original, it's a clone of Puzzle Bobble/Bust A Move, a mistake even Greg Costikiyan made) indicates that some people *are* looking for something different. As time passes, and "mainstreaming" gaming gets more and more insular, this market segment can only grow.
But paperback novels rarely become best-sellers, "minimal" changes means more in writing than in a computer game (where a simple name change can reverberate meaningfully throughout an entire work), and there are plenty of genres that have died out over the centuries.
Dox Quixote was written, partially, as a response to the tales of chivalry of his day, a genre that is never really seen anymore. On the other hand, Don Quixote has survived for hundreds of years.
Basically yes, it's easier, and more profitable, to produce a lot based on a formula than try for a unique product that takes a lot of time and effort. But there's more recognition that there must also be some advancment of the field in those other industries, looking towards long-term survival. (It's also more readily possible to produce a story, music, even movies in your garage these days than a professional-level computer game. You're more likely to see creativity in solo productions than team efforts.)
On the whole, the problem of companies cashing in in the short term over looking to long-term reward is a problem shared by a lot more than just creative industries. Just look at Enron.
To be honest, yes, I do believe unauthorized copying of such products does lead to some lost sales. (I'm going to avoid calling it piracy, as it implies a more obvious moral failing than it really is.)
But in our current market, it has a much greater potential to increase sales. I go to a bookstore and spend two hours rummaging through the shelves, and usually leave without buying anything, because there's too much material to choose from, and not enough information on what to buy. (Okay, and I'm incredibly indecisive.) At least I can look at the content in the books in making my decision! It's a lot worse than that at the music store, or the software store.
I'm not going to pay money to find out, after the fact, if I should have bought something.
My god, did I just say "content?" Time to watch my hands out with soap.
But why has chess been around for thousands of years?
It's because it's a hell of a lot deeper game than Doom 3, that's why. Compared to the length of human history, chess has been around for much of it. How many other games have fallen by the wayside since then? Of course, we're less likely to know about them. It's highly unlikely that even Quake games will be around *that* long. (Chess also has the advantage of being public domain, and not tied to the fortunes of a company.)
Furthermore, chess is, in a way, merely a medium by which two people can express their intelligence at each other, more than the game itself. The experience differs greatly depending on your opponent. There's some of this in internet multiplayer gaming, but those games are nowhere near as rich as chess.
But don't you see? This can't go on forever. (Well, there are some people who'll buy just because the new game has an updated roster, but these are lost souls.) There are not an infinite number of new possible features to add. We aleady have game scoreboards rigged to look like network broadcasts! I'm looking forward to the day we start seeing things like nude codes for cheerleaders -- desperation may be a horrible thing to experience, but it can be quite entertaining to watch.
As for developer bashing... everyone does it, and not just in sports games. Everyone picks on things like ugly hardware scaling and visible polygons as if they were causes for capital punishment. Gamers are incredibly fickle, and their opinions are largely the products of spin, advertising, and reviews written by people who don't have a lot of incentive to be critical than quality in game design. (This being why XBox is number two in the U.S.)
Metroid: Zero Mission has one of the best game designs I've ever seen -- the game is intricately designed to make it possible to beat the game with less than 15% of all the items, be beaten with 100% in less than two hours, do all sorts of things outside the "official" completion order, and it's all intentional. Incredibly clever idea, and it's very hard to ensure that such bold players can't get stuck anywhere, while ensuring that "normal" players won't see the super-secret passages, take them and get in over their heads.
But no one raves that it's really tightly designed. Of course, really great designs are unobstrusive and difficult to see -- I own the game, and only found out about 15% games when browsing around GameFAQs. Hard to rave about something you don't know about.
The Web is just a part of the Internet, which *has* been around longer than 11 years.
But you're generally right, the game industry and the Internet are both still young.
Actually, the United States isn't that old compared to the likes of England and France, and we're seeing right now what damage can be done by even one bad president. And civilization is very young when compared to the amount of time humans have been on the planet, what's to say we're not this eon's trilobite?
We all think the things that have been around since our childhood have some kind of magical staying power, but really, a lot of these things are transitory.
It is very possible for the Internet and the game industry to die -- that many people have said it before and it hasn't happened has no bearing on whether it will happen this time or not. We shouldn't run screaming from each tiny threat to their existance, but neither should we discount them.
BOOKS: There's still new literature being published. If you have something really new and interesting, there are still places that think this is an asset instead of a liability. And even in relatively traditional genres like mysteries, there is some degree of innovation.
MOVIES: Again, studios still sometimes make thoughtful, enlightened work. The success of such films as Clerks and The Blair Witch Project make it clear that it's possible to make successful original cinema with little cash, a great inspiration to all those guys with a camera and a dream. Computers have really lowered the entry barrier on this one.
MUSIC: Well, you can believe the RIAA's story that piracy is hurting sales, or you can look at their preponderance of girl stars and boy bands, and Clear Channel's locking up of mainstream radio. Even so, there are plenty of independent bands out there that may not be famous or get rich, but are doing what they want, and having fun doing it.
MAGAZINES: Kind of a weird thing to bring up. Magazines tend to be driven more from utilitarian principles than out of a need to entertain and create. Even so, the field is constantly expanding and changing.
It's a basic human trait to seek novelty. The possible audience may go up, but people *will not* play the same game over and over again, forever. Even Tetris got old after the thousandth game. The question is, are new games different enough from old ones that people will keep buying them?
I'm also not so sure the audience is increasing. As more people get computers the market is becoming saturated. Most people don't need more than one, and the perceived benefit to upgrading is diminishing.
A lot of people may play the Yahoo! games, they aren't a large segment of the market, because not a lot of money changes hands over them. And Yahoo! games, from my own perspective, seem fairly light-weight. (PopCap is probably a bit better though.)
SimCity, while a great design for its time, has had four sequels of various types (I include the SNES version). I think the last version that Will Wright had direct input on was SimCity 2000. (I could be wrong on that.) And Sports games are arguably the least creative genre -- even the first sports video game was a copy, and there isn't really that much to distinguish each Madden (X) from its corresponding Madden (X-1).
We are the ones that have to convince other people that games like Pikmin and Eternal Darkness are truely awesome.
Gee, you don't sound very convinced yourself, there.
I know what you really mean, however: why is it that we can enjoy these games so much while many people look over and just go "eh?" My theory is that most Gamecube players are either younger (and thus have no preconcieved notions of what a videogame should be) or older (and remember old classic games, and have a more enlightened conception of gaming) than the average gamer, who is teenage male, easy swayed by peer pressure, wants to look cool and pretend to be cool things when playing a game, thinks power is everything, probably watches Dragonball-Z, etc.
Microsoft has more chance competing against the Gamecube than the PS2, which is so far ahead of GC and X-Box combined it isn't funny.
Meanwhile Nintendo's system is a little behind their market share (a bit past it if you consider worldwide sales), and closing. Microsoft can't catch Sony in this generation, but they can try to stay ahead of Nintendo. So I'd discount the reason they gave for price lowering. They don't want to be seen as competing with "number three."
If people argue that Microsoft doesn't have to *beat* Sony, that they just have to do well enough to maintain profits.... well then they're just silly, as Microsoft's XBox division has never been profitable.
Hmmm... unfortunately, I'm an English major, not a Japanese one, so I can't comment on it one way or the other. I certainly can't tell by the screen shots.
Well I've never played X, but judging from most of the FF games I've seen, the story isn't really *that* great.
I mean, what's the chance we'll ever see a game story that makes real, non-obvious social points, a necessary for great literature? A game that doesn't lead dramatic scenes with sappy music? A game with a story an English major (such as myself) wouldn't be embarassed as hell to be seen playing?
The answer: slim to none, if the game costs as much to make as a Final Fantasy game since VII.
Not that the earlier ones were that much better.
Finl Fantasy games *do* have good stories in comparasion with most other games, however. I'm just not sure about the novel comparasion.
I think the number of Slashdot posters that chime in in Nintendo's defense whenever there's a question of system game quality argues that there must be at least *some* older gamers playing on Gamecubes. Not that children don't play the system, but the fact is....
You know what? Skip it. I *have* seen Nintendo defended against kiddie charges here too many times. If you don't care about Nintendo games it's your loss.
Nintendo's North American market share isn't *that* much worse than the XBox's (which is to say, they're both lacking compared to the PS2). It's better when you take the world market into consideration.
But Nintendo's market share *is* a fair bit more knowledgable. People who've stuck with Nintendo tend to care a lot about gaming, and know a good game when they see one. And I've seen a *lot* of crappy third-party software, across all three platforms. Nintendo gamers, call 'em fanboys if you want, are just less likely to go for them.
It depends on the Zelda game, and what aspect of it you're looking at it.
The first Zelda had a "recommended" order of dungeon completion, offered to the played in the form of those level numbers, 1-9, but overall the player could enter any dungeon at any time, and even complete some of them. Player equipment got in the way of some of that, but in places, if you were good enough, you could penetrate deep enough into a dungeon to get an item early. People have discovered the Magic Key in Level 8 in the first quest is like that, which could be considered a cheat since it makes finding any other keys for the rest of the quest moot.
The second game, however was very linear. There are sequence breaks for it, but they don't seem as sponsored by the designers themselves as in the first Zelda.
Once in the dark world in Link to the Past, the player became able to play and complete some levels out of order. And Ocarina of Time does have a nod to that type of non-linearity -- although the game points you to Death Mountain after completing the Forest Temple, you can actually complete the Water Temple first. (I believe -- going from memory here, it's been years since I've played it.) And of course all the Zelda games (except maybe II) have had little things like extra equipment and heart pieces scattered around to find outside the "main" sequence.
The problem with non-linearity in Zelda games is striking that mix between letting the player do whatever he wants, and hand-holding players who get confused about what to do next. I greatly prefer the former approach, and loved just getting lost in Wind Waker exploring the ocean, but I've coached someone through the whole of that game, who couldn't handle the non-linearity of it. Judging from the sales of hint books, there's a lot of people like that.
I think, in the future, we may end up with more approaches like in the new Metroid, which *appears* to have a strict exploration structure but actually turns out to be EXTREMELY non-linear, almost like the original game. People have written over at GameFAQs that you only really need nine, of the hundred items in the game, to win, that you can beat Ridley before Kraid, that you can skip the Speed Booster, Screw Attack, High-Jump Boots, and so on. It turns out that much of this sequence breaking seems implicitly included by the designers, with the routes that break the "intended" order with less equipment being more difficult to find, and requiring "un-supported," yet still present, moves such as the bomb jump and the wall-kick. It still seems to be impossible to make the player utterly trapped anywhere, and there are special ending pictures for winning with 15% of the items in the game or less.
Er, this is a *positive* point? A volleyball game starring all the super-endowed females in the company's fighting game? With dating sim elements?
It may be original (though I'm not convinced), but it's also damn creepy, in that special Japanese girl sim way. It also sounds exactly like it was designed by marketroids, not despite them.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'd say the only real advancement Ninja Gaiden gave us was the cinema scene.
The game's basically double-speed Castlevania with no whip, annoying wall-jumps, no shot-multipliers, too-expensive subweapons and (even more) annoying enemies. And I've played through the both first two (though not since their original release).
I recently watched a friend play through a few levels, and had to say to myself, "I used to like this?" Because I did like it, back when I first played it, but I can't say it holds up these days.
Bite your tongue! Blaster Master had great graphics for its time. You can bet a lot of work went into intricately dithering all those character tiles pixel by pixel. And the attention to detail on the car, with the spinning wheels... that was eye-popping quality at the time, right there.
I've often wondered how people decide what graphics are good and what's not. These days people might complain about Mario 64's dated look, considering were a generation beyond it now, but I still think it looks perfect except for occaisional pop-up.
Yep, I'd definitely have put the original Castlevania on the list, maybe Castlevania III. Both games are special, in my mind, because the player is so *limited* in them. You can't jump that high, can't run fast, can't change direction in mid-air, are extra-vulnerable on staircases, and one stray enemy hit can kill if you're by a pit. If it weren't for the ability to trick medusa heads into appearing high, and the satisfying long reach of the player's weapon and subweapons, the game might be unplayable. As it is, I can just beat the first cycle without having to continue if I'm having a good day.
Symphony of the Night and Aria of Sorrow (the best Metroid-style CVs) wouldn't make the list however, not because they aren't great but because Metroid's already there, having pioneered their innovation years ahead of time.
Interestingly, I've played nine of the ten games on the list (Ghosts & Goblins is the one I've never seen), and agree with what he said about every game. (Though Mega Man 2 may have been a better choice, Mega Man was a little too frustrating in places.)
One other notable absense is Blaster Master. The Metroid-style dynamic coupled with a slightly more rigid world structure and some of the best graphics of the NES era. And car is lots of fun to control.
It's interesting, I've not found it *excessively* hard either, except in places (Bosses from Another Joe on, and some rooms in the last level).
I'm currently taking a break from the game, but I have a game at Fire Leo on Ultra-V mode, which is probably the hardest thing in the game according to GameFAQs, because his pattern is somewhat chaotic, and the only way to get good damage on him is to dodge his tornado attacks to make him dizzy, and in Ultra-V rated, there are no skull marks to warn you whether he's attacking high or low. You have to rely on the (somewhat subtle) differences in the sounds he makes before each attack.
I think the game is well-balanced, with Kids and Adult mode for casual players, and the two V-Rated modes for obsessives like myself. Kids mode really isn't that hard, I'd say. And lest you still believe Japanese gamers get harder games than the U.S., they released an updated version of the game with an *even easier* mode in that market.
Creative industries may seem to be hit-oriented these days, but it hasn't always been so.I believe there are reasons to consider the hit-driven nature of most modern entertainment to be a symptom of our times, and potentially transient.
I think it's dangerous to assume a creative business needs to have a hit structure, even if it seems to be prevalent. I'm not convinced it will always be this way, though frankly I couldn't tell you why at the moment.
And the fact remains that even in the music industry, it's possible to get unique visions onto store shelves, while it's very difficult in game development. Many very successful companies who might want to produce a risky, creative game, the kinds of ideas necessary to push gaming ahead, are not, not even occasionally. And some companies (Nintendo and Sega currently, Atari in the old days) do continue to produce wildly inventive games, and make a good profit off of them.
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one (even though I frankly hate that phrase). While other entertainment forms have broken out into the mainstream, gaming still caters primarily to young male adults.
I used to consider what you said, about games being easier to do in your garage, to be true, but the art and music burden alone would put any truly professional-looking project outside the reach of most individual developers.
You're right about movies, but it's easier to get a team together if you're doing a garage project.
By the way, a bit off the topic... how is Age of Mythology ruined by the mythos? I'd think a game like that would basically live or die off the gameplay alone, but I've never played it.
Yeah, alas, at the moment you are correct.
But the success of things like Snood (which I believe is *not* original, it's a clone of Puzzle Bobble/Bust A Move, a mistake even Greg Costikiyan made) indicates that some people *are* looking for something different. As time passes, and "mainstreaming" gaming gets more and more insular, this market segment can only grow.
But paperback novels rarely become best-sellers, "minimal" changes means more in writing than in a computer game (where a simple name change can reverberate meaningfully throughout an entire work), and there are plenty of genres that have died out over the centuries.
Dox Quixote was written, partially, as a response to the tales of chivalry of his day, a genre that is never really seen anymore. On the other hand, Don Quixote has survived for hundreds of years.
Basically yes, it's easier, and more profitable, to produce a lot based on a formula than try for a unique product that takes a lot of time and effort. But there's more recognition that there must also be some advancment of the field in those other industries, looking towards long-term survival. (It's also more readily possible to produce a story, music, even movies in your garage these days than a professional-level computer game. You're more likely to see creativity in solo productions than team efforts.)
On the whole, the problem of companies cashing in in the short term over looking to long-term reward is a problem shared by a lot more than just creative industries. Just look at Enron.
To be honest, yes, I do believe unauthorized copying of such products does lead to some lost sales. (I'm going to avoid calling it piracy, as it implies a more obvious moral failing than it really is.)
But in our current market, it has a much greater potential to increase sales. I go to a bookstore and spend two hours rummaging through the shelves, and usually leave without buying anything, because there's too much material to choose from, and not enough information on what to buy. (Okay, and I'm incredibly indecisive.) At least I can look at the content in the books in making my decision! It's a lot worse than that at the music store, or the software store.
I'm not going to pay money to find out, after the fact, if I should have bought something.
My god, did I just say "content?" Time to watch my hands out with soap.
But why has chess been around for thousands of years?
It's because it's a hell of a lot deeper game than Doom 3, that's why. Compared to the length of human history, chess has been around for much of it. How many other games have fallen by the wayside since then? Of course, we're less likely to know about them. It's highly unlikely that even Quake games will be around *that* long. (Chess also has the advantage of being public domain, and not tied to the fortunes of a company.)
Furthermore, chess is, in a way, merely a medium by which two people can express their intelligence at each other, more than the game itself. The experience differs greatly depending on your opponent. There's some of this in internet multiplayer gaming, but those games are nowhere near as rich as chess.
.....!
Hey, that's actually a pretty cool idea! I tip my hat to you sir.
But don't you see? This can't go on forever. (Well, there are some people who'll buy just because the new game has an updated roster, but these are lost souls.) There are not an infinite number of new possible features to add. We aleady have game scoreboards rigged to look like network broadcasts! I'm looking forward to the day we start seeing things like nude codes for cheerleaders -- desperation may be a horrible thing to experience, but it can be quite entertaining to watch.
As for developer bashing... everyone does it, and not just in sports games. Everyone picks on things like ugly hardware scaling and visible polygons as if they were causes for capital punishment. Gamers are incredibly fickle, and their opinions are largely the products of spin, advertising, and reviews written by people who don't have a lot of incentive to be critical than quality in game design. (This being why XBox is number two in the U.S.)
Metroid: Zero Mission has one of the best game designs I've ever seen -- the game is intricately designed to make it possible to beat the game with less than 15% of all the items, be beaten with 100% in less than two hours, do all sorts of things outside the "official" completion order, and it's all intentional. Incredibly clever idea, and it's very hard to ensure that such bold players can't get stuck anywhere, while ensuring that "normal" players won't see the super-secret passages, take them and get in over their heads.
But no one raves that it's really tightly designed. Of course, really great designs are unobstrusive and difficult to see -- I own the game, and only found out about 15% games when browsing around GameFAQs. Hard to rave about something you don't know about.
The Web is just a part of the Internet, which *has* been around longer than 11 years.
But you're generally right, the game industry and the Internet are both still young.
Actually, the United States isn't that old compared to the likes of England and France, and we're seeing right now what damage can be done by even one bad president. And civilization is very young when compared to the amount of time humans have been on the planet, what's to say we're not this eon's trilobite?
We all think the things that have been around since our childhood have some kind of magical staying power, but really, a lot of these things are transitory.
It is very possible for the Internet and the game industry to die -- that many people have said it before and it hasn't happened has no bearing on whether it will happen this time or not. We shouldn't run screaming from each tiny threat to their existance, but neither should we discount them.
Well....
BOOKS: There's still new literature being published. If you have something really new and interesting, there are still places that think this is an asset instead of a liability. And even in relatively traditional genres like mysteries, there is some degree of innovation.
MOVIES: Again, studios still sometimes make thoughtful, enlightened work. The success of such films as Clerks and The Blair Witch Project make it clear that it's possible to make successful original cinema with little cash, a great inspiration to all those guys with a camera and a dream. Computers have really lowered the entry barrier on this one.
MUSIC: Well, you can believe the RIAA's story that piracy is hurting sales, or you can look at their preponderance of girl stars and boy bands, and Clear Channel's locking up of mainstream radio. Even so, there are plenty of independent bands out there that may not be famous or get rich, but are doing what they want, and having fun doing it.
MAGAZINES: Kind of a weird thing to bring up. Magazines tend to be driven more from utilitarian principles than out of a need to entertain and create. Even so, the field is constantly expanding and changing.
It's a basic human trait to seek novelty. The possible audience may go up, but people *will not* play the same game over and over again, forever. Even Tetris got old after the thousandth game. The question is, are new games different enough from old ones that people will keep buying them?
I'm also not so sure the audience is increasing. As more people get computers the market is becoming saturated. Most people don't need more than one, and the perceived benefit to upgrading is diminishing.
A lot of people may play the Yahoo! games, they aren't a large segment of the market, because not a lot of money changes hands over them. And Yahoo! games, from my own perspective, seem fairly light-weight. (PopCap is probably a bit better though.)
SimCity, while a great design for its time, has had four sequels of various types (I include the SNES version). I think the last version that Will Wright had direct input on was SimCity 2000. (I could be wrong on that.) And Sports games are arguably the least creative genre -- even the first sports video game was a copy, and there isn't really that much to distinguish each Madden (X) from its corresponding Madden (X-1).
We are the ones that have to convince other people that games like Pikmin and Eternal Darkness are truely awesome.
Gee, you don't sound very convinced yourself, there.
I know what you really mean, however: why is it that we can enjoy these games so much while many people look over and just go "eh?" My theory is that most Gamecube players are either younger (and thus have no preconcieved notions of what a videogame should be) or older (and remember old classic games, and have a more enlightened conception of gaming) than the average gamer, who is teenage male, easy swayed by peer pressure, wants to look cool and pretend to be cool things when playing a game, thinks power is everything, probably watches Dragonball-Z, etc.
Microsoft has more chance competing against the Gamecube than the PS2, which is so far ahead of GC and X-Box combined it isn't funny.
Meanwhile Nintendo's system is a little behind their market share (a bit past it if you consider worldwide sales), and closing. Microsoft can't catch Sony in this generation, but they can try to stay ahead of Nintendo. So I'd discount the reason they gave for price lowering. They don't want to be seen as competing with "number three."
If people argue that Microsoft doesn't have to *beat* Sony, that they just have to do well enough to maintain profits.... well then they're just silly, as Microsoft's XBox division has never been profitable.
Ironically, now several of his own customers are pissed as well and want their preorder money back
Well I wouldn't blame them if it's going to be released GPL in a week.
By the way, isn't it weird to see Nintendo in the role of Evil Oppressor again?
Hmmm... unfortunately, I'm an English major, not a Japanese one, so I can't comment on it one way or the other. I certainly can't tell by the screen shots.
Well I've never played X, but judging from most of the FF games I've seen, the story isn't really *that* great.
I mean, what's the chance we'll ever see a game story that makes real, non-obvious social points, a necessary for great literature? A game that doesn't lead dramatic scenes with sappy music? A game with a story an English major (such as myself) wouldn't be embarassed as hell to be seen playing?
The answer: slim to none, if the game costs as much to make as a Final Fantasy game since VII.
Not that the earlier ones were that much better.
Finl Fantasy games *do* have good stories in comparasion with most other games, however. I'm just not sure about the novel comparasion.
I think the number of Slashdot posters that chime in in Nintendo's defense whenever there's a question of system game quality argues that there must be at least *some* older gamers playing on Gamecubes. Not that children don't play the system, but the fact is....
You know what? Skip it. I *have* seen Nintendo defended against kiddie charges here too many times. If you don't care about Nintendo games it's your loss.
Nintendo's North American market share isn't *that* much worse than the XBox's (which is to say, they're both lacking compared to the PS2). It's better when you take the world market into consideration.
But Nintendo's market share *is* a fair bit more knowledgable. People who've stuck with Nintendo tend to care a lot about gaming, and know a good game when they see one. And I've seen a *lot* of crappy third-party software, across all three platforms. Nintendo gamers, call 'em fanboys if you want, are just less likely to go for them.
Really?! I hadn't even considered that it might be possible to break that sequence. Nifty!
And I had forgotten, for a moment at least, about Majora's Mask, which is linear in a certain way, but utterly non-linear in another.
It depends on the Zelda game, and what aspect of it you're looking at it.
The first Zelda had a "recommended" order of dungeon completion, offered to the played in the form of those level numbers, 1-9, but overall the player could enter any dungeon at any time, and even complete some of them. Player equipment got in the way of some of that, but in places, if you were good enough, you could penetrate deep enough into a dungeon to get an item early. People have discovered the Magic Key in Level 8 in the first quest is like that, which could be considered a cheat since it makes finding any other keys for the rest of the quest moot.
The second game, however was very linear. There are sequence breaks for it, but they don't seem as sponsored by the designers themselves as in the first Zelda.
Once in the dark world in Link to the Past, the player became able to play and complete some levels out of order. And Ocarina of Time does have a nod to that type of non-linearity -- although the game points you to Death Mountain after completing the Forest Temple, you can actually complete the Water Temple first. (I believe -- going from memory here, it's been years since I've played it.) And of course all the Zelda games (except maybe II) have had little things like extra equipment and heart pieces scattered around to find outside the "main" sequence.
The problem with non-linearity in Zelda games is striking that mix between letting the player do whatever he wants, and hand-holding players who get confused about what to do next. I greatly prefer the former approach, and loved just getting lost in Wind Waker exploring the ocean, but I've coached someone through the whole of that game, who couldn't handle the non-linearity of it. Judging from the sales of hint books, there's a lot of people like that.
I think, in the future, we may end up with more approaches like in the new Metroid, which *appears* to have a strict exploration structure but actually turns out to be EXTREMELY non-linear, almost like the original game. People have written over at GameFAQs that you only really need nine, of the hundred items in the game, to win, that you can beat Ridley before Kraid, that you can skip the Speed Booster, Screw Attack, High-Jump Boots, and so on. It turns out that much of this sequence breaking seems implicitly included by the designers, with the routes that break the "intended" order with less equipment being more difficult to find, and requiring "un-supported," yet still present, moves such as the bomb jump and the wall-kick. It still seems to be impossible to make the player utterly trapped anywhere, and there are special ending pictures for winning with 15% of the items in the game or less.
Er, this is a *positive* point? A volleyball game starring all the super-endowed females in the company's fighting game? With dating sim elements?
It may be original (though I'm not convinced), but it's also damn creepy, in that special Japanese girl sim way. It also sounds exactly like it was designed by marketroids, not despite them.
It was great (though not up to the original), but few people bought it it seems. Really, it should have been released on the GameCube.
After I played through it repeatedly, I sold my X-Box and haven't looked back.