In case you haven't yet noticed, all new consoles use PPC chips like the Gamecube. So Gamecube-like consoles are in fact going everywhere. I don't know if Metrowerks CodeWarrior is the dev environment of choice for these three new consoles, but since the cube also used IBM's flavour of PPC chips and not Moto's, but CodeWarrior was used anyway, I guess there's a big chance it's going to be used for the new consoles, too.
Since they're owned by Motorola, they're not going anywhere. Among other processor architectures, most PPC based hardware will use Metrowerk's compilers. The Gamecube, for example, uses them.
In the history of consoles, updating a console's specs has never worked. Not once. Especially new drives have always failed, because they effectively decreased the size of the targed audience for games using these drives. The NES disc system was never released outside of Japan. The Sega CD and SNES CD drives failed. The Jaguar CD drive failed. I think the Turbo Grafx16 CD Addon was moderately successfull, but then, that console never caught on anyway.
Pretty much the only console peripherals that actually have a chance of becoming successfull are new input devices (such as dance mats, microphones or music instruments) and memory enhancements (memory cards, larger hard disks).
But updating the actual storage system the game comes not only won't work, it will actually hurt the console. It will alienate developers who don't want to look outdated by using the older storage system, but also don't want to invest more money to create a game for the new storage system which then won't sell because most people don't own a device to play it. Consumers don't want to buy a console which has an outdated drive inside, but they also don't want to pay more for the new drive as long as there are no games using it.
This would be a very stupid move. You can't treat a console like commodity PC and just update stuff, changing the capabilities.
I own to VirtualBoys. They're great machines, and I love to play them, but I can see why most people didn't want them.
I think there are several reasons why they never became more successfull:
You can't play them for very long. At least I can't. They give me a headache, and my eyes start to hurt from the bright red graphics.
You can't play them with others. It's impossible to play against others, and you can't even have others watch what you do. While you play it, you can't communicate with other people as you can't see anything. Most of the time when I'm gaming, it's against somebody else or at least in the same room as others.
The games were really good, but there were no big name games. No Mario Jump-N-Run, no Zelda.
You can't really carry the thing around with you, it's too big. You can't play it sitting on a sofa. You can't take it to school to show your friends.
And lastly, you look like a morron wearing these things.
Still, it's an awesome system, and it's a pity it didn't turn out just a little bit better, just good enough to become more successfull.
And the Mysterious Wario Ware Team is... Treasure.
You're wrong. Wario Ware wasn't developed by Treasure, it was developed by Nintendo, as the article states. The mediocre Wario World Jump-N-Run for the Gamecube was developed by Treasure, though.
I really am surprised parents aren't more concerned about the mssages inside this stuff, it alternates between pretty inane drivel and terrible stuff.
I'm assuming you're still talking about Pokémon.
When I was a kid, we had two widespread games we played on schoolyards: "quartet", which is a game where each player has a stack of cards. On each card, there's a "thing" (for example, a superhero or a car). You then take your top card and announce on of the properties of your card (for example, the weight or strength of your car). If you had the highest number of this property of all topmost cards, you got these cards. The person who got the cards could announce the next property.
The other game was collecting all pictures of soccer players and glueing them into a soccer player album. You would try to switch cards with friends to finish your collection and buy new cards at horrendous prices.
I used to think that Pokémon and Magic and all those card games were crap, but then I thought about the things we used to play, and it dawned on me: First of all, it's not more commercial than it used to be, and second of all, it's a lot more complex and interesting than what we played. The Pokémon card game forces the player to really think about what he's doing when setting up his card stack. It's a game of strategy and wits, way more interesting than what we used to play. It even introduces a bit of evolution theory. The Pokémon games on the GBA are actually RPGs with a rather interesting battling mechanism. Pokémon ain't so bad, and compared to our games, it's a lot more demanding and probably also a lot more instructional. I think these games are actually teaching children problem solving skills and abstract thinking.
Yeah, but we certainly have the vocabulary and grammar of six-year-olds.
Furthermore, I agree with most other replies to your post: Nintendo doesn't think we're 6 years old. They think we want to have fun games that we can play with our adult friends as well as with our kids. And as far as I'm concerned, they're right.
Nintendo applied the "we'll give consoles at a loss, and overcharge for games" model long before Sony or MS were anywhere near interested in consoles at all.
Care to back that statement up with some proof? Links, perhaps? I always thought that Nintendo never sold consoles at a loss, or at least not for extended periods of time.
Sure. A game where you take on the role of a fantasy character and make choices that have a real impact on game events and the overall story.
Interestingly, I would say that this describes a ton of games, but definitely not Animal Crossing.
You do have a fantasy character in Animal Crossing, I give you that. But you do have a fantasy character in 90% of all games. Sports games (where you play real people) and puzzle games (where you don't play anyone at all) are the only exception I can think of right now.
But what you do in Animal Crossing has no impact on the game events or on the overall story, because:
There is no overall story
events happen independently of what you do
Let me quickly explain these two things somewhat more in-depth:
There is no story in Animal Crossing. You are thrown into a town, and then you just do what you want. You can dig up stuff, you can go fishing, you can chop down trees or plant seeds, but there is no story. Some people move out, some move in, but nothing actually happens.
What you do hase no effect on the events. There are events which occur in Animal Crossing: Each year, these events repeat. Christmas happens every years, no matter what you do. Your birthday occurs every year, no matter what you do. What you do doesn't effect any events in Animal Crossing.
By your own definition, a huge chunk of all games can be called RPGs, but Animal Crossing definitely can't.
The biggest downfall of the DS will be its dual screen and touch screen feature.
Yeah, of course. Because you simply can't do any good games if you have that many hardware features at your disposal. Obviously, the less a console can do, the better the games are going to be. Which is why we're all still using the VCS 2600 with the single-button-joystick. Or something like that.
Come on, have you even played Metroid? I hate FPS games on consoles. I hate playing them with dual analog sticks. It's like steering a car while sitting on the roof. Metroid on the DS is the first FPS I really like to play. It plays awesome. Aiming is very precise and quick, almost like on a PC with a mouse. It's a great game, and it's a great game thanks to the touch screen.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with games not using the DS's features in any innovative way. Using the second screen only for stats is still better than not having a second screen. Tons of games would have been way better if the map was always visible (Castlevania!). Even if it's not innovative, it can enhance the usability and flow (no need to pause if you want to quickly look at the map) of these games greatly.
The idea that the new features of the DS could somehow be bad for games because developers "grow tired of forcing creativity" is kind of weird.
There are already a couple of games out for the DS where you have to draw a line or series of platforms to keep a character safe.
There are already a couple of games out for the NES where you have to push the B button to make a character jump from one platform to another. Do we really need a version of this game with Icarus, a Bounty Hunter or the 7up-Spot? This is bound to get old soon!
There are already a couple of games out for the Xbox where you have to run around in a 3D world shooting at monsters. Do we really need a version of this game with Master Chief, a Bounty Hunter or that weird id guy? This is bound to get old soon!
Or maybe not.
I don't think the basic idea of using the stick to draw platforms is any more repetitive than using the B button to jump. I don't mind playing dozens of these games as long as they're as good as Kirby.
By the way, this is only the second DS game (after the Yoshi game) with this kind of gameplay.
Your definition of RPGs is nice, but it has nothing to do with how most people define RPGs. Black and White is not an RPG. By your definition, GTA would be an RPG. It's good to have your own definition of words, but when talking to others, it makes sense to agree on some kind of common definition:-)
I think your definition would make sense if we didn't already use the word "RPG" for computer games which share gameplay components with paper-based RPGs.
Plus, even with your definition, Animal Crossing is no RPG.
The newest somewhat-high-profile adventure game is probably Another Code/Trace Memory by Cing/Nintendo.
Hopefully, this won't be the last good adventure game for the DS. I think the DS with its touchscreen might kind of start a new trend towards adventure-ish games.
Some of the listed titles are innovative, but many aren't spectacular, or even fun (at least for me)
The only game in this list that could realistically be described as "not fun" is probably Killer7, but either way, we're talking about innovation, not fun.
Have you played Katamari Damacy yet? Did you like Nintendogs better?
Nintendogs is one of the five games to get a perfect score from Famitsu, so it seems that I'm not the only one who thinks it's better than Katamari Damacy.
Animal Crossing is a roleplaying game. The characteristics you just listed (save "story") do not make a roleplaying game, and are only popularly associated with the genre because TSR based the rules for Dungeons and Dragons on those of Chainmail, a tabletop miniatures combat game.
Surely you can explain to me what an RPG is, then.
Computer role-playing games (CRPGs), often shortened to simply role-playing games (RPGs), are a type of video or computer game that traditionally uses gameplay elements found in paper-and-pencil role-playing games.
Animal Crossing, on the other hand, uses pretty much none of the gameplay elements found in paper-and-pencil role-playing games, except that you play a character who can interact with his environment - which is the case in almost all games. Pray tell me why you think Animal Crossing is an RPG.
Hey, I've never eaten a shit sandwich, but I can tell you it's not a tasty snack. Since when do you have to experience something first hand to be able to critique it?
There are certain things you can judge without having tried them. Obviously, you know that taking heroin is a bad thing without trying it. You can assume how shit tastes, so it's obvious that a sandwich made with shit doesn't taste too good.
Games are different. Judging games without having played them is so absurd, it's insane that I'm even discussing this with anyone. It's like saying "The music on this CD is crap because the cover is blue, and blue is such a gay color".
Do you seriously not realize how stupid you sound, or are you simply arguing with me for the sake of it?
No, I haven't played Nintendogs or Animcal crossing. I'm a straight male, thanks.
Wow, that is such a pathetic thing to say. Anyway, when mentioning your attributes, you forgot "insecure". And since you haven't played those games, you're in no position to judge their qualities.
I never said Killer 7 was a great game. Some people like it, some hate it, but the fact remains: If nothing else, it's at least innovative.
I agree with you about all the games you mentioned, but disagree about Katamari Damacy.
Just do clarify: I have nothing against Katamari Damacy. It's an awesome game. But claiming it's "the best example of innovation the game industry has seen in years" is just plain wrong, and the (almost) daily Slashdot news posts on its sequel (which seems to be almost identical to the first version) are, well, not really needed.
How can you call Animal Crossing an RPG? It has absolutely none of the characteristics of an RPG. No levelling, no parties, it doesn't even have a real story! Have you even played the game?
Nintendogs - just aan advanced version of the Katz and Dogz screensavers from a fifteen years ago.
Comparing Nintendogs to Dogz is like saying Katamari Damacy is nothing more than a glorified version of Marble Madness.
KILLER 7?! A crappy cell-shaded game with little interesting gameplay?!
Killer 7 is the only game I've ever seen that is consistently being described as "art". Maybe it's crappy, but it's definitely innovative.
I couldn't agree more. It's almost as if a bunch of breathless PS2 fanboys who finally found an innovative game were beating it to death by posting daily stories about it to Slashdot.
The quote from the article is telling:
"The original Katamari Damacy is to many the best example of innovation the game industry has seen in years"
What, did they miss Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Wario Ware, Electroplankton, Nintendogs, Killer 7 and countless other examples of innovative games that just happened to not (or not yet) run on the PS2?
Why didn't we see daily updates when Pikmin 2 came out? Why don't we see daily updates about Animal Crossing DS, which is certainly at least as interesting as Katamari Damacy 2?
Or maybe I should stop complaining and write some news stories:-)
You know....removing the code sounds like a major pain, but if I had done something similar, I would have removed the code and retested. Why? It's TOO easy to get sued now adays.
Yeah, but on the other hand, who in his right mind expects two clothed polygon people humping each other being a problem in a game where you can shoot policemen and run over prostitues after having had sex with them?
For the same reason the men look like action heros.
You mean like Mario, Captain Olimar, Smith from Killer7, the guys from FF:CC? Not to mention games with non-human male characters like Rayman or the Oddworld characters: Even in those games, females are slender and sexy, while males can be all kinds of things. Look at Sega Soccer Slam, for example. All girls have big tits and are cute, while the male characters are fat, small, big, slim...
That's the whole problem: There are all kinds of male characters, but there's only one kind of female characters.
"[Rockstar] TOTALLY screwed the modding community, as far as I am concerned. Because they could have just removed the content. They tried to get cute and leave it in. In my experience that sort of thing is always deliberate.
This is just stupid. It's obvious that taking it out completely takes more time than just not calling it from the code. If they had "just removed the content", they would have had to re-test the code since any other part relied on any of the parts removed. It's highly unlikely that they kept it in as a practical joke.
Re:Yes nintendo would never do something like that
on
Shadowrun for the 360
·
· Score: 1
Anyway, you have your opinion. I remain convinced that nostalgia is coloring it.
It just occured to me that this can't be it. I didn't own a NES/Famcom until about three years ago, and the first time I played the original Metroid was when I unlocked it in Prime.
I did play Metroid 2 on the GameBoy, though, which was the first Metroid I did play. I guess that game had a huge influence on my opinion of Metroid, and it's very claustrophobic.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, you're correct. In my mind, Moto and Freescale are still kind of one entity :-)
In case you haven't yet noticed, all new consoles use PPC chips like the Gamecube. So Gamecube-like consoles are in fact going everywhere. I don't know if Metrowerks CodeWarrior is the dev environment of choice for these three new consoles, but since the cube also used IBM's flavour of PPC chips and not Moto's, but CodeWarrior was used anyway, I guess there's a big chance it's going to be used for the new consoles, too.
Since they're owned by Motorola, they're not going anywhere. Among other processor architectures, most PPC based hardware will use Metrowerk's compilers. The Gamecube, for example, uses them.
In the history of consoles, updating a console's specs has never worked. Not once. Especially new drives have always failed, because they effectively decreased the size of the targed audience for games using these drives. The NES disc system was never released outside of Japan. The Sega CD and SNES CD drives failed. The Jaguar CD drive failed. I think the Turbo Grafx16 CD Addon was moderately successfull, but then, that console never caught on anyway.
Pretty much the only console peripherals that actually have a chance of becoming successfull are new input devices (such as dance mats, microphones or music instruments) and memory enhancements (memory cards, larger hard disks).
But updating the actual storage system the game comes not only won't work, it will actually hurt the console. It will alienate developers who don't want to look outdated by using the older storage system, but also don't want to invest more money to create a game for the new storage system which then won't sell because most people don't own a device to play it. Consumers don't want to buy a console which has an outdated drive inside, but they also don't want to pay more for the new drive as long as there are no games using it.
This would be a very stupid move. You can't treat a console like commodity PC and just update stuff, changing the capabilities.
I own to VirtualBoys. They're great machines, and I love to play them, but I can see why most people didn't want them.
I think there are several reasons why they never became more successfull:
Still, it's an awesome system, and it's a pity it didn't turn out just a little bit better, just good enough to become more successfull.
You're wrong. Wario Ware wasn't developed by Treasure, it was developed by Nintendo, as the article states. The mediocre Wario World Jump-N-Run for the Gamecube was developed by Treasure, though.
I'm assuming you're still talking about Pokémon.
When I was a kid, we had two widespread games we played on schoolyards: "quartet", which is a game where each player has a stack of cards. On each card, there's a "thing" (for example, a superhero or a car). You then take your top card and announce on of the properties of your card (for example, the weight or strength of your car). If you had the highest number of this property of all topmost cards, you got these cards. The person who got the cards could announce the next property.
The other game was collecting all pictures of soccer players and glueing them into a soccer player album. You would try to switch cards with friends to finish your collection and buy new cards at horrendous prices.
I used to think that Pokémon and Magic and all those card games were crap, but then I thought about the things we used to play, and it dawned on me: First of all, it's not more commercial than it used to be, and second of all, it's a lot more complex and interesting than what we played. The Pokémon card game forces the player to really think about what he's doing when setting up his card stack. It's a game of strategy and wits, way more interesting than what we used to play. It even introduces a bit of evolution theory. The Pokémon games on the GBA are actually RPGs with a rather interesting battling mechanism. Pokémon ain't so bad, and compared to our games, it's a lot more demanding and probably also a lot more instructional. I think these games are actually teaching children problem solving skills and abstract thinking.
Yeah, but we certainly have the vocabulary and grammar of six-year-olds.
Furthermore, I agree with most other replies to your post: Nintendo doesn't think we're 6 years old. They think we want to have fun games that we can play with our adult friends as well as with our kids. And as far as I'm concerned, they're right.
Care to back that statement up with some proof? Links, perhaps? I always thought that Nintendo never sold consoles at a loss, or at least not for extended periods of time.
Interestingly, I would say that this describes a ton of games, but definitely not Animal Crossing.
You do have a fantasy character in Animal Crossing, I give you that. But you do have a fantasy character in 90% of all games. Sports games (where you play real people) and puzzle games (where you don't play anyone at all) are the only exception I can think of right now.
But what you do in Animal Crossing has no impact on the game events or on the overall story, because:
Let me quickly explain these two things somewhat more in-depth:
There is no story in Animal Crossing. You are thrown into a town, and then you just do what you want. You can dig up stuff, you can go fishing, you can chop down trees or plant seeds, but there is no story. Some people move out, some move in, but nothing actually happens.
What you do hase no effect on the events. There are events which occur in Animal Crossing: Each year, these events repeat. Christmas happens every years, no matter what you do. Your birthday occurs every year, no matter what you do. What you do doesn't effect any events in Animal Crossing.
By your own definition, a huge chunk of all games can be called RPGs, but Animal Crossing definitely can't.
Yeah, of course. Because you simply can't do any good games if you have that many hardware features at your disposal. Obviously, the less a console can do, the better the games are going to be. Which is why we're all still using the VCS 2600 with the single-button-joystick. Or something like that.
Come on, have you even played Metroid? I hate FPS games on consoles. I hate playing them with dual analog sticks. It's like steering a car while sitting on the roof. Metroid on the DS is the first FPS I really like to play. It plays awesome. Aiming is very precise and quick, almost like on a PC with a mouse. It's a great game, and it's a great game thanks to the touch screen.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with games not using the DS's features in any innovative way. Using the second screen only for stats is still better than not having a second screen. Tons of games would have been way better if the map was always visible (Castlevania!). Even if it's not innovative, it can enhance the usability and flow (no need to pause if you want to quickly look at the map) of these games greatly.
The idea that the new features of the DS could somehow be bad for games because developers "grow tired of forcing creativity" is kind of weird.
There are already a couple of games out for the NES where you have to push the B button to make a character jump from one platform to another. Do we really need a version of this game with Icarus, a Bounty Hunter or the 7up-Spot? This is bound to get old soon!
There are already a couple of games out for the Xbox where you have to run around in a 3D world shooting at monsters. Do we really need a version of this game with Master Chief, a Bounty Hunter or that weird id guy? This is bound to get old soon!
Or maybe not.
I don't think the basic idea of using the stick to draw platforms is any more repetitive than using the B button to jump. I don't mind playing dozens of these games as long as they're as good as Kirby.
By the way, this is only the second DS game (after the Yoshi game) with this kind of gameplay.
Your definition of RPGs is nice, but it has nothing to do with how most people define RPGs. Black and White is not an RPG. By your definition, GTA would be an RPG. It's good to have your own definition of words, but when talking to others, it makes sense to agree on some kind of common definition :-)
I think your definition would make sense if we didn't already use the word "RPG" for computer games which share gameplay components with paper-based RPGs.
Plus, even with your definition, Animal Crossing is no RPG.
The newest somewhat-high-profile adventure game is probably Another Code/Trace Memory by Cing/Nintendo.
Hopefully, this won't be the last good adventure game for the DS. I think the DS with its touchscreen might kind of start a new trend towards adventure-ish games.
The only game in this list that could realistically be described as "not fun" is probably Killer7, but either way, we're talking about innovation, not fun.
Nintendogs is one of the five games to get a perfect score from Famitsu, so it seems that I'm not the only one who thinks it's better than Katamari Damacy.
Surely you can explain to me what an RPG is, then.
Wikipedia gives the following definition:
Animal Crossing, on the other hand, uses pretty much none of the gameplay elements found in paper-and-pencil role-playing games, except that you play a character who can interact with his environment - which is the case in almost all games. Pray tell me why you think Animal Crossing is an RPG.
There are certain things you can judge without having tried them. Obviously, you know that taking heroin is a bad thing without trying it. You can assume how shit tastes, so it's obvious that a sandwich made with shit doesn't taste too good.
Games are different. Judging games without having played them is so absurd, it's insane that I'm even discussing this with anyone. It's like saying "The music on this CD is crap because the cover is blue, and blue is such a gay color".
Do you seriously not realize how stupid you sound, or are you simply arguing with me for the sake of it?
Wow, that is such a pathetic thing to say. Anyway, when mentioning your attributes, you forgot "insecure". And since you haven't played those games, you're in no position to judge their qualities.
I never said Killer 7 was a great game. Some people like it, some hate it, but the fact remains: If nothing else, it's at least innovative.
Just do clarify: I have nothing against Katamari Damacy. It's an awesome game. But claiming it's "the best example of innovation the game industry has seen in years" is just plain wrong, and the (almost) daily Slashdot news posts on its sequel (which seems to be almost identical to the first version) are, well, not really needed.
How can you call Animal Crossing an RPG? It has absolutely none of the characteristics of an RPG. No levelling, no parties, it doesn't even have a real story! Have you even played the game?
Comparing Nintendogs to Dogz is like saying Katamari Damacy is nothing more than a glorified version of Marble Madness.
Killer 7 is the only game I've ever seen that is consistently being described as "art". Maybe it's crappy, but it's definitely innovative.
I couldn't agree more. It's almost as if a bunch of breathless PS2 fanboys who finally found an innovative game were beating it to death by posting daily stories about it to Slashdot.
The quote from the article is telling:
What, did they miss Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Wario Ware, Electroplankton, Nintendogs, Killer 7 and countless other examples of innovative games that just happened to not (or not yet) run on the PS2?
Why didn't we see daily updates when Pikmin 2 came out? Why don't we see daily updates about Animal Crossing DS, which is certainly at least as interesting as Katamari Damacy 2?
Or maybe I should stop complaining and write some news stories :-)
Yeah, but on the other hand, who in his right mind expects two clothed polygon people humping each other being a problem in a game where you can shoot policemen and run over prostitues after having had sex with them?
You mean like Mario, Captain Olimar, Smith from Killer7, the guys from FF:CC? Not to mention games with non-human male characters like Rayman or the Oddworld characters: Even in those games, females are slender and sexy, while males can be all kinds of things. Look at Sega Soccer Slam, for example. All girls have big tits and are cute, while the male characters are fat, small, big, slim...
That's the whole problem: There are all kinds of male characters, but there's only one kind of female characters.
This is just stupid. It's obvious that taking it out completely takes more time than just not calling it from the code. If they had "just removed the content", they would have had to re-test the code since any other part relied on any of the parts removed. It's highly unlikely that they kept it in as a practical joke.
It just occured to me that this can't be it. I didn't own a NES/Famcom until about three years ago, and the first time I played the original Metroid was when I unlocked it in Prime.
I did play Metroid 2 on the GameBoy, though, which was the first Metroid I did play. I guess that game had a huge influence on my opinion of Metroid, and it's very claustrophobic.