Good lord, I didn't know just how unemotional and twisted you are, until your last post. There's just so much wrong there. Sorry, maybe you need to see some counseling. I have nothing else to say, as it's just pointless to talk to someone with such a different belief system than mine (and most others). I know you don't care, so I don't want to waste my time.
I'm glad you're a free speech supporter. I suppose what I most object to about your free speech is the fact that you insist on referring to people who express opinions that you don't seem to like as "lobbyists." That is both insulting and inaccurate, unless you consider every person in the US to be a lobbyist if they express a political opinion.
Glad you found it insulting, because that was sort of the point. No, of course I don't actually think that everyone who expresses a political opinion is a lobbyist, nor did I really think that you actually are a lobbyist. But I personally think that someone who starts to blame the school for not allowing guns on campus only a few hours after the incident really is despicable, and yes, I will call you a lobbyist as an insult. Makes me happy to know that you were offended, because that was the point.
True, but I'm not particularly grieving here or emotionally involved in the situation. I'm simply responding to other people who are emotionally involved and whose method of coping is to try to solve the problem by reacting illogically and latching on to whatever easy answer they can conceive of, even if looking at it logically or rationally shows that the so called solution would actually make things worse. You and others can grieve and cope all you want, but when part of the coping process is a call for legal changes that likely will result in more violence and suffering, that is where I step in and refute those irrational pleas in the hope that I can help stop suffering in the future.
Here's a tip. Don't become a counselor. Heck, if someone is grieving, you might want to stay out of their way, lest you make them even more upset.
First of all, I wasn't "latching on to whatever easy answer they can conceive of". Heck, I didn't conceive of any solution. (I'm rather indifferent to the whole pro/anti-gun debate) I'm just saying that it's too damn early and insensitive to start turning this into a pro-gun debate, before the bodies are even cold, or we haven't found the shooter yet. You, however, are doing a wonderful job of making me pissed off at pro-gun supporters in general, if they tend to have the same moral compass (or lack thereof) that you do.
That said, yes there will be people personally involved (like myself) who are going to lash out and try to find something quick to blame. That's just a part of the grieving process. Of course it's not often going to be rational, which is why decisions shouldn't be made in the spur of the moment. As I've said before, there will be a time where some honest discussions can occur. Perhaps that time is now, a few days after the shootings have taken place. But just hours after?
And this is where we strongly differ. If someone who was concerned about the incident commented that perhaps video games are the problem and we should ban them, as part of said coping process, you see that and see people responding to that comment as the same thing as what Mr. Thompson is doing. I see it as a discussion that helps people work through the issue and come up with ways to potentially prevent similar things in the future.
The problem is that this isn't what happened. The original poster basically said this: "The only person to be blamed here is the shooter. And yes, he's dead. But Virginia Tech is not at fault.". Fair enough. In times like this, solidarity is important. But then you come in and shit all over that by blaming VT for not being pro-gun. Gee, way to go bud. There wasn't a debate, until you brought it in.
One last thing, everyone who reads this post please visit this memorial site for VT. Wear maroon and orange on Friday, if you can. And no, signing the memorial with a comment that VT should be blamed for not being pro-gun, is not appropriate. (You seem to need this bit of social advice, so I'm just sharing it with you)
Yeah, because obviously I'm a lobbyist. It's called "freedom of speech" and no I won't stop expressing my opinions.
Don't confuse me with someone who doesn't believe in freedom of speech. I firmly believe in the right of anyone to act like an asshole and say the cruelest of things. But of course, I also have the right to tell that person to "shut up".
I'm replying to a comment someone made about this topic. What, do you think this entire discussion should be "gee I feel bad" repeated over and over again. If you're not ready to discuss the issue, turn off your computer and go to the park, or simply close this Web page, or even just don't open this particular discussion thread.
We all grieve and cope in different ways. I, like many other alumni, did so by posting and reading online. In a way, we want to show our support by making others aware, and trying to prevent this from turning into a blame game, or a "let's trivialize the situation by turning this into a gun debate!" issue.
IMHO, it's as disgusting as what Jack Thompson tried to do. Just a few hours after the massacre, he was already on news channels advocating his anti-video game rhetoric, even though there was no indication at all that the shooter even played games. Most Slashdotters agree that was just tasteless. Personally, I see the gun debate as the same thing.
Of course, you are free to disagree and post all you want. I just wanted to provide my own 2 cents. And also, in a way, provide tips. If you see a fellow VT alumni, do NOT go and strike up a conversation, "Say, you know, if VT allowed guns, this wouldn't have happened you know."
Young people die all the time, who had their whole life ahead of them. From a personal perspective, this is a great loss. Everyone who has had people close to him die knows and feels that. My post wasn't about the personal perspective, but about society and the government. If you want to look out for the best interests of the people, you have to get rid of the personal perspective, as it clouds judgement. My point was that from a sociological or safety viewpoint, 32 dead people in a single day due to gunshots is not exceptional. It is only seen that way because it is very rare that those 32 people died at the same place by the same killer. If you're a responsible government official, you'd only care about giving priority to saving the many instead of saving the few.
There is certainly a time and place to be logical. Yes, your reasoning makes sense. That said, responding to anyone who has a personal perspective on the situation (including myself, as an alumnus) that, "Oh, but in the grand scheme of things, this shooting isn't that exceptional. Look, people die all the time!" is offensive.
Please take a moment to think and feel before you post, please.
Also, and again I have not been ON the campus but have been on several campuses and similar buildings, I wonder if maintenance tunnels, underground connectors, etc. could have played a role. Hell, on my old job I used to cut through maintenance tunnels to avoid people bothering me when I was on my way to meetings.
Woah, that's a really good point. Actually, there are lots of underground tunnels on campus. There's even a website that talks about it here: http://www.vtunderground.com/
That said, I don't know if there are tunnels around AJ that are easily accessible. It might have also been easy to just pretend to be a panicking student with a backpack (certainly there were lots of those), and move around that way.
In an open and free society, if someone really wants to go on a rampage, there's not a lot that can stop them.
Exactly. Sure, if there were metal detectors situated in every dorm and class building, as well as security cameras everywhere, and mandatory check-in locations, that might have prevented the situation. But that's not a place I want to live nor study in.
As an alumnus of the university, I agree that it's silly to blame the school, especially at this point. It's really easy to play "Monday morning quarterback" after the fact.
Blacksburg is a very safe environment. The police really don't deal much with major crimes, aside from your normal array of drunken college students gone bad. Actual deaths are extremely rare. When the shooting occurred earlier in the year, regarding an escaped inmate who stumbled onto campus, that was surreal and shocking. But the leap to this... is just insane.
I can't imagine the police and campus security were really prepared for this, since nothing of this magnitude remotely enters our minds.
I do not, however, hold VA Tech entirely blameless because they are the ones who instituted a ban on students possessing firearms on campus, thereby ensuring that the only person with a firearm was the person planning on breaking the rules anyway. I think their policy is moronic and is one of the reasons why this shooting claimed so many lives compared to incidences elsewhere where a few random students were able to fire back and mitigate the situation.
Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP?
There will be a time and a place to discuss the theoreticals of "would doing X have helped?" scenarios. Every anti-something lobbyist is going to try to find something to hinge this on, from video games to guns (or lack thereof).
Good god, this incident only happened a few hours ago. People (like myself) are still shocked, grieving, mourning for the loss of our fellow classmates, faculty, etc. To hear people, like yourself, using this incident to lobby their particular beliefs, is just sickening.
Thanks for the correction - and you're right. We still are figuring this out and should, in this case, actually assume the worst.
Definitely. The best case scenario is that this was a VT student that cracked due to pressure (exams perhaps?), and unfortunately took it out on his classmates and faculty. In that scenario, the case is closed and students/faculty can feel safe.
Worse case scenario is that there is more than one shooter, and that this is something different...
I'm still confused that if the dorm and classroom shootings were done by the same person, how he managed to get from one side of campus to another so easily. Having lived in AJ, I can tell you that it takes a while to hoof it over to Norris (which I've done many times as a student). Doing so with a bag of guns, ammo, and a bulletproof vest though?
Being a tech school, I'm sure there are a lot of Slashdot readers that are fellow VT alumni (like myself).
There is, unfortunately, a lot that might ultimately be connected to topics that are normally associated with Slashdot: - Might this be a disgrunted engineering (including comp sci) student? (Pressure thanks to exams, weed-out classes, etc.) - As a possible engineering student, it's extremely likely he/she plays video games, so unfortunately that gives opportunity for anti-gaming advocates to thump their chests - Possible that gun-control (or lack thereof) may have affected this?
For now though, I think it's too early to start the speculation. I hate how people are already using this awful tragedy to promote their own opinions/ideas. There will eventually be a time for this. Today, is not such a time.
Yeah, this sucks. I lived in AJ. As a CS major (and grad student), I had classes in Norris. I spent a lot of time there in general (thanks to various club activities). As the numbers keep growing and growing, it just becomes more and more shocking, yet numbing at the same time.
That said, everytime the press says, "This has set a new record in campus killings", I want to throttle someone.
You seem very reasonable despite what biases you may have. As I said, I own none of the systems yet. I honestly don't understand why people are even biased for a given console - given the choice wouldn't anyone rather have all three next-gen systems? I have played, and enjoyed, the 360 as well as the Wii (Heck, I have not even played a PS3 outside of one five minute session at a Target!). However what I do dislike is FUD being spread about any of the systems - I would stand up for the 360 or the Wii if needed, it just so happens that people at the moment are no predisposed to hate those console with the passion of a thousand burning suns. Deflating some of Slashdot's virulent hated of Sony is bringing back reason to the debate here, and making people look at numbers instead of simply repeating deeply held beliefs like a mantra.
Well, we both have some things in common. I dislike FUD as well. To me, your posts continue to look like FUD to me, since you make some rather odd assumptions (and continue to do so), to try to prove something that all other signs have shown is quite different (NPD numbers, sales data released from the actual console makers, etc). It might be due to you not understanding the games industry and culture as well as you think you do. You continue to argue that Amazon alone is very significant, more so than NPD numbers. I dispute the case, not because the "360 numbers are lower" but because as I said before, I don't know anyone who buys consoles online, rather than at a store. The only exception would be one that is in short supply (such as the Wii). But any case, it's not worth arguing this anymore, as neither of us have actual raw sales numbers to back up our statements (which thus turn them ultimately into guesses).
Deflating some of Slashdot's virulent hated of Sony is bringing back reason to the debate here, and making people look at numbers instead of simply repeating deeply held beliefs like a mantra.
Sure, whatever (I agree the Sony vitrol can be excessive at times), but to me, it seems like you're grasping at straws here and overly defending them in such an odd way. Most Sony plants, err, I mean fanboys, won't talk about US numbers, but concentrate on how well it is doing in Japan, or talk about how price is a factor and sales are quite good despite the console costing hundreds more, etc. They don't fish around to find the right website that happens to show one good statistic out of a dozen for one retailer, explain that the older numbers should be ignored, then extrapolate only the "good data" to set the entire retail industry trend, ignoring other sales data that has much better sampling... which is why when I saw your post, I had to cry foul. (What will you do if the PS3 numbers dip back down again for Amazon? Find some other point to make your point? Isn't that the wrong way to approach things?)
The graphs only make it look close because of earlier values before they had stock, when there was a lot more variance. The charts show, day to day, that the PS3 is outselling the 360 by some amount (how much is impossible to say, only that it is more). That is the only thing I am asserting.
Good lord, your ground keeps getting weaker and weaker. By "some amount"? Of course it matters what the actual number is. If the difference is a mere handful, or the total units sold by Amazon is really insignificant compared to other retailers, then this whole thing is rather moot.
I do not think Amazon defines the trends. It only mirrors them, in the same way statisticians use smaller samples to determine bhaviour of larger populations.
Yes, but if you have a larger sample (like NPD), then the only reason to use a smaller sample is because you're trying to find numbers that support your bias.
As for the shipping, others already covered that. That and the fact that with Amazon there is no sales tax. For anyone on a budget it's a lot cheaper to go with Amazon, which is why I think those figures are very interesting, since you get a cut of people who want the best deal possible along with those looking for convienience (not having to travel to a store).
I didn't know about the shipping part (I had to check to make sure). That's actually a pretty interesting convenience, although I'm not sure how many people know about it (nor how often the "super saver shipping" deal is available). However, I do know that you are wrong regarding sales tax. It depends on where you live, and I believe whether or not there's a warehouse there. Living in Washington, I have to pay sales tax even when purchasing from Amazon. Not sure what other locations will have to pay tax. So for me, there's no difference in buying something from Amazon than a retail store. Well, except for I can get a PS3 or 360 in half an hour, versus waiting a few days ordering online. (Apparently we have very different understandings of "convenience")
And again, I don't buy the "best possible deal". Remember, consoles are sold at a fixed price. It's not like Amazon is selling them at a discount.
I share the same opinion as many of the other Slashdotters here that have responded to you. You are grasping at straws here, and are particularly attached to Sony for no apparent reason. I admit I have my own biases (see my profile), but I don't go about touting unbelievable numbers and statistics.:P
Yes, but we are not just talking about any retailer - we are talking about Amazon. I personally think it's pretty representitive of the market, or at least represents a large segment of sales.
I don't know if you read my other reply fully but I disagree. As I said before, consoles are heavy pieces of equipment. Why pay shipping on it, when you can just as easily pick it up at a normal brick & mortar store? The only reason why you would buy something that heavy online is because there's a heavy discount on it (TVs, DVD players, etc.). But that's certainly not the case for consoles, which come at a fixed price. I know it's just anecdotal, but in the many years I've been a video game fan, and all the gaming friends that I have, no one has ever bought a console online, for those very reasons. Sure, games and accessories are fine, but never the actual console.
To convince me that Amazon does represent a large segment of sales, you'd have to somehow get actual sales data from them. Are they selling thousands of consoles each week? Or something much smaller? If we're talking about only a handful of consoles either way, then the console data itself is pretty much irrelevant. (Actually, I have a friend who works at Amazon, but I imagine he won't be able to give me that data... maybe it doesn't hurt to ask?)
I agree aggregated numbers are more useful and revealing (though I think NPD excludes some large retailers as well) but until those arrive Amazon is a good leading indicator. As I've said, the graphs from Amazon track very well with results revealed so far.
Yes, NPD excludes online retailers and some of the big box stores. That said, it's certainly better than just one retailer. Additionally, you can also use sales numbers given by the respective console manufacturers, although as expected, you have to take all of those with a grain of salt as well. And finally, your logic is flawed if you think that just because Amazon happens to follow the trend so far, then it somehow can also define it. That may be the case, but you really need to back it up via other means.
I forgot that you don't have to trust my observation at all - that same site has a page that specifically shows the data over time for sales rank vs. quantity on hand - for the PS3 [eproductwars.com] and also the 360 [eproductwars.com] (though I'm not sure I quite trust the quantity data for the 360 in early January).
I don't see the point of these graphs. Sales rank, for both, is basically flatlined. Quantity by itself... is not interesting in the least. So, Sony has sold more PS3s to Amazon in the past month than they have previously. But that doesn't appear to translate to any change in sales rank, or a marginal one at best. Am I missing something here?
Possibly, like you say we'll know more for certain when the April figures come out... I am not wed to this evaluation, though I'm pretty certain it's correct. March should be better than Feburary for the PS3 though even if it doesn't quite match the 360 at that point.
I wish I knew you in real life, so we can bet on something more substantial than just Slashdot reputation.;)
You need to understand "the rest of the story". See all those times the graph is low? On every one of those days, the PS3 was not in stock and sales were from third parties charging $100 more for the console. That's every day since the start of the year.
Here's the problem. How do you know that's truly "the rest of the story"? Could there be a similar problem with 360 sales now? Or perhaps the PS3 sales are artificially inflated for some other reason? We don't know because we don't work at Amazon.
Of course we could play the "what if" game all day. That's why I always take sales numbers from one retailer with a huge grain of salt. You also need to consider different retail venues. I would argue that many console buyers won't do so online because they are heavy pieces of equipment, and paying shipping on something that you can just as easily pick up in a store, seems like a silly thing to do. (Now games are an entirely different matter)
That's why aggregated numbers are so much more useful than ones that come from one source (and an online one at that).
In any case, I'm not trying to argue that the numbers are necessarily "fake". I just disagree with your assessment that, coming from one online retailer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 overall in sales, since all the other data and trends so far hasn't indicated this. Basically, I think you jumped the gun way too early.
The Feburary NPD numbers agree with the graph. The March NPD numbers will also agree with the graph, and should show the 360 with a lead (note the rise in the graph only started around the 23rd or so of March). It's the April numbers that will be interesting and will or will not bear out the point I am making.
Over the past year, there have been a number of sandbox games that have brought a lot to this "genre". Dead Rising did a lot of interesting things regarding variety of weapons, as well as the immersiveness of being in "one place with a lot of zombies". It was very challenging at times, since there was only one place to save, so there was true fear of being at the wrong end of the mall when nighttime came around, and you still haven't saved yet. Saint's Row was pretty much a GTA-clone, but a pretty well polished one at that. Finally, Crackdown introduced lots of new things, such as verticality (thanks to super-human jumping ability). Plus, all the fun you can do with a physics engine + super powers.
I don't know if I'm alone in thinking that going "back" to an old school GTA game with nothing new to offer, is going to be quite a let down. GTA IV had better be more than just a prettier version of GTA3.
Wouldn't that mean asking Microsoft to drop the 360 as well? The PS3 has been outselling the 360 every day since Amazon finally had them in stock a few weeks ago (scroll down to "Sales rank of the primary Systems").
Good lord, you should apply for marketing at Sony or something. On that page, every other statistic shows that either the Wii or the 360 is selling far better than the PS3. And even in your particular example, it's only based off the last 2 weeks of data, and in only one store (Amazon), and the difference between the "sales rank" is small (360 is 20, and the PS3 is 16). It's not that clear what "sales rank" even means.
And you call that "the PS3 is outselling the 360 for the past few weeks"?
The February NPD numbers show a much different story. Granted, the NPD values aren't complete either, but much more so than merely combing just Amazon.
In any case, the March NPD numbers will be along shortly, so we'll see if your theory holds up.
That said, yes, the Wii is still trouncing them both.:)
Last I heard, more people recognized Mario than Mickey Mouse. I don't know anyone who doesn't know about those games. Even non-gamers. That may be anecdotal, but so is "go ask random people in the street." Just sayin'.
Well yeah, that's why I worded my original statement carefully. "Mario" by itself is a very recognizable brand, but finding people that actually play the game or are excited by it, is something different.
It's the same phenomenon as my Mom calling everything game-related a "Nintendo".:)
No, Shadow of the Colossus does not suffice. Shadow of the Colossus may seem sophisticated when compared to the average game, but it's still the video game equivelent of a geeky fantasy film. When something comes across that has the "fine wine" feel of Good Night & Good Luck, or something along those lines, we'll talk.
Fair enough. Yes, it's far more sophisticated than the vast majority of video games, but I agree that it's still "not there".
It's most quickly being accepted by the blue-collar community, since it's heidonistic principals do not really offend them. To a degree, games have conquered the "geek" stigma by appealing to commonly blue-collar interests: sports, pop-culture, military, etc. But it's the white-collar and accademic communites, including the press, that has been the most resistant to gaming as a legitimate form of entertainment, because all they see is a valueless, mindless, heidonistic practice that offends their sensibilities. In this community (of which I admit to being a part of) they've made it into an ethical dillema. Now, you and I know that there is much value in video games... above and beyond what most people are seeing, but the game industry has made little effort to appeal themselves to that crowd.
Ahh, yes, I totally agree here. Especially over the past few years, many developers seem to have been chasing "the money" that GTA3 showed was out there (mature content can sell). For a while, it seemed like everyone but Nintendo forgot that there's also a demand for non-mature titles as well.
While accademia may not make up a huge part of the population, it is probably the most powerful and influential psychographic. If the game industry were to win them over, it would be an incredible boon.
Part of this will happen simply as the "gaming generation" grows up.
Also, it would be interesting to see if we ever get a game that becomes successful (either in sales or reviews) that moves beyond the standard definitions of what a game is supposed to be. By that I mean, a game that's more than just fun. For example, there are many films that just feed on the entertainment factor: action movies with lots of heroics, exploding barrels, etc. They may be shallow in many ways (story telling, character development, etc.), but studios go after them because they tend to be popular and sell well. On the other hand, there are other films that focus on something different. They aim to be thought provoking, emotional, moving. They may not be as "fun" as your typical Bond flick, but they definitely leave an impression and are sought-after experiences in themselves.
If there ever were a game that wasn't necessarily aimed to be fun, but was otherwise thought provoking or similarly deep and engaging, I think that could resonate with non-gamers as well. The difficulty, though, is that it would have to be somehow approachable and playable by someone who isn't used to the normal conventions of "game playing". I would argue that Myst might have been close to doing this (although I never played it myself). And that was an extremely popular, and mass appealing, game. Another example I'd use is, surprisingly, World of Warcraft. There are definitely aspects of that game that aren't exactly "fun" (grinding for gold, levels, etc.), yet it has a huge mass appeal because of the social aspects it provides.
Going back to the Wii, there is the possibility that such a game could show up on that console. It has already proven that the Wii-mote, when properly used, makes it far easier to get into a game than traditional controllers. The next step is now coming up with the proper game that transcends just being "fun", yet also being something that people just want to experience for some other reason.
Still looking forward to GTA: Emerald City (aka Seattle)...
That would be sweet! (Of course I'm biased, since I also live in the area)
You could easily segment the area into several areas: the SoDo district, North Seattle, South Seattle, have some fun missions around Boeing airfields (jack some planes!), and then head over to the Eastside for some fun w/ the suburbanites (Redmond, Bellevue, etc.). There could be some fun easter eggs planted around the Nintendo and Microsoft buildings as well.
Actually, it's going to be VERY difficult to get the Wiimote to accurately map motion of sword play. Accellerometers are only accurate if they have some kind of opposing force to calculate off of, that being gravity. This means that all tilting or rocking motions can be correctly interpreted, but declination, position, and swivel are impossible to detect correctly. If you had the person point the Wiimote at the screen (with the IR pointer) before each fight, that would work well enough, though.
What? Are you saying there won't be able good sword games for the Wii? Wasn't that a huge selling point for the console? I recall marketing videos of people happily swinging the Wii-mote around like a sword.
If it turns out that the sword swinging experience is, in fact, going to be rather limited... regardless of the technical limitations as to why, then that is going to be rather depressing to those folks (myself included) that were looking forward to it.
I was also interested in seeing if FPS controls mapped better to the nunchuck+Wiimote combo, but I have also heard that it's a similarly troubled scenario.:(
No, I don't think you get it... Super Mario Bros. 3 is THE BEST SELLING GAME, EVER, and that includes Tetris (not solitare, since that comes preloaded on every Windows computer). People may follow football because of their connections with the teams, but sports games don't sell as well as the average Nintendo franchise.
Sorry, you are wrong. SMB3 was the best selling console game at 18 million. Want to know how much Tetris sold for the original GameBoy? 30 million. And that's only on that portable. There are countless Tetris games and clones available on the PC, web, mobile phone, PDA, etc. Yes, I'm aware that Tetris was a bundled game, and that skews the numbers considerably. But I'm more interested in the influence and mass popularity of games. Being bundled helped it tremendously, just like how Wii Sports is gaining mass popularity from being a pack-in for the Wii. (And on a small note, the original Super Mario game sold even better, since it was also a pack-in game. That has far more influence than its predecessor.)
Want to know another mass appeal game that has sold like crazy, and was released less than a decade ago? The Sims, at 16 million (and that number is probably out of date by now). Most hardcore gamers, myself included, thought it was a fun game, but quickly got bored of it and moved onto newer things. However, the vast majority of gamers (who are not hardcore, don't read gaming sites every day, etc.), keep buying expansion pack after expansion pack. I don't think those numbers even include the Sims 2 sequel either.
I am not saying that the Mario brand is insignificant. In fact, it is the most influential franchise out there. That said, I still disagree that a Mario game is going to be the pinnacle of a "mass appeal video game". The numbers are actually quite telling, if you take a look at the sales numbers of Mario games after SMB3. It's going down, not up.
Again, try going to your non-gamer friends and family, and ask them if they have ever played or heard of SMB 3, or if they look forward to the next Mario game. The answer will probably be no. That said, those same folks are probably giddy about American Idol, or Lost, or the next James Bond movie.
You're insisting that short, pick-up/put-down games are the only answer to mass appeal, but that is not really historically accurate, now, is it? You have to take into consideration that the moment that you get new people onboard, sooner or later they're going to want more, and suddenly, you've got a lot of people playing more involved games. Short games are short lived... either the person playing them gets bored of gaming and stops buying them, or they move on to more, bigger things.
I think you've fallen into the trap that most hardcore gamers fall into. That may be how we got into gaming. But why do you make the assumption that they're "going to want more"? The typical grandmother who has picked up a Wii because it's fun to play with her grandkids and maybe her friends from time to time, is not going to change her lifestyle and suddenly be into games like Zelda or Metroid, just because they happen to be on the same console.
As some who's in the casual games industry, I can tell you that most of the women that play our games adapt them to their lifestyle, not the other way around. Bejeweled gamers seek out similar puzzle games, and "bite size" games. They might try marginally more complicated games (such as Diner Dash, etc.), but there is such a huge leap to more "traditional" games, that your idea that they will eventually become fans of Starcraft, Call of Duty, Zelda, Metroid, Halo... is rather absurd. We just don't see it, and I've been in the business for a while now.
Anyway, I'm not saying that short pick-up games are the only answer t
Mario is the best selling series in the world, to date, according to Game Informer last month. Zelda is something like 7th. WiiPlay is not. THAT'S your mass appeal for you. Anyone who says that Mario, Metroid, and Zelda don't have mass appeal hasn't done their research.
I don't think you get it.
"Mass appeal" in terms of the existing gaming audience? Sure. However, is it something your parents or grandparents (assuming they're not already gamers) would get into?
Go to the middle of a busy intersection in a major city, and start asking random people if they're excited by a Mario or Metroid or Zelda game. Or heck, if they've ever played them before. You might be surprised by how few will answer yes.
Of course, if you change "Mario" to something different like football, or some popular TV show or movie, you're going to get a far different response. Now, if you want to bring it back to games, replace "Mario" with... Tetris, or the ever-popular Solitaire.
I have to ask... are "crap ports" and "shovelware" really such a bad thing for the Wii, considering the new audience it's targeting?
It's pretty apparent that a significant part of the Wii's appeal is coming from casual or even "non gamers". These are not the players that get excited about a new Zelda game, or Metroid Prime, or Mario Galaxy, etc. Rather, they are comfortable with games with much more massive appeal (Wii Sports, Wii Play, various party games, etc.).
Sometimes that also includes licensed games (based off movies, TV shows, etc.), which are often regarded to as "shovelware" by hardcore gaming enthusiasts. Believe it or not, one of the better selling DS games in Feburary was Hannah Montana, based off the popular Disney TV show.
As hardcore gamers (and yes, I am one), I think we often forget about the massive number of other gamers there are, that buy and enjoy these types of games (otherwise they wouldn't continue to sell the way they do). As much as I hate to think it, Nintendo could probably do quite well business-wise focusing on just the casual audience entirely. Sure, they'll lose much of the hardcore fanbase, but more than make up for it in other ways. In the meantime, they'll always have the Nintendo faithful on board no matter what they do (these are the ones that need their Mario/Zelda/Metroid-fix).
It amazes me the "infield fly rules" these games create just to prevent them from being like reality. It's bad enough a guy with no fighting training and no armor can stand there waving his hands while a huge guy with a sword beats on him unopposed. But this is "balance", i.e. melee wimps, casters much tougher than they actually are (not damage they do, but that they take. You can't avoid flinching when someone waves a hand in your face, much less a sword, much less hits you with a sword -- yet you can't wear armor because it interferes with these "delicate hand movements". Sheesh.)
I know this is off-topic, but I can't resist. Other MMORPGs have tried being more realistic. Guess what... they're not as fun!
If you're truly looking for something closer to reality, then perhaps you should check out LARPing...
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord, I didn't know just how unemotional and twisted you are, until your last post. There's just so much wrong there. Sorry, maybe you need to see some counseling. I have nothing else to say, as it's just pointless to talk to someone with such a different belief system than mine (and most others). I know you don't care, so I don't want to waste my time.
First of all, I wasn't "latching on to whatever easy answer they can conceive of". Heck, I didn't conceive of any solution. (I'm rather indifferent to the whole pro/anti-gun debate) I'm just saying that it's too damn early and insensitive to start turning this into a pro-gun debate, before the bodies are even cold, or we haven't found the shooter yet. You, however, are doing a wonderful job of making me pissed off at pro-gun supporters in general, if they tend to have the same moral compass (or lack thereof) that you do.
That said, yes there will be people personally involved (like myself) who are going to lash out and try to find something quick to blame. That's just a part of the grieving process. Of course it's not often going to be rational, which is why decisions shouldn't be made in the spur of the moment. As I've said before, there will be a time where some honest discussions can occur. Perhaps that time is now, a few days after the shootings have taken place. But just hours after?The problem is that this isn't what happened. The original poster basically said this: "The only person to be blamed here is the shooter. And yes, he's dead. But Virginia Tech is not at fault.". Fair enough. In times like this, solidarity is important. But then you come in and shit all over that by blaming VT for not being pro-gun. Gee, way to go bud. There wasn't a debate, until you brought it in.
One last thing, everyone who reads this post please visit this memorial site for VT. Wear maroon and orange on Friday, if you can. And no, signing the memorial with a comment that VT should be blamed for not being pro-gun, is not appropriate. (You seem to need this bit of social advice, so I'm just sharing it with you)
IMHO, it's as disgusting as what Jack Thompson tried to do. Just a few hours after the massacre, he was already on news channels advocating his anti-video game rhetoric, even though there was no indication at all that the shooter even played games. Most Slashdotters agree that was just tasteless. Personally, I see the gun debate as the same thing.
Of course, you are free to disagree and post all you want. I just wanted to provide my own 2 cents. And also, in a way, provide tips. If you see a fellow VT alumni, do NOT go and strike up a conversation, "Say, you know, if VT allowed guns, this wouldn't have happened you know."
Please take a moment to think and feel before you post, please.
That said, I don't know if there are tunnels around AJ that are easily accessible. It might have also been easy to just pretend to be a panicking student with a backpack (certainly there were lots of those), and move around that way.
As an alumnus of the university, I agree that it's silly to blame the school, especially at this point. It's really easy to play "Monday morning quarterback" after the fact.
... is just insane.
Blacksburg is a very safe environment. The police really don't deal much with major crimes, aside from your normal array of drunken college students gone bad. Actual deaths are extremely rare. When the shooting occurred earlier in the year, regarding an escaped inmate who stumbled onto campus, that was surreal and shocking. But the leap to this
I can't imagine the police and campus security were really prepared for this, since nothing of this magnitude remotely enters our minds.
There will be a time and a place to discuss the theoreticals of "would doing X have helped?" scenarios. Every anti-something lobbyist is going to try to find something to hinge this on, from video games to guns (or lack thereof).
Good god, this incident only happened a few hours ago. People (like myself) are still shocked, grieving, mourning for the loss of our fellow classmates, faculty, etc. To hear people, like yourself, using this incident to lobby their particular beliefs, is just sickening.
Worse case scenario is that there is more than one shooter, and that this is something different
I'm still confused that if the dorm and classroom shootings were done by the same person, how he managed to get from one side of campus to another so easily. Having lived in AJ, I can tell you that it takes a while to hoof it over to Norris (which I've done many times as a student). Doing so with a bag of guns, ammo, and a bulletproof vest though?
Being a tech school, I'm sure there are a lot of Slashdot readers that are fellow VT alumni (like myself).
There is, unfortunately, a lot that might ultimately be connected to topics that are normally associated with Slashdot:
- Might this be a disgrunted engineering (including comp sci) student? (Pressure thanks to exams, weed-out classes, etc.)
- As a possible engineering student, it's extremely likely he/she plays video games, so unfortunately that gives opportunity for anti-gaming advocates to thump their chests
- Possible that gun-control (or lack thereof) may have affected this?
For now though, I think it's too early to start the speculation. I hate how people are already using this awful tragedy to promote their own opinions/ideas. There will eventually be a time for this. Today, is not such a time.
Yeah, this sucks. I lived in AJ. As a CS major (and grad student), I had classes in Norris. I spent a lot of time there in general (thanks to various club activities). As the numbers keep growing and growing, it just becomes more and more shocking, yet numbing at the same time.
That said, everytime the press says, "This has set a new record in campus killings", I want to throttle someone.
And again, I don't buy the "best possible deal". Remember, consoles are sold at a fixed price. It's not like Amazon is selling them at a discount.
I share the same opinion as many of the other Slashdotters here that have responded to you. You are grasping at straws here, and are particularly attached to Sony for no apparent reason. I admit I have my own biases (see my profile), but I don't go about touting unbelievable numbers and statistics.
To convince me that Amazon does represent a large segment of sales, you'd have to somehow get actual sales data from them. Are they selling thousands of consoles each week? Or something much smaller? If we're talking about only a handful of consoles either way, then the console data itself is pretty much irrelevant. (Actually, I have a friend who works at Amazon, but I imagine he won't be able to give me that data
Of course we could play the "what if" game all day. That's why I always take sales numbers from one retailer with a huge grain of salt. You also need to consider different retail venues. I would argue that many console buyers won't do so online because they are heavy pieces of equipment, and paying shipping on something that you can just as easily pick up in a store, seems like a silly thing to do. (Now games are an entirely different matter)
That's why aggregated numbers are so much more useful than ones that come from one source (and an online one at that).
In any case, I'm not trying to argue that the numbers are necessarily "fake". I just disagree with your assessment that, coming from one online retailer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 overall in sales, since all the other data and trends so far hasn't indicated this. Basically, I think you jumped the gun way too early.I guess we'll revisit this in April then.
Over the past year, there have been a number of sandbox games that have brought a lot to this "genre". Dead Rising did a lot of interesting things regarding variety of weapons, as well as the immersiveness of being in "one place with a lot of zombies". It was very challenging at times, since there was only one place to save, so there was true fear of being at the wrong end of the mall when nighttime came around, and you still haven't saved yet. Saint's Row was pretty much a GTA-clone, but a pretty well polished one at that. Finally, Crackdown introduced lots of new things, such as verticality (thanks to super-human jumping ability). Plus, all the fun you can do with a physics engine + super powers.
I don't know if I'm alone in thinking that going "back" to an old school GTA game with nothing new to offer, is going to be quite a let down. GTA IV had better be more than just a prettier version of GTA3.
And you call that "the PS3 is outselling the 360 for the past few weeks"?
The February NPD numbers show a much different story. Granted, the NPD values aren't complete either, but much more so than merely combing just Amazon.
In any case, the March NPD numbers will be along shortly, so we'll see if your theory holds up.
That said, yes, the Wii is still trouncing them both.
It's the same phenomenon as my Mom calling everything game-related a "Nintendo".
Also, it would be interesting to see if we ever get a game that becomes successful (either in sales or reviews) that moves beyond the standard definitions of what a game is supposed to be. By that I mean, a game that's more than just fun. For example, there are many films that just feed on the entertainment factor: action movies with lots of heroics, exploding barrels, etc. They may be shallow in many ways (story telling, character development, etc.), but studios go after them because they tend to be popular and sell well. On the other hand, there are other films that focus on something different. They aim to be thought provoking, emotional, moving. They may not be as "fun" as your typical Bond flick, but they definitely leave an impression and are sought-after experiences in themselves.
If there ever were a game that wasn't necessarily aimed to be fun, but was otherwise thought provoking or similarly deep and engaging, I think that could resonate with non-gamers as well. The difficulty, though, is that it would have to be somehow approachable and playable by someone who isn't used to the normal conventions of "game playing". I would argue that Myst might have been close to doing this (although I never played it myself). And that was an extremely popular, and mass appealing, game. Another example I'd use is, surprisingly, World of Warcraft. There are definitely aspects of that game that aren't exactly "fun" (grinding for gold, levels, etc.), yet it has a huge mass appeal because of the social aspects it provides.
Going back to the Wii, there is the possibility that such a game could show up on that console. It has already proven that the Wii-mote, when properly used, makes it far easier to get into a game than traditional controllers. The next step is now coming up with the proper game that transcends just being "fun", yet also being something that people just want to experience for some other reason.
You could easily segment the area into several areas: the SoDo district, North Seattle, South Seattle, have some fun missions around Boeing airfields (jack some planes!), and then head over to the Eastside for some fun w/ the suburbanites (Redmond, Bellevue, etc.). There could be some fun easter eggs planted around the Nintendo and Microsoft buildings as well.
If it turns out that the sword swinging experience is, in fact, going to be rather limited
I was also interested in seeing if FPS controls mapped better to the nunchuck+Wiimote combo, but I have also heard that it's a similarly troubled scenario.
Sorry, you are wrong. SMB3 was the best selling console game at 18 million. Want to know how much Tetris sold for the original GameBoy? 30 million. And that's only on that portable. There are countless Tetris games and clones available on the PC, web, mobile phone, PDA, etc. Yes, I'm aware that Tetris was a bundled game, and that skews the numbers considerably. But I'm more interested in the influence and mass popularity of games. Being bundled helped it tremendously, just like how Wii Sports is gaining mass popularity from being a pack-in for the Wii. (And on a small note, the original Super Mario game sold even better, since it was also a pack-in game. That has far more influence than its predecessor.)
Want to know another mass appeal game that has sold like crazy, and was released less than a decade ago? The Sims, at 16 million (and that number is probably out of date by now). Most hardcore gamers, myself included, thought it was a fun game, but quickly got bored of it and moved onto newer things. However, the vast majority of gamers (who are not hardcore, don't read gaming sites every day, etc.), keep buying expansion pack after expansion pack. I don't think those numbers even include the Sims 2 sequel either.
I am not saying that the Mario brand is insignificant. In fact, it is the most influential franchise out there. That said, I still disagree that a Mario game is going to be the pinnacle of a "mass appeal video game". The numbers are actually quite telling, if you take a look at the sales numbers of Mario games after SMB3. It's going down, not up.
Again, try going to your non-gamer friends and family, and ask them if they have ever played or heard of SMB 3, or if they look forward to the next Mario game. The answer will probably be no. That said, those same folks are probably giddy about American Idol, or Lost, or the next James Bond movie.
I think you've fallen into the trap that most hardcore gamers fall into. That may be how we got into gaming. But why do you make the assumption that they're "going to want more"? The typical grandmother who has picked up a Wii because it's fun to play with her grandkids and maybe her friends from time to time, is not going to change her lifestyle and suddenly be into games like Zelda or Metroid, just because they happen to be on the same console.
... is rather absurd. We just don't see it, and I've been in the business for a while now.
As some who's in the casual games industry, I can tell you that most of the women that play our games adapt them to their lifestyle, not the other way around. Bejeweled gamers seek out similar puzzle games, and "bite size" games. They might try marginally more complicated games (such as Diner Dash, etc.), but there is such a huge leap to more "traditional" games, that your idea that they will eventually become fans of Starcraft, Call of Duty, Zelda, Metroid, Halo
Anyway, I'm not saying that short pick-up games are the only answer t
"Mass appeal" in terms of the existing gaming audience? Sure. However, is it something your parents or grandparents (assuming they're not already gamers) would get into?
Go to the middle of a busy intersection in a major city, and start asking random people if they're excited by a Mario or Metroid or Zelda game. Or heck, if they've ever played them before. You might be surprised by how few will answer yes.
Of course, if you change "Mario" to something different like football, or some popular TV show or movie, you're going to get a far different response. Now, if you want to bring it back to games, replace "Mario" with
That's truly mass appeal.
I have to ask ... are "crap ports" and "shovelware" really such a bad thing for the Wii, considering the new audience it's targeting?
It's pretty apparent that a significant part of the Wii's appeal is coming from casual or even "non gamers". These are not the players that get excited about a new Zelda game, or Metroid Prime, or Mario Galaxy, etc. Rather, they are comfortable with games with much more massive appeal (Wii Sports, Wii Play, various party games, etc.).
Sometimes that also includes licensed games (based off movies, TV shows, etc.), which are often regarded to as "shovelware" by hardcore gaming enthusiasts. Believe it or not, one of the better selling DS games in Feburary was Hannah Montana, based off the popular Disney TV show.
As hardcore gamers (and yes, I am one), I think we often forget about the massive number of other gamers there are, that buy and enjoy these types of games (otherwise they wouldn't continue to sell the way they do). As much as I hate to think it, Nintendo could probably do quite well business-wise focusing on just the casual audience entirely. Sure, they'll lose much of the hardcore fanbase, but more than make up for it in other ways. In the meantime, they'll always have the Nintendo faithful on board no matter what they do (these are the ones that need their Mario/Zelda/Metroid-fix).
If you're truly looking for something closer to reality, then perhaps you should check out LARPing