Based on your writing style, and assuming your post isn't supposed to be a joke, I guess that you weren't born yet way back when the PS was released in 1994, so maybe I should clear up a few things for you. The only thing the PS achieved was a huge market share. Maybe that's the "Outstanding Achievement" for which it got the Emmy, I frankly don't know. Nothing about the PS was revolutionary in any way. 3D consoles like the 3DO or the Atari Jaguar were available before the PS came out. CD-Based consoles like the Sega CD or Amigas CD32 were available before the PS.
There's nothing innovative about the PS.
To finish, let me just tell you that the only thing this Emmy proves is that those handing it out have no clue.
you left out the whole Online aspect which is to me HUGE, as I love it.
You're right, I completely forgot about that. I simply don't care about online gaming as I prefer to play against others while they're in the same room, but it's obviously true that the Xbox owns the Cube as far as online gaming is concerned. Can't comment on sound quality as I have neither the system nor the ears to judge it. Anyway, the idea was to point out that the Xbox doesn't win against the Cube "in every measurable sense".
But I forgot something else where the Cube wins hands-down: Load times.
And, even more incidentally, the Xbox is superior to the Gamecube in every measurable sense.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but you're definitely wrong. The Xbox is superior to the gamecube in several categories - for example, it can play DVDs. But definitely not "in every measurable sense" (whatever a "measurable sense" actually is). We can argue graphics, but frankly, it's pointless. The Xbox may be faster in theory, but with games like Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime on the Gamecube, the point is moot. The Cube's best-looking games are at least as pretty as the Xbox's best-looking games.
Even ignoring graphics, there are several metrics where the Cube soundly beats the Xbox. Size, for example. The box which the Cube comes in has about the same volume as the Xbox itself. What about sound? The Xbox is definitely a lot noisier than the Cube.
And then there are the games. It's debatable whether this is measurable, but I'm pretty sure the Cube has more original titles and more A-List titles than the Xbox.
Yeah, the Xbox is big and black and bad, but it's hardly the better console "in every measurable sense".
before the iPod (and even today) there is nothing for the Mac that comes close to the iPod in terms of software to load songs from your desktop/portable.
Actually, iTunes works with third party MP3 players and did so well before Apple announced the iPod.
Are there really people out there who look at a video game controller and say "oh my god, that's so scary, I cannot possibly fathom it! run away!!"
Uhm. No. But lots of people don't want to play games because they have never used a controller and are afraid of embarassing themselves. Seriously, modern controllers are not easy to learn. If you started out on, say, the SNES, moved to the Playstation and eventually to the PS2, you never had to learn a lot of new stuff. But somebody picking up a Gamecube controller who has never had a controller in his hands right now needs to learn a heck of a lot of stuff right away.
First of all, there are three "direction controllers" on on a modern pad (the cross and two analog sticks). Then you have your normal assortment of buttons and between two and four shoulder buttons, some of them analog.
Whenever people are around my place, we usually play games like Mario Kart: Double Dash. Fortunately, you can have two players on one kart, so experienced players can help out new players. But even so, if you want to, say, switch position after the first lap, it's confusing. "Press the Z button" - "What button?" - "It's the small button above R" - "R???" - "Where your index finger is, R is for right, L is for left." - "There's no button where my index finger is!" and during all of this, they have to keep controlling the game.
Lots of people just go "Oh, you play, I'll just watch, I'm too bad at games.".
Having a controller like this will make it a whole lot easier to get into gaming.
I read in an Interview with Autumn Moon Entertainment (some other former Lucas Arts employees working on an adventure called "A Vampyre Story") that the reason they use 3D characters instead of the beautifully drawn 2D sprites is money. It's a lot cheaper to make one 3D model and define its behaviour than it is to draw every single position a character can have, possibly from different viewpoints.
Besides, it's possible to create quite good looking 3D models if you take the time to do it right - things like cell shaded rendering might help, too.
Still, it's sad, but probably necessary, especially if they don't have huge funds.
Well, controllers are learly a very subjective matter, but since you so nonchalantly hand out awards, I'll do the same myself and thus officially give you my "most insane person on slashdot" award. The PS2 controllers are extremely unergonomic. They give me the cramps. Weird shape, no actual, real, usable analog shoulder buttons (which are great for racing games), stupid symmetric analog sticks which makes using the left analog stick even more cramped, all the buttons look the same (so no primary/secondary/back button) and are placed awkwardly and to top it all, no letters to name the buttons, but geometric shapes. Bad controller.
Besides that, I've already spent hundreds of dollars on him, I can ACTUALLY pet him, ACTUALLY feed him, and ACTUALLY watch him and his antics as he tries to "play" (read: hump) the cats. So this sounds even dumber than the Tomaguchi game-thingy.
Did it even occur to you that there are people who:
don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on a real animal?
are living in a place where they can't have a real animal?
have children who want a dog, but don't want to give them a real animal just yet?
don't have the time needed to properly take care of a real animal?
don't feel they can handle the responsibility a real animal brings?
I'm glad that a real animal works so well for you, but it doesn't for many people, and that doesn't make them dumb.
My Experience with Nintendogs
on
Review: Nintendogs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
First of all, Nintendogs is definitely a game. It has clearly defined objectives and ways to reach these objectives. Of course, you don't have to reach them, but the fact that you can race the tracks in Need for Speed backwards and still have fun doesn't mean that Need for Speed isn't a game.
Second, I think the "microphone problems" Zonk mentions are an intentional part of the game. I've noticed that some dogs respond better to commands. I have a dog which actually responds to commands my girlfriend gives to her own dog while she's sitting a few metres away. Having played Bomberman, I know the voice recognition of the DS can be made to work pretty well. The fact that some dogs don't immediately respond to commands seems to be part of the gameplay - it reflects the fact that real dogs don't immediately respond to all commands, either.
I actually find the competitions to be quite exciting. The two commenters are annoying for sure, but the games themselves are pretty funny, and I enjoy playing them a great deal.
I suspect Nintendogs works so well mainly because it's so unbelievably believable. If you throw a ball and your three dogs run to get it, fighting each other for it once one of them picks it up, you simply don't think about how they're not real dogs even for one second. There's hardly a situation where you're reminded of the fact that they're only virtual - and when it happens, it's mostly because you go "wow, I wonder how the heck they did this!" because your dog did something so natural, you simply don't expect a simulation to act like that.
Lastly, I want to respond to all the "Nintendogs sucks because you should get a real dog" comments. Let me put it like this: Screw you. I live in an apartment where I can't have pets. I'm a student, so I don't have enough income to simply move somewhere else. I don't actually have enough money to take care of a pet at all, and I'm not home most of the day, anyway. What kind of crappy life would my dog have? And what about kids? I read that in GB, Nintendo works together with an animal charity in order to promote Nintendogs. It's a lot better for parents to get their children Nintendogs so they can learn to take care of an animal each day, than to get them a real dog, only to get rid of him again after the children lose interest a few months later.
Because that's what a new and innovative piece of gaming hardware needs - tired old ports from other platforms.
Well, there's two ways to look at this. Sure, they're ports, but having them in playable form on a portable console seems pretty innovative. Populous, for example, was pretty much unplayable on the GB. The DS would make a great system to play it.
Is it innovative? Not innovative like Pac Pix, sure, but still innovative in its own way.
Nintendogs actually has several different objectives (for example, you can train your dog to compete in shows), but you don't have to go for them if you don't want to.
It's okay for women to be voluptuous and sexy, as long as it isn't intended for anything fun... That's no fun!
I'm not saying when it's okay, I'm only saying when it's sexist.
Showing chicks with huge boobs because men like huge boobs is sexist. Showing sporty women because you're writing an article about women and sport is not.
Women usually don't mind seeing pictures of attractive females. They usually do mind if it's only so you can jerk off.
If you're targeting games at women, that's something you should keep in mind.
I'm not sure exactly how the word "popular", for instance, could be defined to make this true.
It's "most popular computer game series" as in "pc game series with most copies sold". For quite some time (still?), Myst was the PC game with the most copies sold.
I have a pretty hard time believing that. Every gamer and 5% of the rest of the PC-owning world has a copy of at least one of the Doom games. I only ever actually met (IRL) *one* person who owned a copy of Myst.
Myst was bought by non-gamers, which is precisely why it was so popular.
Have you looked at magazines targeted to women or ads targeted to women? The thin, attractive, large brested women in them do not appear to be driving them away.
I think you're confusing something: Playboy isn't targeted at women.
Seriously though, there certainly are women's magazines containing picutres of slender, large-breasted women. However, they are mostly health and fashion/lifestyle magazines. If you're writing an article about how to shed some pounds, and you show a picture of a slender woman, that seems to be logical. Games are different, they often seem to show nude and/or large-breasted girls only because they know them en playing them want to them. Even so, I would guess that most women don't read these mags (I know one girl who occasionaly buys them, but most women I know seem to find these mags stupid - and even the girl who buys them regularly gets upset while reading it because she keeps finding parts of herself not quite as slender as in the images).
Yeah, they are targeted at women, but at a specific subset of women, not at all women. And they show pictures of attractive women because they write about how to become more attractive.
It's not only whether you show cute chicks, it's how and why you show them.
Frankly, I feel pretty bad for you. Will will never experience the sheer joy of playing Mario Kart against your best buddies, hollering insults at each other as you just barely overtake them before the finishing line. You will never play Bomberman DS against your pals, yelling "boom" into their consoles so as to make them get killed by their own bombs. You will never find out how awesome a game Kirby: Canvas Curse really is, and you won't spend hours and hours painting cute little clouds on which Yoshi can walk, trying to beat your girlfriend's record.
For this, you are a poorer person, and I pity you.
However, this is not Nintendo's problem. Nintendo is successfull precisely because they don't follow every fad. They never made Mario: Zombie killer - well, if you ignore Luigi's Mansion:-) - or Grand Theft Yoshi. They always made well-done games with a focus on gameplay. They always made games which can be enjoyed by all ages. And it worked out quite well for them.
If you require blood in order to enjoy a game, by all means, get a PSP. Or wait until Resident Evil DS is released:-)
The 3 prong controller is impossible to access all buttons readily.
That was exactly Nintendos intention. You can have hold it analog-button (for, say, Jump-N-Runs), digital-button (for example for puzzlers) or analog-digital (such as for FPS). That way, developers are forced not to use too many buttons. You may like this or not, but for most non-hardcore gamers, it's a great idea.
Harrison merely said that the DS' touch-screen was a gimmick, not that the DS itself was a gimmick.
But that's just as stupid. The touch screen isn't any more a gimmick than the analog stick is. It's just another input method, and games like Wario Ware: Touched or Kirby show that it's a valid input method and more than just a gimmick.
Slashdot Mirror
Based on your writing style, and assuming your post isn't supposed to be a joke, I guess that you weren't born yet way back when the PS was released in 1994, so maybe I should clear up a few things for you. The only thing the PS achieved was a huge market share. Maybe that's the "Outstanding Achievement" for which it got the Emmy, I frankly don't know. Nothing about the PS was revolutionary in any way. 3D consoles like the 3DO or the Atari Jaguar were available before the PS came out. CD-Based consoles like the Sega CD or Amigas CD32 were available before the PS.
There's nothing innovative about the PS.
To finish, let me just tell you that the only thing this Emmy proves is that those handing it out have no clue.
You're right, I completely forgot about that. I simply don't care about online gaming as I prefer to play against others while they're in the same room, but it's obviously true that the Xbox owns the Cube as far as online gaming is concerned. Can't comment on sound quality as I have neither the system nor the ears to judge it. Anyway, the idea was to point out that the Xbox doesn't win against the Cube "in every measurable sense".
But I forgot something else where the Cube wins hands-down: Load times.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but you're definitely wrong. The Xbox is superior to the gamecube in several categories - for example, it can play DVDs. But definitely not "in every measurable sense" (whatever a "measurable sense" actually is). We can argue graphics, but frankly, it's pointless. The Xbox may be faster in theory, but with games like Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime on the Gamecube, the point is moot. The Cube's best-looking games are at least as pretty as the Xbox's best-looking games.
Even ignoring graphics, there are several metrics where the Cube soundly beats the Xbox. Size, for example. The box which the Cube comes in has about the same volume as the Xbox itself. What about sound? The Xbox is definitely a lot noisier than the Cube.
And then there are the games. It's debatable whether this is measurable, but I'm pretty sure the Cube has more original titles and more A-List titles than the Xbox.
Yeah, the Xbox is big and black and bad, but it's hardly the better console "in every measurable sense".
Actually, iTunes works with third party MP3 players and did so well before Apple announced the iPod.
Seems like they've reached step 5 on the Apple Product Cycle. They've gone from "We won't do it" to "Nobody else has done it right yet":
So we can expect a product soon :-)
Uhm. No. But lots of people don't want to play games because they have never used a controller and are afraid of embarassing themselves. Seriously, modern controllers are not easy to learn. If you started out on, say, the SNES, moved to the Playstation and eventually to the PS2, you never had to learn a lot of new stuff. But somebody picking up a Gamecube controller who has never had a controller in his hands right now needs to learn a heck of a lot of stuff right away.
First of all, there are three "direction controllers" on on a modern pad (the cross and two analog sticks). Then you have your normal assortment of buttons and between two and four shoulder buttons, some of them analog.
Whenever people are around my place, we usually play games like Mario Kart: Double Dash. Fortunately, you can have two players on one kart, so experienced players can help out new players. But even so, if you want to, say, switch position after the first lap, it's confusing. "Press the Z button" - "What button?" - "It's the small button above R" - "R???" - "Where your index finger is, R is for right, L is for left." - "There's no button where my index finger is!" and during all of this, they have to keep controlling the game.
Lots of people just go "Oh, you play, I'll just watch, I'm too bad at games.".
Having a controller like this will make it a whole lot easier to get into gaming.
I read in an Interview with Autumn Moon Entertainment (some other former Lucas Arts employees working on an adventure called "A Vampyre Story") that the reason they use 3D characters instead of the beautifully drawn 2D sprites is money. It's a lot cheaper to make one 3D model and define its behaviour than it is to draw every single position a character can have, possibly from different viewpoints.
Besides, it's possible to create quite good looking 3D models if you take the time to do it right - things like cell shaded rendering might help, too.
Still, it's sad, but probably necessary, especially if they don't have huge funds.
Well, controllers are learly a very subjective matter, but since you so nonchalantly hand out awards, I'll do the same myself and thus officially give you my "most insane person on slashdot" award. The PS2 controllers are extremely unergonomic. They give me the cramps. Weird shape, no actual, real, usable analog shoulder buttons (which are great for racing games), stupid symmetric analog sticks which makes using the left analog stick even more cramped, all the buttons look the same (so no primary/secondary/back button) and are placed awkwardly and to top it all, no letters to name the buttons, but geometric shapes. Bad controller.
Did it even occur to you that there are people who:
I'm glad that a real animal works so well for you, but it doesn't for many people, and that doesn't make them dumb.
First of all, Nintendogs is definitely a game. It has clearly defined objectives and ways to reach these objectives. Of course, you don't have to reach them, but the fact that you can race the tracks in Need for Speed backwards and still have fun doesn't mean that Need for Speed isn't a game.
Second, I think the "microphone problems" Zonk mentions are an intentional part of the game. I've noticed that some dogs respond better to commands. I have a dog which actually responds to commands my girlfriend gives to her own dog while she's sitting a few metres away. Having played Bomberman, I know the voice recognition of the DS can be made to work pretty well. The fact that some dogs don't immediately respond to commands seems to be part of the gameplay - it reflects the fact that real dogs don't immediately respond to all commands, either.
I actually find the competitions to be quite exciting. The two commenters are annoying for sure, but the games themselves are pretty funny, and I enjoy playing them a great deal.
I suspect Nintendogs works so well mainly because it's so unbelievably believable. If you throw a ball and your three dogs run to get it, fighting each other for it once one of them picks it up, you simply don't think about how they're not real dogs even for one second. There's hardly a situation where you're reminded of the fact that they're only virtual - and when it happens, it's mostly because you go "wow, I wonder how the heck they did this!" because your dog did something so natural, you simply don't expect a simulation to act like that.
Lastly, I want to respond to all the "Nintendogs sucks because you should get a real dog" comments. Let me put it like this: Screw you. I live in an apartment where I can't have pets. I'm a student, so I don't have enough income to simply move somewhere else. I don't actually have enough money to take care of a pet at all, and I'm not home most of the day, anyway. What kind of crappy life would my dog have? And what about kids? I read that in GB, Nintendo works together with an animal charity in order to promote Nintendogs. It's a lot better for parents to get their children Nintendogs so they can learn to take care of an animal each day, than to get them a real dog, only to get rid of him again after the children lose interest a few months later.
They don't have to "enforce" it. It's in the content provider's best interest to provide this data. Otherwise, they might be the next Rockstar.
Well, there's two ways to look at this. Sure, they're ports, but having them in playable form on a portable console seems pretty innovative. Populous, for example, was pretty much unplayable on the GB. The DS would make a great system to play it.
Is it innovative? Not innovative like Pac Pix, sure, but still innovative in its own way.
Nintendogs actually has several different objectives (for example, you can train your dog to compete in shows), but you don't have to go for them if you don't want to.
That's what happens in some Zelda dungeons. I guess there are other games which use jails as gameplay mechanics.
In Monkey Island, there are several cases where you end up in jail, but in those games, it's part of the story.
I'm not saying when it's okay, I'm only saying when it's sexist.
Showing chicks with huge boobs because men like huge boobs is sexist. Showing sporty women because you're writing an article about women and sport is not.
Women usually don't mind seeing pictures of attractive females. They usually do mind if it's only so you can jerk off.
If you're targeting games at women, that's something you should keep in mind.
It's "most popular computer game series" as in "pc game series with most copies sold". For quite some time (still?), Myst was the PC game with the most copies sold.
Myst was bought by non-gamers, which is precisely why it was so popular.
I think you're confusing something: Playboy isn't targeted at women.
Seriously though, there certainly are women's magazines containing picutres of slender, large-breasted women. However, they are mostly health and fashion/lifestyle magazines. If you're writing an article about how to shed some pounds, and you show a picture of a slender woman, that seems to be logical. Games are different, they often seem to show nude and/or large-breasted girls only because they know them en playing them want to them. Even so, I would guess that most women don't read these mags (I know one girl who occasionaly buys them, but most women I know seem to find these mags stupid - and even the girl who buys them regularly gets upset while reading it because she keeps finding parts of herself not quite as slender as in the images).
Yeah, they are targeted at women, but at a specific subset of women, not at all women. And they show pictures of attractive women because they write about how to become more attractive.
It's not only whether you show cute chicks, it's how and why you show them.
I think Adam Curry coined the word.
Yeah, that sounds better than podcast.
you're right, no reason for this word to exist. I'm sure your mom knows that an "url" and "xml" are.
And now I'm going to watch some picture wave signals on my picture wave signal decoder.
I'd consider that a pro, not a con. Maybe that's where 2D games will continue to live once the GBA dies.
Frankly, I feel pretty bad for you. Will will never experience the sheer joy of playing Mario Kart against your best buddies, hollering insults at each other as you just barely overtake them before the finishing line. You will never play Bomberman DS against your pals, yelling "boom" into their consoles so as to make them get killed by their own bombs. You will never find out how awesome a game Kirby: Canvas Curse really is, and you won't spend hours and hours painting cute little clouds on which Yoshi can walk, trying to beat your girlfriend's record.
For this, you are a poorer person, and I pity you.
However, this is not Nintendo's problem. Nintendo is successfull precisely because they don't follow every fad. They never made Mario: Zombie killer - well, if you ignore Luigi's Mansion :-) - or Grand Theft Yoshi. They always made well-done games with a focus on gameplay. They always made games which can be enjoyed by all ages. And it worked out quite well for them.
If you require blood in order to enjoy a game, by all means, get a PSP. Or wait until Resident Evil DS is released :-)
That was exactly Nintendos intention. You can have hold it analog-button (for, say, Jump-N-Runs), digital-button (for example for puzzlers) or analog-digital (such as for FPS). That way, developers are forced not to use too many buttons. You may like this or not, but for most non-hardcore gamers, it's a great idea.
But that's just as stupid. The touch screen isn't any more a gimmick than the analog stick is. It's just another input method, and games like Wario Ware: Touched or Kirby show that it's a valid input method and more than just a gimmick.
That's exactly what I said.