Anyone who really wants a PS3 that badly would have pre-ordered.
Apparently you haven't heard. Even pre-orders were extremely limited, and there were lots of folks camping out for those. And unfortunately for even many of those folks, they ended up still not getting one.
So, the alternative for these fanbois are to buy an overpriced one from eBay, or take off work and camp out for two weeks.
Personally, I choose none of the above.:) It's stupid to buy a console at launch. The reviews are already rolling in, and it looks like the games are mediocre at best.
My feeling is that FFXII is the spiritual successor to Final Fantasy Tactics, which isn't surprising since I believe they were mostly developed and managed by the same teams.
For those of us who happened to love FFT, I'll go out on a limb and say that we are all loving the changes in FFXII. I like how the story is a lot more mature. I wouldn't say it's "boring", just a lot less flamboyent and in-your-face fantasy than some of the other FF games. The music, is a lot like the other FFT titles, which I am digging. The battle system is very non-traditional. There's a huge emphasis on strategy, on setting up your team the right way, rather than emphasizing on the actual actions themselves. Again, very similar to FFT, since that boasted a completely different battle mechanic than the other FF games, yet was also very strategic.
As for the graphics, they're pretty, but that's completely not what makes this game good, for those of us who really like it.
But I can understand that a lot of people don't dig the new direction. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait until the next FF game (assuming it goes back to more traditional J-RPG roots). That, or look into other RPGs and see if they provide what you want.
1. I understand the battlesystem has been streamlined, which is ok by me. But do the boss battles actually involve some strategy?
So far? Yes. Usually, the strategies that you have setup for normal battles, aren't going to work quite well in boss fights. So there's a lot more micro-managing involved. And that's not so much of a bad thing. One thing I really do like is really being able to swap gambits out on the fly.
So basically, instead of traditional J-RPGs where you're just micro-managing actions, you are managing strategies. Instead of saying, "Oh, character X is hurt, time for me to have character Y heal them", it is now, "Oh, I should have this character do all of the healing, and let my other guys just focus on damage."
2. Is the story engrossing enough so that you actually care what is going on? (for instance, I got bored with oblivion after a few hours, but the story of neverwinter nights 2 is engrossing for me so far).
Can't really answer that for you, since story is obviously subjective. That said, it is FAR more story intensive (albeit linear) than a game like Oblivion. I haven't played NWN2 yet myself, so I can't compare against that game. As some other folks have mentioned, the game and plot are a lot like Square's lesser-known titles, Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy Tactics. And I think that's a very good thing, since it's much more mature than your typical "stop the evil bad guy, save the world" fluff.
3. Is your character completely railroaded? I understand j-rpgs are more linear, but sometimes at least the illusion of choice allows me to become more engaged in the story.
Surprisingly, yes. I can't say enough good things about the License Board system. It's a weird mechanic and not really realistic ("I have to have a license to wear a hat?" is a common complaint), but it allows you to do customize your party very differently than how others may have.
For example, my friend and I are playing through the game, and we've set each character up with a completely different arche-type. Some of the bad ass warriors in my party, are spell-slinging mages in his. And neither of us appear to be punished for doing so, as the difficulty appears to have remained the same. That's amazing.
Now if FFXII can pull off amazing graphics and good gameplay, then not only will I be impressed, I will be overjoyed.
As someone who's spent many hours into the game so far, as well as read a multitude of reviews and opinions, I can definately tell you that it's the gameplay that's getting the most attention. It's a vast change from the traditional Final Fantasy games, and a lot closer to its MMO sibling. I'm not going to spend too much time talking about the new Gambit system and such (you can read more about it on game sites, or read the various Slashdot opinions), but just wanted to point out that your wish has been granted.
The only issue is that some people really love the gameplay change, while others hate it.
First of all, thanks for the reply. I was surprised to be modded up, since I was afraid that anything vaguely anti-Linux (even though I'm not) was going to be modded the other way.:)
You are saying that users want to understand what is going on, don't want to learn what is going on and prefer a gui that creates the illusion that they understand what is going on ?
Actually, yes. That is what I'm saying.
My wife wants to do X. She would prefer to figure out how to do it on her own, which is completely understandable. (I'd hate it if I had to call in help all the time too) That said, she only wants to understand what is going on... to a point. When you need to change some settings, it's much more intuitive to go through it via some sort of GUI, which is supposed to lead you on the right path to do what you need to do. (There are, of course, plenty of bad GUIs, but that's not the point) What she doesn't need to know is all the complete underpinnings of what is going on. If the GUI is guilty of creating that illusion, but still enabling the user to complete the task, then I don't see how that's a bad thing.
It is such users attitude that needs to change. And, of course, having shiny gui - closed source only encourages such behaviour.
Why? That's the downfall of most software with bad usability. One of the things you learn in Usability is that the user is always right. More specifically, their attitude and intentions are correct. You can't, and shouldn't, be trying to change it.
Take the example with a typical user with tons of adware on their system. Did they intend to make their machine run to a crawl? Or want it to be unstable? Certainly not. They just wanted to install some nifty toolbar or browser plug-in. They don't realize the possible negative implications of doing so.
There are a couple of things that can be done on the software front to improve this (and yes, this is mostly a rant on Windows). First of all, why can't the user have a ton of random plugins, and still not slow down their system? That obviously is the most ideal. If not possible, then the system needs to do a better job of informing and protecting the user. Maybe that isn't what the user wants to do, and do a decent job of explaining why. What we have now are these scary dialog boxes that don't quite do that job yet.
So, going back to my main point... don't expect to change the user's attitude. Rather, as engineers and developers, we should change our attitude and try to make our software work for them and not us.
If, in fact, that is still true, I make it my sworn mission to set the precedent, by firing anyone under me who tries it. I can think of few greater proofs of incompetence.
I'd say your attitude is one of incompetence and is a firing offence.
One of the worst things you can do in a business, and as a manager, is to take a zealot approach to something, and basically make it a personal matter. If MS software doesn't make sense for your business? So be it. Same for any other piece of software or, well, anything for that matter. Keep your options open. You never know what may happen. Keep zealotry and fanboism out of the realm of business.
That goes for MS fanbois too, who dictate that anything Google or Linux must be bad as well. That said, it's healthy to have a spirit of competition and loyalty, but you've taken it way beyond those bounds.
And why aren't these instructions on the wiki? because giving someone instructions to put into a console is much more concise, simple, and much more difficult to screw up than guiding them through a GUI.
Again, you still don't get it. That type of attitude is precisely why a lot folks still shy away from Linux. They don't want to be told to do X, and not understand why it is that they're doing it. Most people would prefer to figure out the answer themselves. For most regular users, that means playing around with the GUI and hoping that the right button clicks solve their problem.
My wife hates it when I debug her computer problems just by telling her to do X, and don't explain why. The sense of being looked down-upon is what most people hate to feel. That's why she will rarely ever come to me for computer help, until she absolutely needs it. Or worse yet, she'll just give up on it entirely. You'd be surprised how common an attitude that is with many users.
As someone who specialized in Usability for my Master's, I can honestly say that it would help tremendously if all software engineers were forced to watch usability studies involving normal computer users interacting with software. Or better yet, participating in such studies and/or tutoring such folks. You will quickly realize how attitudes like yours need to change, lest you continue to alienate people even more and send them running to easier-to-use (but less secure/powerful/etc.) alternatives.
End result is that before I touched the machine, she had a computer that was so cluttered with crap that it was un-usable. What she got was a machine that is usable but wont get online. Linux might have it's problem but at least it
a) does not get filled with crap b) does not slow down because it has three virus-scanners running in the background c) does not mysteriously lose components that were working fine 5 minutes ago.
I don't think you get it.
You do realize that the first two issues are completely unrelated to the OS on it, right? The reason why it's filled with crap and multiple virus scanners on it, is likely due your novice neighbor's actions and decisions. If they were on a Mac or on some flavor of Linux, you could just as easily have the same problem there. (As for the 3rd issue, yeah that's just odd, although I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause of that was also user initiated)
The big question is that if your neighbor was on Linux, trying to do the same thing, what would have happened? In the XP case, the machine appears to be usable, but was just getting slower and slower (which can be expected, the more crap that's installed on there). What would happen on Linux though? The worst thing that could happen is that an error occurs that completely makes the machine unusable. And as you can imagine, debugging on Linux, for a "regular computer user" is likely to going to be far more complicated than anything on Windows (the "OS for dummies" so-to-speak).
I guess my point is that "weird computer shit happens" all the time. I don't care what platform you are on, someone is going to run into some inexplicable combination of hardware, software, and "user errors" (as well as plain old bugs) that causes bizarre things to happen. Obviously as a developer/software engineer, you try your best to prevent that from happening, but software is never perfect. So the question then turns into how the software fails gracefully, and lets the user recover.
I've had a number of "weird issues" on both Windows and Linux machines. Without a doubt, the Linux issues are going to be far harder to troubleshoot and debug for your average computer user, simply because the vast majority of them have no idea what a "command line" is, much less knowing what the hell "re-compiling" means. Granted, troubleshooting and help has gotten a lot better, but I find there is still too quick a drop-off from "try these different options in the UI" to "go to #XYZHelp, and ask someone for assistance".
I am by no means trying to bash Linux. But let's be honest with that platform's faults, so that the community can attempt to do a better job at addressing them.
I google "ubuntu nvidia graphics", and this comes up: Unofficial Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy Eft) Starter Guide. It comes down to: 1) Add universal repositories in Synaptic package manager. 2) Type this in in the terminal: sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx nvidia-kernel-common sudo nvidia-glx-config enable 3) Type Ctrl-Alt-Backspace to restart your display, or reboot if you prefer. There are guides to the first and second steps too.
If you know Debian derived distros this is, of course, as second nature as a Windows user using the control panel.
Then later, you follow up with this comment:
But I do think Linux is as easy to use for a newcomer as Windows, and it has communities built up around the specific distro you use which offer support for all the common problems.
You do realize that Joe User can't even get past step 1 above, right?
For Linux to really improve and gain more popularity with the mainstream, what first has to happen is for Linux advocates to STOP claiming that "it's easy to use!" when it isn't. Yet. It's certainly a solvable problem, but the first hurdle is to realize it's a problem to begin with. Too many Linux fanbois are too defensive when it comes to their platform, not realizing when, where, and how improvements should be made.
Don't get me wrong, Linux has made tremendous progress in the usability arena. But the worst thing you can do now is to stop and claim victory over something that isn't there.
and if you've purchased a couple of xbox live arcade games and have a couple demos, you've almost used up your entire drive.
Thanks to a nice perk where I work (see my profile), I have most of the XBLA games on my hard-drive, as well as two demos still sitting on my 360 (Table Tennis and Lost Planet). Plus I have a ton of various game saves (Oblivion and the like).
I'm only halfway through my drive, at 11 of 20GB used.
That said, I completely agree that we need to have more space. TV shows in HD will fill up the drive fast. I just hope that there will be a way to transfer saved games and XBLA games from hard-drive to hard-drive, so that I don't have to go through the tedium of saving everything to memory card or re-downloading all my games. I'm pretty sure this is possible, since I've seen a 3rd party accessory that lets you dump hard-drive data to your PC as storage.
Ha ha, wait until you want to play FFXIII and its only available on PS3. I own a 360 and have a pre-order for a Wii but I don't fool myself. By the time FFXIII is released I will have upgraded my PS2 to a PS3.
FFXIII is so far away (at least a year, if not more), that I find it silly to think about it now. I will probably have a PS3 by then, although it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Square drops the bombshell and announces some flavor of FFXIII becoming multi-platform. (Remember, they're not just Sony exclusive anymore, with several 360 and Wii titles as well)
A few months ago, I joked that it was the PS2 that was going to doom Sony and the PS3 launch. Why spend hundreds of dollars on a new console and mediocre launch games, when you've got smash hits such as Final Fantasy XII and Guitar Hero II instead?
But I realize now that it's actually the opposite. It's the PS2 that may end up saving Sony. Why?
Well, the PS3 launch was already "doomed" in the first place, due to its high cost and low availability. Most of the gamers who are interested in one, just aren't going to be able to get one, unless they want to spend close to a thousand dollars (at least!) on eBay, or get lucky camping out in the wee morning. The vast majority of people that will eventually get a PS3, won't be getting one until next year, once the units are more readily available.
In the meantime, the last thing Sony wants is for these gamers to get interested in the Wii or the 360. The best way to do that is to get these same gamers hooked on PS2 games, until the availability problem is over. That's where your huge franchises, God of War, Final Fantasy, etc. can come to the rescue.
It's certainly working for me. I'm currently addicted to FFXII (although I already have a 360 so it doesn't matter in that respect).
Most programs compile the same way, right? cd to it, configure, make, make install, make clean....couldn't a program be written that executes those commands? Then you wouldn't even have to know how. Just have a right-click, "compile" option.
As you mentioned, that may work for "most programs". The problem, though, is that it has to work for ALL.
When you're working with a massive number of people, you are going to get people with odd configurations or trying to install some software, that isn't easy. So you instantly get from this, "click this button to install" to "jump into the command line and do X" or "Go to IRC and ask on #ProgramX_Help and maybe someone will help you out!".
The instant your average desktop user sees an error message that talks about "compiling" or is just some text in a command-line window, they're going to go running back to what they know best... which is usually going to be Windows.
What's disturbing about capitalism? Let's see here...
1) Companies make regular edition of game 2) Company realizes they can throw in a few extra items ("making of" videos, figurines, posters, etc.), and bump the price a bit higher 3) Hordes of gamers buy the collector's version 4)... 5) PROFIT!
If #3 didn't happen, then I can guarantee you that the company will think much less about doing #2. The fact is, there are a lot of gamers (myself included) which DO like the extra items and polish of the collector's and limited editions. I just recently purchased the collector's edition of Final Fantasy XII, and was satisfied with what I got: a bonus video disc, and an uber-cool tin container for the discs. If I didn't like what was offered, then I would have just ordered the regular version. Simple enough.
As long as said companies don't cut out the first option, buying the game without all the specials, then what's wrong with collector's editions?
But don't be restricted by ghettoising games into a particular genre, or a particular display mechanic, because what we've seen on other systems tend to be retro 2D games, and we're pushing the 3D capabilities of the PlayStation 3.
Is it just me, or does Sony hate 2D games?
I remember reading somewhere (unfortunately can't find it now), that Sony always preferred to have 3D games on its systems. Now, there are a number of 2D games (platformers, traditional fighters, etc.) on the PS2, but it seems like Sony was resistant to those types of games. Why do you have to push the 3D capabilities of anything? I just want to have a good experience, and there are plenty of 2D titles that do just that.
Get some RPGs, fighting games, something based on a good anime franchise, a trading card game, or a port of a game-center game and they might have a chance.
The thought is that Blue Dragon, Lost Oddysey, and Eternal Sonata will be be a good kick-start to the Japanese RPG genre. Well, there's already one RPG, Enchanted Arms, which was surprisingly decent. (Certainly no Final Fantasy, but good enough to interest some fans. It's also coming to the PS3 eventually)
The problem with the 360 launch is that it takes time to develop a decent RPG for a system, so that's why launch titles rarely (never?) have any decent RPGs, unless they happen to be ports. The Final Fantasy games always debuted at least a year after the console launched, if that gives you any indication. Unfortunately, MS needed that kind of support sooner, which just wasn't possible. We'll see in a few months if it really is too late for the console, or if it's in fact too early too early to tell.
480k is a lot of people, but I don't think those preorders were for the Blu-ray player aspect.
I agree. I'd have to say a large bulk of the pre-orders are from folks that just want to "buy low, sell high... on eBay". Reading through some of the pre-order line interviews on some of the gaming sites (Kotaku and Joystiq come to mind), it seems like a majority of buyers are just trying to make a quick buck. With all the money that was made with eBay selling of the PS2 and the Xbox 360, it's almost hard to blame them. (Personally, I'd rather consoles go to people that legitimately want them)
But yeah, the 360 is doomed in Japan. Sure MS was touting the Blue Dragon 360 package sellout, but they only made a thousand of them.
Ehh, you are incorrect. There were 100,000 bundles created, with 10,000 of them being the limited edition versions (which are apparently sold out now).
Last week they sold 22,380 PS2's in Japan to Xbox 360s 1,287. (source)
So while selling an extra thousand 360s is impressive for Microsoft, it's garbage for the market. Hell, most weeks there are more GBA new releases than Xbox in Japan.
Actually, it makes sense that the numbers are so low. If I were in Japan, it'd be stupid to buy a console now, since I know in a month, there's going to be a nice bundle offered for the system. Wait until mid-December, and we'll see how the sales go.
I'm certainly not saying that the 360 is suddenly going to hit it big in Japan by any means. It's very close to "doomed" status. If sales continue to be poor post-Blue Dragon, then that'll be the final nail in the coffin. But if there's a decent size uptick in sales (especially considering that PS3 launch numbers have been reduced in Japan), then that's a sign of some life. I'm confident, though, that the top selling systems in Japan will be the Wii, the DS, and then the PS2, perhaps in that order. (The PS3 will have one huge week, then be gone, until the supply problems are smoothed out)
you mean Marginally more powerful, probably on the scale the Xbox was over the Gamecube . The X-box was 2 times (or more) powerful than the PS2 on everything aside from Disk capacity. The Gamecube was marginally weaker than the X-box on everything (aside from Disk capacity).
I don't remember the exact hardware specs (nor do I really care or think it matters), but I disagree that the Xbox was twice as powerful than the PS2. Just take a look at the games! Do you honestly think the average Xbox game was twice as good as your average PS2 title? You can even compare the best looking Xbox games with the best PS2 titles. The only way you can think the Xbox was twice as powerful as the PS2 is perhaps by taking the worst developed PS2 title and comparing it with the Xbox's best (perhaps Ninja Gaiden). But that's not a fair comparison, since I assure you that there will be really bad 360 and PS3 titles that could probably lose out as well.
But it's all moot anyway, since as I posted originally, it just depends on the games. Not on the power of the console.
First of all, I agree with your assessment. It's quite spot on. I do have a comment though...
MS launches first by a long shot and does the very safest thing, not 40X but more like 10-12X (being extremely vague here, don't crucify me) and the famously solid online component. Less cost than PS3, less powerful, more understandable, more predictable.
I think your comment, regarding performance, is exactly what Sony wants you to think. It's the same game they played with the PS2, in order to sink the Dreamcast. In reality, though, the PS3 is NOT 3-4x a 360. It's not even twice as powerful. It's marginally more powerful, probably on the scale the Xbox was over the PS2.
The PS3 launch titles are no longer secret. If you take a look at the videos, and compare them to similar 360 titles (although many of them are 2nd generation games now), you'll see that they're pretty similar. That's with both multiplatform games and the exclusive launch titles. Now, as developers get better with the PS3 hardware, I'm sure the games will look better. But that's the same with 360 games as well. As a lot of folks suspected, the hardware is on a fairly even level.
Granted, some PS3 games may look better than 360 titles, but that's honestly to be expected. After all, the console did come out a year later, and costs a lot more. But 3X as powerful? Not even twice, not even close. (And of course, graphics do not make a good game... there's the usual caveat about innovation, creativity, gameplay, etc. that don't require a powerful console... just ask Nintendo!)
In the end, it's just going to come down to the games... just like it always has. Sony benefits from having very close relationships with the big Japanese developers: Square, Konami, Capcom, etc. MS is certainly improving, but until they secure more big-name exclusives, or force popular franchises to go multi-platform, it's still going to be difficult to upset Sony over the long run. (Now, over the short term, MS is certainly going to do well, as Sony battles with supply problems. How many users they can acquire, and developers they win over, will become a big deal over the next few months)
A year ago, if you would have asked any analyst or gamer if Sony was going to lose the next-gen console war, you would have been laughed at. It was preposterous to think that the house that Sony built was going to crumble any time soon.
It's been almost a complete 180. Now you have analysts trying to prove why Sony won't lose the next-gen war, and a lot of people doubting them.
I'm no Sony fanboi (or anyone's fanboi for that matter, I'm console agnostic), but I don't think Sony is going to lose the next-gen war either, despite all of the company's goof-ups and mistakes. However, it's still amazing to note how far Sony has fallen, and much Nintendo's and MS's stock has risen over the course of only a year.
Blue Dragon Bundle? PFfffffffffft No one is ever going to buy a 360 in Japan. The PS3 will be outselling the 360 in Japan as soon as Sony ships enough of them there. I don't have any hard numbers for figures, but the 360 will certainly be behind the Wii in Japan at the moment of the Wii's launch, and the same might be true for the PS3 if Sony releases enough of them. I would be willing to bet that the PS2 continues to outsell the 360 in Japan for another 2 years.
Blue Dragon pre-order bundles have been selling quite well in Japan. The limited edition ones have all sold out, I believe.
Oh, I certainly agree that the PS3 and Wii will still do far better than the 360, but just wanted to point out that there have been some surprises recently.
Microsoft today announced its first quarter results for the period ended September 30, revealing revenue of $10.81 billion (up 11 percent) and net income of $3.48 billion (up from $3.14 billion last year). More importantly from a gaming perspective, Microsoft revealed that it's now achieved worldwide Xbox 360 sales of 6 million units. The company previously mentioned that it had sold 5 million through June and expects to sell 10 million by the end of 2006.
The company's Entertainment and Devices division, formerly the Home and Entertainment unit, experienced 70 percent revenue growth year-over-year "driven by demand for Xbox 360 consoles, software, peripherals, and Xbox Live." The division posted $1.03 billion in revenue and an operating loss of $96 million, slightly narrowed from last year's loss of $173 million during the same period.
Obviously MS should get a nice sales boost of the 360 over the holiday season, especially from gamers who aren't able to get their hands on the extremely limited PS3. It'll be especially important to see how Japanese sales go, thanks to the new Blue Dragon bundle.
The average gamer doesn't know who or what Lik-Sang does. Neither do they know about the rootkit fiasco. They may have heard about the laptop battery recall, but they may think "that's not games". Besides, companies nowadays get away with recalls w/o affecting their image too much.
The biggest thing your average gamer is going to notice, though, is simply the price and available of the console. First of all, it's expensive. And second, even if they wanted it, chances are they can't get it. But with the shortage, you know the PS3 is going to sell-out, since it doesn't take that many PS3 fanatics (or eBay entrepreneurs) to create one. In the end, it's those things that are going to negatively affect Sony's business, not the other issues.
Once again, we have someone who doesn't like feature X and is glad that it's not in system Y, making it seem like its a "good thing" that the company decided to do it that way.
That's a load of BS.
Reading through the comments, it's obvious that there are many people that like it, and many people that don't. And you know what? They all know how to turn it off in the settings. Simple enough.
Now you can argue that it should be off by default, but most folks LIKE the feature. So the majority overrule your personal preference. It would be nice to have a personal setting that you could make on the console that remembers to turn off rumble across all games though. But to say that not having the option is a "good thing"? That's just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the alternative for these fanbois are to buy an overpriced one from eBay, or take off work and camp out for two weeks.
Personally, I choose none of the above.
My feeling is that FFXII is the spiritual successor to Final Fantasy Tactics, which isn't surprising since I believe they were mostly developed and managed by the same teams.
For those of us who happened to love FFT, I'll go out on a limb and say that we are all loving the changes in FFXII. I like how the story is a lot more mature. I wouldn't say it's "boring", just a lot less flamboyent and in-your-face fantasy than some of the other FF games. The music, is a lot like the other FFT titles, which I am digging. The battle system is very non-traditional. There's a huge emphasis on strategy, on setting up your team the right way, rather than emphasizing on the actual actions themselves. Again, very similar to FFT, since that boasted a completely different battle mechanic than the other FF games, yet was also very strategic.
As for the graphics, they're pretty, but that's completely not what makes this game good, for those of us who really like it.
But I can understand that a lot of people don't dig the new direction. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait until the next FF game (assuming it goes back to more traditional J-RPG roots). That, or look into other RPGs and see if they provide what you want.
So basically, instead of traditional J-RPGs where you're just micro-managing actions, you are managing strategies. Instead of saying, "Oh, character X is hurt, time for me to have character Y heal them", it is now, "Oh, I should have this character do all of the healing, and let my other guys just focus on damage."
Can't really answer that for you, since story is obviously subjective. That said, it is FAR more story intensive (albeit linear) than a game like Oblivion. I haven't played NWN2 yet myself, so I can't compare against that game. As some other folks have mentioned, the game and plot are a lot like Square's lesser-known titles, Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy Tactics. And I think that's a very good thing, since it's much more mature than your typical "stop the evil bad guy, save the world" fluff.
Surprisingly, yes. I can't say enough good things about the License Board system. It's a weird mechanic and not really realistic ("I have to have a license to wear a hat?" is a common complaint), but it allows you to do customize your party very differently than how others may have.
For example, my friend and I are playing through the game, and we've set each character up with a completely different arche-type. Some of the bad ass warriors in my party, are spell-slinging mages in his. And neither of us appear to be punished for doing so, as the difficulty appears to have remained the same. That's amazing.
The only issue is that some people really love the gameplay change, while others hate it.
Actually, yes. That is what I'm saying.
My wife wants to do X. She would prefer to figure out how to do it on her own, which is completely understandable. (I'd hate it if I had to call in help all the time too) That said, she only wants to understand what is going on
Why? That's the downfall of most software with bad usability. One of the things you learn in Usability is that the user is always right. More specifically, their attitude and intentions are correct. You can't, and shouldn't, be trying to change it.
Take the example with a typical user with tons of adware on their system. Did they intend to make their machine run to a crawl? Or want it to be unstable? Certainly not. They just wanted to install some nifty toolbar or browser plug-in. They don't realize the possible negative implications of doing so.
There are a couple of things that can be done on the software front to improve this (and yes, this is mostly a rant on Windows). First of all, why can't the user have a ton of random plugins, and still not slow down their system? That obviously is the most ideal. If not possible, then the system needs to do a better job of informing and protecting the user. Maybe that isn't what the user wants to do, and do a decent job of explaining why. What we have now are these scary dialog boxes that don't quite do that job yet.
So, going back to my main point
One of the worst things you can do in a business, and as a manager, is to take a zealot approach to something, and basically make it a personal matter. If MS software doesn't make sense for your business? So be it. Same for any other piece of software or, well, anything for that matter. Keep your options open. You never know what may happen. Keep zealotry and fanboism out of the realm of business.
That goes for MS fanbois too, who dictate that anything Google or Linux must be bad as well. That said, it's healthy to have a spirit of competition and loyalty, but you've taken it way beyond those bounds.
My wife hates it when I debug her computer problems just by telling her to do X, and don't explain why. The sense of being looked down-upon is what most people hate to feel. That's why she will rarely ever come to me for computer help, until she absolutely needs it. Or worse yet, she'll just give up on it entirely. You'd be surprised how common an attitude that is with many users.
As someone who specialized in Usability for my Master's, I can honestly say that it would help tremendously if all software engineers were forced to watch usability studies involving normal computer users interacting with software. Or better yet, participating in such studies and/or tutoring such folks. You will quickly realize how attitudes like yours need to change, lest you continue to alienate people even more and send them running to easier-to-use (but less secure/powerful/etc.) alternatives.
You do realize that the first two issues are completely unrelated to the OS on it, right? The reason why it's filled with crap and multiple virus scanners on it, is likely due your novice neighbor's actions and decisions. If they were on a Mac or on some flavor of Linux, you could just as easily have the same problem there. (As for the 3rd issue, yeah that's just odd, although I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause of that was also user initiated)
The big question is that if your neighbor was on Linux, trying to do the same thing, what would have happened? In the XP case, the machine appears to be usable, but was just getting slower and slower (which can be expected, the more crap that's installed on there). What would happen on Linux though? The worst thing that could happen is that an error occurs that completely makes the machine unusable. And as you can imagine, debugging on Linux, for a "regular computer user" is likely to going to be far more complicated than anything on Windows (the "OS for dummies" so-to-speak).
I guess my point is that "weird computer shit happens" all the time. I don't care what platform you are on, someone is going to run into some inexplicable combination of hardware, software, and "user errors" (as well as plain old bugs) that causes bizarre things to happen. Obviously as a developer/software engineer, you try your best to prevent that from happening, but software is never perfect. So the question then turns into how the software fails gracefully, and lets the user recover.
I've had a number of "weird issues" on both Windows and Linux machines. Without a doubt, the Linux issues are going to be far harder to troubleshoot and debug for your average computer user, simply because the vast majority of them have no idea what a "command line" is, much less knowing what the hell "re-compiling" means. Granted, troubleshooting and help has gotten a lot better, but I find there is still too quick a drop-off from "try these different options in the UI" to "go to #XYZHelp, and ask someone for assistance".
I am by no means trying to bash Linux. But let's be honest with that platform's faults, so that the community can attempt to do a better job at addressing them.
Then later, you follow up with this comment:
You do realize that Joe User can't even get past step 1 above, right?
For Linux to really improve and gain more popularity with the mainstream, what first has to happen is for Linux advocates to STOP claiming that "it's easy to use!" when it isn't. Yet. It's certainly a solvable problem, but the first hurdle is to realize it's a problem to begin with. Too many Linux fanbois are too defensive when it comes to their platform, not realizing when, where, and how improvements should be made.
Don't get me wrong, Linux has made tremendous progress in the usability arena. But the worst thing you can do now is to stop and claim victory over something that isn't there.
I'm only halfway through my drive, at 11 of 20GB used.
That said, I completely agree that we need to have more space. TV shows in HD will fill up the drive fast. I just hope that there will be a way to transfer saved games and XBLA games from hard-drive to hard-drive, so that I don't have to go through the tedium of saving everything to memory card or re-downloading all my games. I'm pretty sure this is possible, since I've seen a 3rd party accessory that lets you dump hard-drive data to your PC as storage.
A few months ago, I joked that it was the PS2 that was going to doom Sony and the PS3 launch. Why spend hundreds of dollars on a new console and mediocre launch games, when you've got smash hits such as Final Fantasy XII and Guitar Hero II instead?
But I realize now that it's actually the opposite. It's the PS2 that may end up saving Sony. Why?
Well, the PS3 launch was already "doomed" in the first place, due to its high cost and low availability. Most of the gamers who are interested in one, just aren't going to be able to get one, unless they want to spend close to a thousand dollars (at least!) on eBay, or get lucky camping out in the wee morning. The vast majority of people that will eventually get a PS3, won't be getting one until next year, once the units are more readily available.
In the meantime, the last thing Sony wants is for these gamers to get interested in the Wii or the 360. The best way to do that is to get these same gamers hooked on PS2 games, until the availability problem is over. That's where your huge franchises, God of War, Final Fantasy, etc. can come to the rescue.
It's certainly working for me. I'm currently addicted to FFXII (although I already have a 360 so it doesn't matter in that respect).
When you're working with a massive number of people, you are going to get people with odd configurations or trying to install some software, that isn't easy. So you instantly get from this, "click this button to install" to "jump into the command line and do X" or "Go to IRC and ask on #ProgramX_Help and maybe someone will help you out!".
The instant your average desktop user sees an error message that talks about "compiling" or is just some text in a command-line window, they're going to go running back to what they know best
What's disturbing about capitalism? Let's see here ...
...
1) Companies make regular edition of game
2) Company realizes they can throw in a few extra items ("making of" videos, figurines, posters, etc.), and bump the price a bit higher
3) Hordes of gamers buy the collector's version
4)
5) PROFIT!
If #3 didn't happen, then I can guarantee you that the company will think much less about doing #2. The fact is, there are a lot of gamers (myself included) which DO like the extra items and polish of the collector's and limited editions. I just recently purchased the collector's edition of Final Fantasy XII, and was satisfied with what I got: a bonus video disc, and an uber-cool tin container for the discs. If I didn't like what was offered, then I would have just ordered the regular version. Simple enough.
As long as said companies don't cut out the first option, buying the game without all the specials, then what's wrong with collector's editions?
Is it just me, or does Sony hate 2D games?
I remember reading somewhere (unfortunately can't find it now), that Sony always preferred to have 3D games on its systems. Now, there are a number of 2D games (platformers, traditional fighters, etc.) on the PS2, but it seems like Sony was resistant to those types of games. Why do you have to push the 3D capabilities of anything? I just want to have a good experience, and there are plenty of 2D titles that do just that.
The problem with the 360 launch is that it takes time to develop a decent RPG for a system, so that's why launch titles rarely (never?) have any decent RPGs, unless they happen to be ports. The Final Fantasy games always debuted at least a year after the console launched, if that gives you any indication. Unfortunately, MS needed that kind of support sooner, which just wasn't possible. We'll see in a few months if it really is too late for the console, or if it's in fact too early too early to tell.
Actually, it makes sense that the numbers are so low. If I were in Japan, it'd be stupid to buy a console now, since I know in a month, there's going to be a nice bundle offered for the system. Wait until mid-December, and we'll see how the sales go.
I'm certainly not saying that the 360 is suddenly going to hit it big in Japan by any means. It's very close to "doomed" status. If sales continue to be poor post-Blue Dragon, then that'll be the final nail in the coffin. But if there's a decent size uptick in sales (especially considering that PS3 launch numbers have been reduced in Japan), then that's a sign of some life. I'm confident, though, that the top selling systems in Japan will be the Wii, the DS, and then the PS2, perhaps in that order. (The PS3 will have one huge week, then be gone, until the supply problems are smoothed out)
I don't remember the exact hardware specs (nor do I really care or think it matters), but I disagree that the Xbox was twice as powerful than the PS2. Just take a look at the games! Do you honestly think the average Xbox game was twice as good as your average PS2 title? You can even compare the best looking Xbox games with the best PS2 titles. The only way you can think the Xbox was twice as powerful as the PS2 is perhaps by taking the worst developed PS2 title and comparing it with the Xbox's best (perhaps Ninja Gaiden). But that's not a fair comparison, since I assure you that there will be really bad 360 and PS3 titles that could probably lose out as well.
But it's all moot anyway, since as I posted originally, it just depends on the games. Not on the power of the console.
I think your comment, regarding performance, is exactly what Sony wants you to think. It's the same game they played with the PS2, in order to sink the Dreamcast. In reality, though, the PS3 is NOT 3-4x a 360. It's not even twice as powerful. It's marginally more powerful, probably on the scale the Xbox was over the PS2.
The PS3 launch titles are no longer secret. If you take a look at the videos, and compare them to similar 360 titles (although many of them are 2nd generation games now), you'll see that they're pretty similar. That's with both multiplatform games and the exclusive launch titles. Now, as developers get better with the PS3 hardware, I'm sure the games will look better. But that's the same with 360 games as well. As a lot of folks suspected, the hardware is on a fairly even level.
Granted, some PS3 games may look better than 360 titles, but that's honestly to be expected. After all, the console did come out a year later, and costs a lot more. But 3X as powerful? Not even twice, not even close. (And of course, graphics do not make a good game
In the end, it's just going to come down to the games
It ain't about the hardware anymore, folks.
A year ago, if you would have asked any analyst or gamer if Sony was going to lose the next-gen console war, you would have been laughed at. It was preposterous to think that the house that Sony built was going to crumble any time soon.
It's been almost a complete 180. Now you have analysts trying to prove why Sony won't lose the next-gen war, and a lot of people doubting them.
I'm no Sony fanboi (or anyone's fanboi for that matter, I'm console agnostic), but I don't think Sony is going to lose the next-gen war either, despite all of the company's goof-ups and mistakes. However, it's still amazing to note how far Sony has fallen, and much Nintendo's and MS's stock has risen over the course of only a year.
Apparently you missed the news item: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/19/blue-dragon-hel
Blue Dragon pre-order bundles have been selling quite well in Japan. The limited edition ones have all sold out, I believe.
Oh, I certainly agree that the PS3 and Wii will still do far better than the 360, but just wanted to point out that there have been some surprises recently.
Here's a snippet from the article:
Obviously MS should get a nice sales boost of the 360 over the holiday season, especially from gamers who aren't able to get their hands on the extremely limited PS3. It'll be especially important to see how Japanese sales go, thanks to the new Blue Dragon bundle.
The average gamer doesn't know who or what Lik-Sang does. Neither do they know about the rootkit fiasco. They may have heard about the laptop battery recall, but they may think "that's not games". Besides, companies nowadays get away with recalls w/o affecting their image too much.
The biggest thing your average gamer is going to notice, though, is simply the price and available of the console. First of all, it's expensive. And second, even if they wanted it, chances are they can't get it. But with the shortage, you know the PS3 is going to sell-out, since it doesn't take that many PS3 fanatics (or eBay entrepreneurs) to create one. In the end, it's those things that are going to negatively affect Sony's business, not the other issues.
Once again, we have someone who doesn't like feature X and is glad that it's not in system Y, making it seem like its a "good thing" that the company decided to do it that way.
That's a load of BS.
Reading through the comments, it's obvious that there are many people that like it, and many people that don't. And you know what? They all know how to turn it off in the settings. Simple enough.
Now you can argue that it should be off by default, but most folks LIKE the feature. So the majority overrule your personal preference. It would be nice to have a personal setting that you could make on the console that remembers to turn off rumble across all games though. But to say that not having the option is a "good thing"? That's just stupid.