Re:Don't feel like wading through reviews
on
Gears Sells a Million
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I hate the state-based motion controls on Gears, though. You know, when you're behind the wall, the controls are of a different state than when running freely. It really does distract from an active firefight. They should have left it free-flowing while adapting to walls automatcially. Instead of pressing a button to get into 'cover' state when approaching a wall, then pressing another button to jump over the wall or dive or what not, they should have just kept it as automatic cover whenever a person approached a wall, and automatic jump-over-the-wall whenever the person moves forward still. The manual state-changes ruin a lot of the freedoms.
I dunno, I'm mixed on that. Personally, I hate it when I'm running by something, and the game automatically does something for me, whether it be swing the camera suddenly around, or places me in cover mode. Having more explicit control over my character is something that I personally like.
Having some sort of toggle setting (Auto/Manual cover?) might have made sense though. I can see why some people get irritated with the manual state changes. Of course, that means potentially designing the game/level for two play modes instead of one...
It is just another FPS, isn't it? Is there somethign fantasticly inovative about it? somethign horribly fun? Somethign original?
please, I am curious. (and lazy)
Sure, I'll help you out.
It's not "just another FPS". In fact, it's not a first-person shooter at all. It's third-person, which is an important distinction. Like many people, I prefer my FPS games on PCs, where the keyboard/mouse combination really can't be beat (at least IMHO). When I play a typical shooter (which have been mostly first-person based, hence FPS) on the console, I get the sense that I've lost a lot of control. For some reason, the third-person controls in Gears... just works. Very well. It's hard to describe it, and easy to just give it a shot yourself (find a friend with a 360 and Gears).
As for innovation, it's got plenty of interesting bits to it: a very comprehensive "cover" game mechanic, a new twist on reloading (called "Active Reload"), and the concept of being able to revive your teammates on the fly. None of them alone are "OMG!!!" material, but all together, makes it one very nice package.
Also, one huge bonus to the game is that it has Live-enabled co-op through the "single"-player experience. It's very seamless. I haven't tried it myself, but friends can't stop talking about how cool it is. Apparently that's a similar sentiment with many other folks. It's a feature that many folks wished Halo 2 had.
Does Gears have flaws? It certainly does. Zonk and other reviewers have pointed out that the AI can be fairly dumb (although many people, myself included, think it's just fine), and the multiplayer is somewhat shallow (not enough modes). That said, the sentiment is that the game is just so much fun that despite some flaws here and there, it's very much Game of the Year material.
Oh, and one last thing, yeah, the game is very pretty. But graphics alone don't sell a game, and the things people love about it, go beyond graphics. That's nice to see for a change.
So, in short, give it a shot. It's quite original for a shooter, and a whole lotta fun.
I wonder if there's any truth to the hypothesis that whichever console gets Square-Enix's primary franchises first (Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest), wins the market share for that generation. I believe it's always been true (maybe not with the SNES/Genesis, since that race was pretty close I believe).
If so, Sony better be worried and lock up those franchises tightly, and not give Squeenix any wiggle room. We already know they're working on the 360 (with the old Final Fantasy XI and Project Slypheed), so it's not out of the question that some flavor of the next FF or DQ game would be released on the 360. Also, if Blue Dragon really does well, Squeenix may not want Mistwalker Studios to "own" the J-RPG genre for the 360.
Last I heard, it was the limited edition sets that were all sold-out. If you're telling me that all 100,000 bundles have been reserved, then that's just frickin amazing. And you'd be right, there wouldn't be anything to "wait" for.
Although, I suppose that if Blue Dragon is the only reason why you want a 360, it would make sense to just wait until it launches and pick the system up with the game (even if you can't get the bundle), to save multiple trips to the store. There'd be no worry about limited quantities of the 360, since there's been little demand for the systems.
First of all, I totally agree that the numbers from Japan are useless, in comparing PS3 to 360 (as many sites are reporting). Of course the PS3 is going to do well in it's first week! That said, I did want to point out one thing...
Then again Microsoft's numbers are picking up in preperation for Blue Dragon, only a couple monthes ago they were barely breaking 1K units. However now it's much more.
Actually, I'd say it's quite the opposite. I would fully expect 360 sales numbers in Japan to be lower than usual because of Blue Dragon. It makes sense and here's why.
We know that there's surprisingly a lot of interest in the Blue Dragon 360 bundle, set to release in December. It also recently took over the #3 spot on Famitsu's list of most anticipated titles. So, if you know there's a bundle coming out in December, why on earth would you buy a 360 now? It's akin to buying a system when you know a price drop is going to happen in a few weeks.
The numbers will be most interesting a week after the game and bundle launches. (The week it actually ships will see an artificial bump of 360 sales, similar to the PS3 one. I fully expect, "wowzers, 360>PS3 lolololezr" articles then as well) Then we can start tracking trends to see if MS will actually have a chance in Japan, or if it's going to be more of the same.
For those of us who live or work in Redmond, it's a nice boost to have two out of the three console makers in our backyard. If you're a DigiPen student, then chances are you know some folks from NOA and MS, meaning access to both their company stores. Lucky!
There was a lot of hype for Gears of Wars. So much so, that I was beginning to think that the game had "jumped the shark" on hype alone. From my non-scientific observation (reading game sites, forums, etc.), I think people were starting to expect the game to suck. And in general, I am not a fan of hype at all, as it does tend to hurt more than help.
So, it was surprising to see that the game was quite good. In fact, better than what a lot of people had expected... because it was so different than your standard FPS shooter. Go read some game forums, for example the Games board at Penny-Arcade. People are very pleased with the game. Heck, go read the earlier Slashdot article, and you can read people's comments about it.
The whole, "This game has some flaws, but it's still an incredible game" may seem rather unintuitive, but those who have played the game (including myself), will understand. And it's a common theme across many reviews of the game because it's very much to the point.
It goes down to what you're looking for in a game. Yeah, there are all the little bits and pieces you expect out of a great game: storytelling, plot, AI, gameplay, sound, maybe graphics, etc. But that's just being technical. At the end of the day, what you want is to be able to play the game and have fun.
That's an argument that Wii owners will probably find familiar. Yeah, so Twilight Princess may not look as great as some PS3 or 360 games, and it include some tired Zelda-cliches, have some weird clunkiness with the Wii-mote, etc., but at the end of the day, it's just a fun game. It's the same way with Gears of War. Sure, if you examine all of the details and the nuts and bolts, you will find faults. But the fact that you still play the game with a huge grin on your face, means that everything else is meaningless.
Ahh, a fellow KUOW listener. If it's at 9 AM, then it's Weekday with Steve Scher. I don't think, though, he had a show regarding the PS3, so it may have been one of the hourly news reports.
That said, a few game sites (Kotaku and Joystiq) also did some non-scientific polling and they had similar findings. The vast majority of people in line were eBay sellers.
The thought of going back through some GC games is tempting. I'm not a platformer fan, so I wouldn't really care for Mario Sunshine or some of the other platformers. But I am interested in FF: Crystal Chronicles and Wind Waker.
That said, I also have a 360 and PS2 and there are more than enough titles still on those platforms to keep me occupied, so in reality, I'll probably never get around to GC titles. But Twilight Princess alone makes me want a Wii.
Yeah, I've heard lots of good things about Rayman, might have to at least give it a rental (assuming Wii games will be available in Blockbuster sometime).
As for backwards compatibility, I don't have a GC (it's the only Nintendo generation that I "skipped", although I do have a ton of GBA and DS games), so that doesn't really matter to me. I am, though, interested in seeing how the Virtual Console fares.
I haven't picked up a Wii yet (had no intentions of camping overnight for a console), but probably will later this year, primarily just for Zelda.
That said, I've been reading a lot of reviews for these games (Zelda, Excite Truck, and Wii Sports in particular), and it's generally only Zelda that has gotten the big thumbs up. The other two are fun, but it's questionable how long you'll be playing them. One of my biggest concerns is that some of the first Wii games are going to be like the first DS games... interesting for a little bit, since it uses a new play-mechanic, but ultimately stale in the long run.
Are you finding this to be true? I wonder if it depends on the audience as well. If you're a hardcore gamer, then no doubt games like Excite Truck and Wii Sports are not going to hold your attention very long. But if you're a casual gamer, which is who Nintendo is now targeting, those games might be good enough for you. And hardcore gamers will still have titles like Zelda: Twilight Princess to obsess over.
If it's anything like the DS, it's probably going to take a few months before developers really "get it" in terms of how to use the Wii-mote properly. Already reviews are starting to show that some games (Red Steel in particular) do it badly, while other games do a better job.
If Microsoft wanted to really screw Sony, they could have a one day sale with the Xbox 360 premium and a copy of Gear of War for $299. If they feel like it, throw in a year of Xbox Live Gold and a copy of Project Gotham Racing 3. Or a Core system with a memory card and a copy of Project Gotham Racing for $199. Nov 16 would be a great date. Right between the PS3 and Wii launch. It would cost Microsoft money, but it would steal thunder from their competitors. Of course, it's too late now.
I was thinking the same thing, but now I believe that not doing anything is really the best idea. Sony has already screwed up many times, so much so that it's almost expected to have "bad Sony news" at least once a week. There's already a ton of excitement (user generated too, not hype) over Gears of War. Retailers have already come up with their own discounts and bundles, to entice disgruntled gamers who didn't get a PS3. Officially coming out with their own bundle or price-drop probably won't improve things all that much more already, but it does come at great cost.
I think we all agree that this cuts off their liability significantly. So it's a win for Nintendo on that end, but is that really supposed to make the multiplayer fans who want more than friend codes happy? Of course not.
You're confused. You can still play DS (and presumably Wii) games online with random or skill-based matchmaking without any friend code use at all. You just can't voice chat or text chat (other than canned messages) with an opponent unless you have their friend code.
I think you're confused. This is what I said: They want a true matchmaking experiencing, without canned chat
I know you can still do random/skill-based matchmaking. But missing the actual communication functionality is crucial to a lot of people. As I said before, I personally am fine with a canned chat experience, since I'm not a big fan of multiplayer in general. That said, a lot of people do want that experience. While it's not a problem for me or you, it's still a problem.
The question is going to be how significant that really is. While there's 5 million (random guess) people that want full-featured communication in their multiplayer, there may be 20 million that actually prefer the canned chat model (or just don't care). In that case, then Nintendo will look like geniuses, in finding out what the users really want. Or they could be totally wrong.
I should point out, though, that there are many games where canned chat really degrades the communication. Team-based FPS and shooters come to mind. There's only so much you can communicate using canned messages, which is why voice over Xbox Live was such a huge hit when it first came out. There's also a reason why software such as TeamSpeak and Ventrilo are becoming so much popular in PC multiplayer games (most notably MMORPGs). Nintendo can simulate some of that, by making users just add more and more people as their friends, but you can tell that this is not their preferred model.
There are a lot of people that do want more than Friend Codes. They want a true matchmaking experiencing, without canned chat, which is what's been available on Xbox Live, PC multiplayer, PS2/PS3 online service, etc. for years.
As we all know, though, that opens up a huge can of worms: griefers, immaturity, and predators. Obviously it's not an easy thing to solve. But I wouldn't say Friend Codes solves it either, since it basically eliminates the features many people want. It's like cutting off a finger, when a bandaid will do.
I think what a lot of us would like is a Friend Codes system for the kids, and then something else for the rest of us. That's what other systems do. Xbox Live does have a ton of features to protect Kids during on-line play, it's just that most of us don't know about it (I imagine most Slashdotters don't have kids yet). Worse yet, many parents may not know they exist. That's one thing Nintendo could do a lot better, but instead, it appears that they've chosen to treat everyone like a child.
Personally, I don't mind that too much, since I'm not a big fan of multiplayer in general. However, there are millions that do care...
I wouldn't say that GameStop is entirely devoid of fault, but neither should the manufacturers be blame-less.
Would MS and Sony love to know exactly how many consoles will be available at ship? Of course! Shafting retailers because they weren't able to produce as many as they thought they would, is just bad business. But it's obviously not intentional. You could argue that they shouldn't make any estimates whatsoever, until much closer to release (or until they actually have the units created). That I can understand, although I'm sure retailers don't like that approach either. (Legions of gamers want to pre-order well in advance, and not wait till the last few days)
That said, the retailers must have known that console shipment estimates are just swags at best. You could also argue that the responsible thing would be to not allow pre-orders at all. After all, that's what Best Buy, Target, Walmart, and a slew of other retail stores do. The problem is that game stores want to have a way to distinguish themselves apart from the big-box stores, and cater to a user-base that wants and are used to pre-orders (for games at least).
So basically, I think everyone should share a bit in the blame. Manufacturers, when they know an estimate is really difficult to nail down, need to stop making promises to retailers. Retailers, when they know the same thing is shaky, need to stop making promises to consumers. And arguably, we the consumer, need the calm the heck down and live with the fact that some things (guaranteed pre-orders of low supply consoles) may not be possible.
Well, I was actually referring to the US launch. There were similar issues, with lots of people lining up only to sell the 360 on eBay. I recall there was one incident where someone's console was stolen from them, right after getting it as well. Crazy demand can bring out the worst in people.
We'll see how the PS3 launch fares in a few days. (I'm pretty certain the Wii launch will be a non-event, since there are far more consoles available)
First of all, I should note that I agree that it's you can't really blame Sony entirely for this. It's not as if they hired the homeless themselves.
That said, it's funny to see the same fanbois that criticized MS for all of the issues surrounding the 360 launch (fights, eBay profiteering, etc.), run to Sony's defense when it happens to their console launch.
You can blame both companies for just not making enough supply to meet demand, which then causes hysteria and the problems we're seeing with the PS3 launch (and 360, and PS2, and Tickle-Me-Elmo, etc.) . Although if possible, both would have vastly preferred to have many more consoles available. They just didn't want to miss the holiday season because of it. Fair enough.
Whoops! Fair enough. I didn't even know the pictures I linked were of mock-ups (I figured since it was September, that the PS3 was retail, I guess not).
Now I'm curious, how large is the PS3 compared to the original Xbox? And more importantly, does size even matter? The claim as to why the original Xbox didn't do well in Japan was because it was too big. If the PS3 is close to the same size, yet still does well in Japan, then it blows that theory out of the water. (Personally, the reason why any console bombs is not due to silly things like size, but mostly due to the games available)
I actually am privy to that information. It's no secret that Microsoft, as with many other companies, does hire globally. If you re-read my comment, I never said that MS doesn't hire engineers in India and China. However, that doesn't mean there are any less jobs in the US, or that the main folks that do the work aren't in the US.
Here's your original statement again: "Where do you think Microsoft employs these whiz bang engineers and programmers who write the code and design the hardware. Hint: It's not in the U.S."
And my answer is that you are incorrect. I know the engineers and programmers who worked on the code and hardware for the 360 and its games, and they're in the US. If anything, there's a lack of talented personnel here, and we are constantly hiring.
While it's true that some out-sourcing is going on (and frankly, a lot of it are the type of tasks many talented engineers DON'T want to be doing), that doesn't imply that there aren't "whiz bang engineers and programmers" in the US. It's a shame if FUD like yours prevents up-and-coming CS students from even trying to improve themselves and go job hunting, if they incorrectly assume that the jobs aren't there, when I am telling you that they are.
I think it's very short-sighted to be a platform fanboi, who thinks that the only good games are on their platform. So you've never had fun on an older platform before? Or that good games don't exist because they're on an MS/Sony/Nintendo/Sega console?
The Wii isn't even out yet, and still many Nintendo fanbois are hyping it to death, as if games will only ever be good on the Wii.
The truth is, there are great, fun games on all the major platforms. Honestly, anyone who is a platform fanboi is a gaming "noob". Personally, I follow the games, and I don't hold allegiances. I find that FFXII and Gears of War are both excellent games, despite one being on a Sony console, and the other on an MS one. I will likely purchase a Wii, if it turns out that Zelda: Twilight Princess is also a great game.
Gamers shouldn't buy based on hype or brand name, but on what provides the best entertainment.
The funny thing is that I bet there are people waiting in line, who decided to take off from their hourly wage job so they could get a PS3 and "flip it" on eBay for a profit. But they're too dumb to realize that they could have made just as much money (if not more) staying at work the entire time. Even a minimum wage job, if you put in decent hours over a couple of days, nets a few hundred dollars. And that's about the most profit you can make on eBay reselling the console. (Plus, it's a risky proposition... how do you know enough people are going to want to spend that much on the console?)
Are you kidding me? There isn't anything left in this country that is truly made in the USA. Where do you think Microsoft employs these whiz bang engineers and programmers who write the code and design the hardware. Hint: It's not in the U.S. The only people profiting in the U.S. from buying Microsoft are the executives like Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates.
Ehh, I work at Microsoft, specifically in Microsoft Game Studios. Your statement is FUD. The engineers in our group are almost entirely in the US. There are several thousand of us employed in Redmond. (Trust me, the parking sucks as it is)
Even better, we're hiring. Lots of opportunities are available (and that's just for Xbox, not including PC games). Oh wait, nevermind, according to you, we don't exist.:P
One thing alot of people don't realize is that there is a reason PS2 consoles still sell. It's because it's around 1/5 the size of an original PS2. The new ones are amazingly small. Both Nindendo and Sony improved on thier technology.
BTW - The reason why the PS2 still sells well is because it's cheap, and there are a ton of great games on that platform. Of course, this holiday season is going to be the last time we see good games launched for the PS2, as more and more development becomes focused on the next-gen consoles.
Slashdot Mirror
Having some sort of toggle setting (Auto/Manual cover?) might have made sense though. I can see why some people get irritated with the manual state changes. Of course, that means potentially designing the game/level for two play modes instead of one
It's not "just another FPS". In fact, it's not a first-person shooter at all. It's third-person, which is an important distinction. Like many people, I prefer my FPS games on PCs, where the keyboard/mouse combination really can't be beat (at least IMHO). When I play a typical shooter (which have been mostly first-person based, hence FPS) on the console, I get the sense that I've lost a lot of control. For some reason, the third-person controls in Gears
As for innovation, it's got plenty of interesting bits to it: a very comprehensive "cover" game mechanic, a new twist on reloading (called "Active Reload"), and the concept of being able to revive your teammates on the fly. None of them alone are "OMG!!!" material, but all together, makes it one very nice package.
Also, one huge bonus to the game is that it has Live-enabled co-op through the "single"-player experience. It's very seamless. I haven't tried it myself, but friends can't stop talking about how cool it is. Apparently that's a similar sentiment with many other folks. It's a feature that many folks wished Halo 2 had.
Does Gears have flaws? It certainly does. Zonk and other reviewers have pointed out that the AI can be fairly dumb (although many people, myself included, think it's just fine), and the multiplayer is somewhat shallow (not enough modes). That said, the sentiment is that the game is just so much fun that despite some flaws here and there, it's very much Game of the Year material.
Oh, and one last thing, yeah, the game is very pretty. But graphics alone don't sell a game, and the things people love about it, go beyond graphics. That's nice to see for a change.
So, in short, give it a shot. It's quite original for a shooter, and a whole lotta fun.
I wonder if there's any truth to the hypothesis that whichever console gets Square-Enix's primary franchises first (Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest), wins the market share for that generation. I believe it's always been true (maybe not with the SNES/Genesis, since that race was pretty close I believe).
If so, Sony better be worried and lock up those franchises tightly, and not give Squeenix any wiggle room. We already know they're working on the 360 (with the old Final Fantasy XI and Project Slypheed), so it's not out of the question that some flavor of the next FF or DQ game would be released on the 360. Also, if Blue Dragon really does well, Squeenix may not want Mistwalker Studios to "own" the J-RPG genre for the 360.
Last I heard, it was the limited edition sets that were all sold-out. If you're telling me that all 100,000 bundles have been reserved, then that's just frickin amazing. And you'd be right, there wouldn't be anything to "wait" for.
Although, I suppose that if Blue Dragon is the only reason why you want a 360, it would make sense to just wait until it launches and pick the system up with the game (even if you can't get the bundle), to save multiple trips to the store. There'd be no worry about limited quantities of the 360, since there's been little demand for the systems.
Actually, I'd say it's quite the opposite. I would fully expect 360 sales numbers in Japan to be lower than usual because of Blue Dragon. It makes sense and here's why.
We know that there's surprisingly a lot of interest in the Blue Dragon 360 bundle, set to release in December. It also recently took over the #3 spot on Famitsu's list of most anticipated titles. So, if you know there's a bundle coming out in December, why on earth would you buy a 360 now? It's akin to buying a system when you know a price drop is going to happen in a few weeks.
The numbers will be most interesting a week after the game and bundle launches. (The week it actually ships will see an artificial bump of 360 sales, similar to the PS3 one. I fully expect, "wowzers, 360>PS3 lolololezr" articles then as well) Then we can start tracking trends to see if MS will actually have a chance in Japan, or if it's going to be more of the same.
For those of us who live or work in Redmond, it's a nice boost to have two out of the three console makers in our backyard. If you're a DigiPen student, then chances are you know some folks from NOA and MS, meaning access to both their company stores. Lucky!
There was a lot of hype for Gears of Wars. So much so, that I was beginning to think that the game had "jumped the shark" on hype alone. From my non-scientific observation (reading game sites, forums, etc.), I think people were starting to expect the game to suck. And in general, I am not a fan of hype at all, as it does tend to hurt more than help.
... because it was so different than your standard FPS shooter. Go read some game forums, for example the Games board at Penny-Arcade. People are very pleased with the game. Heck, go read the earlier Slashdot article, and you can read people's comments about it.
So, it was surprising to see that the game was quite good. In fact, better than what a lot of people had expected
The whole, "This game has some flaws, but it's still an incredible game" may seem rather unintuitive, but those who have played the game (including myself), will understand. And it's a common theme across many reviews of the game because it's very much to the point.
It goes down to what you're looking for in a game. Yeah, there are all the little bits and pieces you expect out of a great game: storytelling, plot, AI, gameplay, sound, maybe graphics, etc. But that's just being technical. At the end of the day, what you want is to be able to play the game and have fun.
That's an argument that Wii owners will probably find familiar. Yeah, so Twilight Princess may not look as great as some PS3 or 360 games, and it include some tired Zelda-cliches, have some weird clunkiness with the Wii-mote, etc., but at the end of the day, it's just a fun game. It's the same way with Gears of War. Sure, if you examine all of the details and the nuts and bolts, you will find faults. But the fact that you still play the game with a huge grin on your face, means that everything else is meaningless.
Ahh, a fellow KUOW listener. If it's at 9 AM, then it's Weekday with Steve Scher. I don't think, though, he had a show regarding the PS3, so it may have been one of the hourly news reports.
That said, a few game sites (Kotaku and Joystiq) also did some non-scientific polling and they had similar findings. The vast majority of people in line were eBay sellers.
The thought of going back through some GC games is tempting. I'm not a platformer fan, so I wouldn't really care for Mario Sunshine or some of the other platformers. But I am interested in FF: Crystal Chronicles and Wind Waker.
That said, I also have a 360 and PS2 and there are more than enough titles still on those platforms to keep me occupied, so in reality, I'll probably never get around to GC titles. But Twilight Princess alone makes me want a Wii.
Yeah, I've heard lots of good things about Rayman, might have to at least give it a rental (assuming Wii games will be available in Blockbuster sometime).
As for backwards compatibility, I don't have a GC (it's the only Nintendo generation that I "skipped", although I do have a ton of GBA and DS games), so that doesn't really matter to me. I am, though, interested in seeing how the Virtual Console fares.
I haven't picked up a Wii yet (had no intentions of camping overnight for a console), but probably will later this year, primarily just for Zelda.
... interesting for a little bit, since it uses a new play-mechanic, but ultimately stale in the long run.
That said, I've been reading a lot of reviews for these games (Zelda, Excite Truck, and Wii Sports in particular), and it's generally only Zelda that has gotten the big thumbs up. The other two are fun, but it's questionable how long you'll be playing them. One of my biggest concerns is that some of the first Wii games are going to be like the first DS games
Are you finding this to be true? I wonder if it depends on the audience as well. If you're a hardcore gamer, then no doubt games like Excite Truck and Wii Sports are not going to hold your attention very long. But if you're a casual gamer, which is who Nintendo is now targeting, those games might be good enough for you. And hardcore gamers will still have titles like Zelda: Twilight Princess to obsess over.
If it's anything like the DS, it's probably going to take a few months before developers really "get it" in terms of how to use the Wii-mote properly. Already reviews are starting to show that some games (Red Steel in particular) do it badly, while other games do a better job.
I think we all agree that this cuts off their liability significantly. So it's a win for Nintendo on that end, but is that really supposed to make the multiplayer fans who want more than friend codes happy? Of course not.
I know you can still do random/skill-based matchmaking. But missing the actual communication functionality is crucial to a lot of people. As I said before, I personally am fine with a canned chat experience, since I'm not a big fan of multiplayer in general. That said, a lot of people do want that experience. While it's not a problem for me or you, it's still a problem.
The question is going to be how significant that really is. While there's 5 million (random guess) people that want full-featured communication in their multiplayer, there may be 20 million that actually prefer the canned chat model (or just don't care). In that case, then Nintendo will look like geniuses, in finding out what the users really want. Or they could be totally wrong.
I should point out, though, that there are many games where canned chat really degrades the communication. Team-based FPS and shooters come to mind. There's only so much you can communicate using canned messages, which is why voice over Xbox Live was such a huge hit when it first came out. There's also a reason why software such as TeamSpeak and Ventrilo are becoming so much popular in PC multiplayer games (most notably MMORPGs). Nintendo can simulate some of that, by making users just add more and more people as their friends, but you can tell that this is not their preferred model.
There are a lot of people that do want more than Friend Codes. They want a true matchmaking experiencing, without canned chat, which is what's been available on Xbox Live, PC multiplayer, PS2/PS3 online service, etc. for years.
...
As we all know, though, that opens up a huge can of worms: griefers, immaturity, and predators. Obviously it's not an easy thing to solve. But I wouldn't say Friend Codes solves it either, since it basically eliminates the features many people want. It's like cutting off a finger, when a bandaid will do.
I think what a lot of us would like is a Friend Codes system for the kids, and then something else for the rest of us. That's what other systems do. Xbox Live does have a ton of features to protect Kids during on-line play, it's just that most of us don't know about it (I imagine most Slashdotters don't have kids yet). Worse yet, many parents may not know they exist. That's one thing Nintendo could do a lot better, but instead, it appears that they've chosen to treat everyone like a child.
Personally, I don't mind that too much, since I'm not a big fan of multiplayer in general. However, there are millions that do care
I wouldn't say that GameStop is entirely devoid of fault, but neither should the manufacturers be blame-less.
Would MS and Sony love to know exactly how many consoles will be available at ship? Of course! Shafting retailers because they weren't able to produce as many as they thought they would, is just bad business. But it's obviously not intentional. You could argue that they shouldn't make any estimates whatsoever, until much closer to release (or until they actually have the units created). That I can understand, although I'm sure retailers don't like that approach either. (Legions of gamers want to pre-order well in advance, and not wait till the last few days)
That said, the retailers must have known that console shipment estimates are just swags at best. You could also argue that the responsible thing would be to not allow pre-orders at all. After all, that's what Best Buy, Target, Walmart, and a slew of other retail stores do. The problem is that game stores want to have a way to distinguish themselves apart from the big-box stores, and cater to a user-base that wants and are used to pre-orders (for games at least).
So basically, I think everyone should share a bit in the blame. Manufacturers, when they know an estimate is really difficult to nail down, need to stop making promises to retailers. Retailers, when they know the same thing is shaky, need to stop making promises to consumers. And arguably, we the consumer, need the calm the heck down and live with the fact that some things (guaranteed pre-orders of low supply consoles) may not be possible.
Well, I was actually referring to the US launch. There were similar issues, with lots of people lining up only to sell the 360 on eBay. I recall there was one incident where someone's console was stolen from them, right after getting it as well. Crazy demand can bring out the worst in people.
We'll see how the PS3 launch fares in a few days. (I'm pretty certain the Wii launch will be a non-event, since there are far more consoles available)
First of all, I should note that I agree that it's you can't really blame Sony entirely for this. It's not as if they hired the homeless themselves.
That said, it's funny to see the same fanbois that criticized MS for all of the issues surrounding the 360 launch (fights, eBay profiteering, etc.), run to Sony's defense when it happens to their console launch.
You can blame both companies for just not making enough supply to meet demand, which then causes hysteria and the problems we're seeing with the PS3 launch (and 360, and PS2, and Tickle-Me-Elmo, etc.) . Although if possible, both would have vastly preferred to have many more consoles available. They just didn't want to miss the holiday season because of it. Fair enough.
Whoops! Fair enough. I didn't even know the pictures I linked were of mock-ups (I figured since it was September, that the PS3 was retail, I guess not).
Now I'm curious, how large is the PS3 compared to the original Xbox? And more importantly, does size even matter? The claim as to why the original Xbox didn't do well in Japan was because it was too big. If the PS3 is close to the same size, yet still does well in Japan, then it blows that theory out of the water. (Personally, the reason why any console bombs is not due to silly things like size, but mostly due to the games available)
I actually am privy to that information. It's no secret that Microsoft, as with many other companies, does hire globally. If you re-read my comment, I never said that MS doesn't hire engineers in India and China. However, that doesn't mean there are any less jobs in the US, or that the main folks that do the work aren't in the US.
Here's your original statement again: "Where do you think Microsoft employs these whiz bang engineers and programmers who write the code and design the hardware. Hint: It's not in the U.S."
And my answer is that you are incorrect. I know the engineers and programmers who worked on the code and hardware for the 360 and its games, and they're in the US. If anything, there's a lack of talented personnel here, and we are constantly hiring.
While it's true that some out-sourcing is going on (and frankly, a lot of it are the type of tasks many talented engineers DON'T want to be doing), that doesn't imply that there aren't "whiz bang engineers and programmers" in the US. It's a shame if FUD like yours prevents up-and-coming CS students from even trying to improve themselves and go job hunting, if they incorrectly assume that the jobs aren't there, when I am telling you that they are.
I think it's very short-sighted to be a platform fanboi, who thinks that the only good games are on their platform. So you've never had fun on an older platform before? Or that good games don't exist because they're on an MS/Sony/Nintendo/Sega console?
The Wii isn't even out yet, and still many Nintendo fanbois are hyping it to death, as if games will only ever be good on the Wii.
The truth is, there are great, fun games on all the major platforms. Honestly, anyone who is a platform fanboi is a gaming "noob". Personally, I follow the games, and I don't hold allegiances. I find that FFXII and Gears of War are both excellent games, despite one being on a Sony console, and the other on an MS one. I will likely purchase a Wii, if it turns out that Zelda: Twilight Princess is also a great game.
Gamers shouldn't buy based on hype or brand name, but on what provides the best entertainment.
The funny thing is that I bet there are people waiting in line, who decided to take off from their hourly wage job so they could get a PS3 and "flip it" on eBay for a profit. But they're too dumb to realize that they could have made just as much money (if not more) staying at work the entire time. Even a minimum wage job, if you put in decent hours over a couple of days, nets a few hundred dollars. And that's about the most profit you can make on eBay reselling the console. (Plus, it's a risky proposition ... how do you know enough people are going to want to spend that much on the console?)
Even better, we're hiring. Lots of opportunities are available (and that's just for Xbox, not including PC games). Oh wait, nevermind, according to you, we don't exist.
BTW - The reason why the PS2 still sells well is because it's cheap, and there are a ton of great games on that platform. Of course, this holiday season is going to be the last time we see good games launched for the PS2, as more and more development becomes focused on the next-gen consoles.