As a musician who plays in bands (and, admittedly, sucks at Guitar Hero despite being able to blaze a few sweet solos on my real axe), this is kinda sad. The amount of money totalled to buy this game, console and peripherals could just be spent on buying cheapo instruments (like most musicians begin with) and forming a real band where the songs you play aren't controlled by a game. It's much more rewarding and has just done so much for me. Imagine forming a console-based band, it's the musical version of cyber sex.
Even as a former musician in high school, I agree that it's a heckuva lot more fun to play in a real band, in front of a live audience. That said, not everyone is as talented as you are, nor do they have the time or patience to learn an instrument well enough to get to that point.
So yeah, if you're already good enough to be in a band, more power to you. Then Guitar Hero is just a cheap imitation. But for the rest of us, who don't have the time to learn guitar (especially enough to play these rock songs), I'll take the cheap imitation gladly, thankyouverymuch...
It looks great on paper, really great, but I don't think people are going to spend 2-300 dollars on a video game. Games with one unique peripheral have trouble catching on.
Uhh, what!? Guitar Hero has "one unique peripheral" and it has not had any trouble catching on at all. In fact, it remains one of the most successful games of 2006/2007, despite it's high price tag. Then there's also the whole Dance Dance Revolution series, where the game comes with one dance pad for extra cost. That franchise is popular enough to spawn a ton of sequels, across basically every platform.
Granted, those games don't cost the $200-300 that people are estimating that the entire Rock Band set will cost, but I think that's pretty weird thinking in the first place. I have a bunch of friends who are excited about the game. We'll probably end up buying just the one edition of the game with the instrument that we want to focus on. It also helps that the game will be compatible with existing guitar controllers, so that actually reduces the cost quite a bit if you already have them.
1. I don't see why anyone who knows how to play these instruments would want to play fake instruments. That was my main point. 2. I can only understand playing fake instrument games if you are the type who wouldn't want to learn the real thing. Inferred from #1. 3. I explicitly pointed out the difference between other games and instrument games.
That was my original post in a nutshell.
If you're going to sit indoors moving your hands on a fake guitar, why not do the real thing? To play paintball or do kung fu you need physical stamina, you need to get off your fat ass, and you need to find people (aka friends) to partake in the activity with you. You need absolutely none of that to learn an instrument.
The big thing you're missing is the time involved in having fun with these activities.
As someone who knows how to play various instruments (having been in band/orchestra for many years), I will say that playing an instrument when you're good at it, can be a lot of fun. However, there's also the years upon years of experience of practice that it takes. And even then, it's obvious that most folks just won't ever have the talent that rock stars have.
On the other hand, with much less practice, I can play a video game that simulates the skill involved in playing a musical instrument. It's immersive (crowds cheering for me) and I'm playing actual songs that I like (versus "Row row row your boat" for the first few weeks while learning a real instrument). Furthermore, since it's easy for me to pick up and learn, it's probably easy for my friends as well. So, in short time, my buddy and I can get in some awesome, and fun, guitar duos.
Of course Guitar Hero II should not be an actual replacement for learning guitar, but it was never meant to be. Just because it's impractical in that sense, though, doesn't mean it's a stupid idea of a game.
On a personal note, I have noticed that a lot of my fellow former-musician friends also have taken a liking to Guitar Hero. Your comments seem to imply that we'd be the first to realize that a game like Guitar Hero is a waste of time. It's actually the opposite. Since we've all understand how much time and energy it took to master our respective instruments (for myself, it was the violin and the trumpet), we know that it can take months, if not years, to get good enough at the guitar to even come close to playing some of the well-known rock songs. The decision ultimately becomes quite simple. I'll take rocking with Van Halen in only a few hours, thank-you-very-much.
But is strategy really skill? Strategy is something you can steal from someone else. Skill is not something that can be stolen.. yet.:P
Yes, there is lots of skill in the game, particularly in PvP. I agree that strategy is something that is fairly easy to acquire. No doubt the best Arena teams probably spend a lot of time reading strategies in forums, trading secrets, etc.
However, at the end of the day, there is still a lot of "twitch element" to the game, as well as the skill of knowing when to switch strategies.
I believe Arena PvP is similar to Starcraft. There are lots of strategies to SC that you can read up on (build orders, how pull off a Zerg rush, how to defend against such a rush, etc.). Same goes for WoW PvP (what specs to use, how to battle against a warlock, how to fully utilize your skills as a rogue, etc.). However with both, there's the "twitch" aspects that make up the skill. In Starcraft, you have to have fast enough reflexes to make your moves, know when to switch strategies, etc. In WoW, it's the same as there are lots of timed button presses, moving into the right position, knowing how to react, when to switch strategies, etc.
Walmart does carry the PS3 (and other expensive items, such as HDTVs), and yes, it isn't included in the NPD.
That said, we have to work with what we've got. While incomplete, that doesn't mean the NPD numbers are completely useless. It just means you have to take it with a grain of salt. The industry and media have been using the numbers for quite some time now, and even though it's incomplete, they are generally a good sign of sales trends. Essentially, that means the numbers that are missing (big-box retailers, online sellers) either aren't contributing that much in extra sales, or (more likely) they don't skew the data one way or another.
To be fair to both sides of the "console fanboy war", it's difficult to make comparisons of the PS3 launch to the Wii/360 one, because of the supply constraints with the latter consoles. It's far too early for "either side" to declare victory any time soon. Both anti-Sony fanboys, and the pro-Sony fanboys, should go on vacation for a few weeks, and come back when the sales numbers can be compared more adequately. Then, it will be a lot harder for anyone to "spin the numbers".
The Wii and 360 were supply-constrained, so they sold out 100% of their respective shipments. I don't know exactly what they were, but seem to recall around the 100k number. A cynic would say that the reason why the PS3 broke records is only because the competition couldn't make enough to sell. On the other hand, having enough supply to meet demand isn't exactly a bad thing either. On the gripping hand, having a lot of product sitting on store shelves isn't going to make retailers very happy.
The numbers are going to be the most interesting a few weeks after launch. If the launch numbers reflect everyone who wanted a PS3, well, that's obviously a bad sign for Sony. However, if we see comparable sales numbers in the coming weeks and months, then it's a sign that demand is still flowing and isn't just one-time.
Varying quest types by level and by class
on
Rethinking the MMOG
·
· Score: 1
Overall, I thought the article was rather well written. There were certainly parts of it that I disagreed with, but as someone who has played MMORPGs for years (including currently WoW), I can see a lot of the points he makes.
One idea that popped up while reading this, was varying quests by level in an MMORPG (addressing points #1 and #2 of the article, namely boring gameplay and grinding). Anyone who has played WoW knows that most of the quests boil down to the following archetypes:
1) Fetch X number of Y objects 2) Kill Z things 3) Escort X from point A to B (keeping it alive)
Then there are quests that combine the above (such as fetch X items, but you can only do it by killing Z creatures).
First of all, there really needs to be more variance in the type of quests that are available. The Burning Crusade expansion for WoW started seeing more of this (the bombing quest comes to mind).
I think there's a lot that can be done, if there were more class-specific quests. One of the reasons why the current quests are so generic, is because they have to be solvable by anyone. It doesn't assume quests are done by any particular class. Well, why not? As a rogue, I have a ton of interesting abilities at my disposal. I would love to have quests that forced me to use some of the lesser-used skills and talents that I have, as it would certainly mix things up. (And I might learn a new thing or two)
Once you have more variety in the types of quests available, I think the next thing you want to do is disperse them. I think the simple "kill X creature" quests are actually fine for the initial levels, because you're still relatively new to the game, your class, how things work, etc. That's why a lot of people roll alternate characters so frequently, because there's a lot of fun in "figuring out how X works". Unfortunately, after 20 levels or so, the newness wears away and there's not much variety anymore in killing creatures. That's when you then start introducing the more varied quests, such as the ones that encourage you to try different spells (or maybe a new one that you just picked up), etc.
Are you kidding? Are you telling me that a year ago when I was buying brand new games at $50 development of video games was completely different? That they diddn't have multi-million dollar development teams way back in good 'ol 2006?
...
When was the last time you saw the average price of any of those things jump by 20% OVERNIGHT? They haven't. In fact in a lot of cases those things are cheaper today than they were a couple of years ago. They have figured out how to produce content and publish it and turn a profit too!
Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that prices for standardized products like games can't be easily adjusted year to year. This is not like orange juice or gasoline, where prices can be changed almost daily. The easy answer to your comment is that the industry has been sitting on these inflationary pressures for several years, and now it's at a point where it makes sense to increment the game prices by a fixed amount (in this case, $10).
One example from another industry would be movie ticket prices. Every couple of years, it seems like the price to see a movie increases by 50 cents to a dollar (which sucks). But notice they do so at an interval that makes sense. It's not like they up the price by 12 cents one year, then 23 cents the next. And they may not do it every year either.
Now, I don't really know if inflation really is a major cause in game price increases. I'd need access to all sorts of data to see how much inflation really mattered in this. But to me, it's certainly plausible. Undoubtedly there are other issues at play too (publishers, developers, retailers needing more profit, etc.), but I also think it's unwise to totally discount inflation like you appear to be doing.
Inflation is really being thrown around here like it's some kind of GOLDEN WORD that explains why prices go up the way they do, and that we should just accept price increses because there is this obvious national force called INFLATION that surrounds all things with monetary value.
In the world of media publishing inflation is just not a factor. Look at DVDs, CDs, CD-ROMs, BOOKS, etc...
Inflation is being mentioned because it is an important economic statistic. Go talk to the Fed chief, and he might argue that it is a "GOLDEN WORD".:) (I listen to business news all the time, you might want to as well)
Other media, such as DVDs, CDs, books, follow the same "fixed price" principle as games (although to a lesser degree). Even their prices do go up after time. You should try looking up the prices of some of these items 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago (assuming those technologies existed).
Going back to the fixed price model (not sure of the exact term for this, btw), should the industry consider going away from that? Or at least lessen the impact? If instead games went up $5 two years ago, and then another $5 this year, would there be any less grumbling? On one hand, it makes sense to do it with the introduction of a new console generation. On the other hand, $10 is a fairly significant jump for some people.
Not to mention that if a game company did flatly say that they were adjusting game prices for the rate of inflation, every one of their employees would expect their salary to receive the same rate of increase.
I don't know about you, but my salary is actually adjusted by inflation to a degree. Is that not the case for most salaried workers in the tech industry? (Honest question, maybe I'm just lucky)
While it's not fair, probably, to expect "the greatest... game of all time" from Gabe and Tycho, it's probably fair to expect not to number among its shortcomings things they've criticized before about other games.
Yes, that's a very valid point. I think that's why I still expect a fun game from them, one that I am satisfied with. I don't think that's too tall an order to fill. But something beyond that (ie. something incredibly innovative, or deep, or "best ever"), not so much. (Obviously I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do achieve that)
Frankly, I'm surprised that more game companies just don't say "inflation" and basically end it at that (regardless of whether or not it actually is inflation). Most people are familiar with the general concept, as we all feel it in our normal lives (especially as it comes to things such as the cost of food and gas).
I read someone's comment about inflation, but that did not take into account the fact that many of the costs associated with developing a video game have decreased significantly as well.
Uhh, what? Can you provide an example? If anything, the opposite has occurred. Team sizes are a lot larger nowadays, which implies all of the additional costs that go with it (benefits, health, insurance, etc.). Production values are much higher. You tend to need a lot more people on your team. Gone are the days of "dev art". Same goes with sound, testing, management, and all the other things that go into making games nowadays. And of course, there's the marketing and promotional aspects to consider.
And along with all of this, you still have to consider inflation, and how that affects everything in some shape or form.
Yeah, of course I was bummed that game prices jumped up this generation. But considering inflation especially, I certainly wasn't surprised.
Good ideas often turn out to bad ideas, or lead to better and different ideas. The only way you can flush all that out is by trying those ideas and seeing where they go. Showing off that work-in-progress is tough, because there's a good chance that the final product will be very different. And forget about those last few layers of polish that really make your end result good. You don't want to waste time on that until you're really happy with the underlying product.
While I agree that iteration is important, it also depends on who you show that work-in-progress to. I think that's one of the biggest issues facing developers in the industry.
Gaming fans are, in general, not engineers. They don't know how game design and development functions, nor should they really be expected to. Unfortunately, that means when they are shown early builds of games, they often make bad assumptions. Lots of E3 builds are panned for their looks. That isn't fair at all for developers that tend to focus on implementing/tweaking/balancing gameplay first, and graphics later. (And arguably, I think that's the right thing to do) To some degree, the gaming media and press follow along with the fans, focusing on the "bells and whistles", simply because that's what the fans are most interested in. This is why early builds such as Shadowrun and Too Human got criticized heavily, especially when compared to games like Gears of War which demoed a lot better. (Obviously GoW was a lot farther along)
So, the danger in presenting your ideas out to the public is getting a lot of negative criticism where it doesn't really belong (graphics not ready yet). As a developer, you can just choose to ignore those bits, and focus on the criticism that is important (gameplay mechanics, play balance, etc.). Unfortunately, that ignores the business and marketing side of things. Bad press is bad press. It can also sap team morale.
That's why a lot of the things Dennis talks in the podcast (getting rid of previews totally, keeping a game hidden from everyone until it's actually done, etc.) are pretty interesting. Ultimately, though, I think it's all "pie in the sky" and likely won't happen. There are probably just as many games that benefit from optimistic hype (E3 builds that make the game seem better than it actually is), as there are ones that suffer from unfair negative hype.
At the risk of sounding inflamitory, considering how vocal the PA guys are about games that suck, this had better be one of the best adventure games of all time.
After all, you can't have such vocal critics of bad games actually be RESPONSIBLE for a bad game, right?
It's unfortunate that you, and many others, have similar expectations, because I don't think it's correct. Do you expert Ebert, the famed movie critic, to be able to make great movies? I hope not. Critiquing and creating are two very different activities, requiring different skillsets. Is it possible to be good at both? Of course, but it's certainly not a given.
You could argue that PA should be able to tell if they do make a bad game, and then decide not to ship it... but I think that's being rather short-sighted. It's one thing to realize that your product may not be so great, and another to actually pull the plug on it (and all the business ramifications thereof). Also, the mere act of being involved in the game's creation makes it impossible to be an objective critic. So PA won't be able to play the role as an unbiased critic, perhaps seeing things with rose-colored glasses when it comes to "their baby".
That said, I give them enormous kudos for going on this venture and wish them the best. But I'm not going to hold them up to the same high standards you guys seem to be. Do I want a game that I have fun with? Sure! But "best adventure game of all time" is a lot to ask for...
It's very interesting to see Penny Arcade on the "other side of the fence", so to speak... on the side of being a game developer, rather than just talking about them. You can definitely see this influencing some of their comments and blogs, for example their recent article on the controversial Denis Dyack / Too Human podcast. Dyack was on the EGM show lambasting one of the writers for calling last year's E3 demo "terrible". While he sounded quite insane and childish at times ("I'm telling you my game is awesome, you just have to believe me!"), he did make some interesting points regarding the state of media/press in the industry, especially when it comes to the notion of previewing really early builds of games.
At first, I was surprised to PA have such a calm response to Dyack's outburst. Other bloggers have said rather unpolite words to Dyack. But it makes sense, particularly because PA was probably in the middle of trying to make a similar decision. Should we show this early trailer of the game, or not? When it's "your baby", it does become quite personal if someone does criticize it really harshly.
I'm crossing my fingers that Squeenix continues the increased GBA and DS lovin' it's been showing recently for a while.
My only concern with Squeenix loving the DS is that being a portable title may limit the immersiveness of the experience. When I'm playing a traditional RPG, I usually set aside a long period of time (a couple hours) for me to play it. I do so on my couch, in front of a TV, all focused on the game. However, when I'm playing with my DS, that's usually not the case. I'm often only playing for a couple minutes at a time, and in some busy environment (such as on a plane, or in transit somehow). It's hard for me to be immersed in an RPG when I have to switch it off every couple of minutes, so I usually end up playing my DS RPGs lying in bed, at the end of the day when I have a couple hours to spare. But in that case, why not just play it on the TV instead?
That's why Dragon Quest IX is a mixed bag for me. I think it's very cool that it's coming exclusive to a Nintendo console. But being limited to the "relatively small" screens of the DS is disappointing. Of course, this can all change if Squeenix can do something incredibly innovative that can only be done using the DS-specific features (dual screen, stylus, etc.). And if that's the case, then I'd love to see what they can do with Wii-mote.
But if it ends up just being a typical J-RPG, just on a portable instead of a traditional console, then no matter how good the game is, there is going to be some disappointment because the experience in a portable game is somewhat limiting.
How funny, then, that Dragon Quest IX is coming out on the DS. It'll be interesting to see how it does with the system's graphical limitations compared to the game's predecessors. And yes, to those doubters out there, this is going to be the DQIX, as in it's not planned for any other systems and it is officially the next installment in the series.
Actually, I think the DQ series is becoming a good example of how to make a game look good, without necessarily requiring "immense graphical power". We all know that you aren't going to get Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, and FF XIII-level graphics on the Wii, depicting characters in a realistic style. But for stylized art (a la DQVIII or Eternal Sonata), it's certainly possible on the Wii. And frankly, some people prefer that style of graphics, versus the realistic "uncanney valley" characters of several next-gen RPGs (*cough* Oblivion *cough*).
I think the Wii probably said "Meanwhile, while you go on about graphics, my expanded player base dwarves yours."
To be fair, Sakaguchi-san (like several others) appear to be obsessed about graphics because, well, that's a main draw for their specific genre of games. The Final Fantasy franchise, which he is most famous for, also happens to boast some of the most impressive looking graphics for each generation. Critics of the Japanese RPG genre will complain that the actual storylines and gameplay for J-RPGs as a whole, aren't terribly innovative or haven't changed very much, and that everyone is essentially playing the same thing each year, only with better looking visuals. Even as a big fan of the genre, I do see truth in such statements.
Still, having impressive visuals do draw me. I think it has to do with the nature of the genre. Much of RPGs are about being immersed in the environment. It's easy for that to happen if the story is good and the visuals are appealing. The actual game mechanics themselves are quite secondary, which is why games like Dragon Quest VIII, which was very simplistic in gameplay, still did extraordinarily well. I should note that DQVIII didn't use realistic 3D imagery, but instead opted for extremely rich looking cel-shading, which was visually appealing.
That said, there is no reason why you can't have impressive looking RPGs on the Wii (perhaps focusing more on stylized art, rather than "raw polygon output") and innovative gameplay (actual sword swinging using the Wii-mote, etc.). If the player base continues to expand at the pace at it is, then no doubt this will happen. (Keep in mind that the Wii is still quite behind the 360 in worldwide sales, although that may change by the end of the year)
Nintendo is the only player who is basically a game designer first, hardware manufacturer second. They're first-party titles are about the only thing that will count for exclusive, unless they one day go Sega's route of only publishing games.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Halo 3 ported to PS3, after it's XBox 360 and PC run, of course. I wouldn't be shocked to see a Metal Gear title on something other than a playstation, like, say, gamecube.
This is silly. Halo 3 is being developed by Bungie, which is a first party studio that is owned by Microsoft. Metal Gear is developed by Konami, which is very much independent. There is no chance at all for Halo 3 to go to the PS3, unless you somehow envision MS being bought by Sony or something similarly insane. Equally impossible is the chance that a Sony first-party title, such as Gran Turismo, will be published on the 360, or a Mario game to show up on the PS3/360.
The only exception is in the portable space, where MS doesn't have a platform. There are already first-party IP that have been developed for Nintendo portables, such as Age of Empires DS.
It's interesting how fanboys of all consoles tend to have a very narrow view of things. Nintendo fanboys live and breath the Mario/Zelda/Metroid-universe, Xbox fanboys with Halo, Age of Empires, etc. and Playstation fanboys with Gran Turismo, SOCOM, etc. There are plenty of great first-party games available on all the big platforms, despite what fanboys might claim.
Well, the graphics look good, but if you've actually played a FPS on the 360 or PS3 on a real HDTV (40 or more inches, using an HDMI cable that 2/3 of consumers seem to forget), they may pale in comparison.
Not sure how the Wii-mote and Wii controller work with it - may add to the experience (or not).
No doubt that the graphics on a 360 or PS3 shooter will be better than one on the Wii. But that's not what I'm looking for.
I first started playing FPS games on the PC, titles such as DOOM, Quake, Counter-Strike, Half-Life 2, etc. I'm much more comfortable with the keyboard/mouse setup, than I am with the dual-analog stick in consoles. I always feel like a putz when playing shooters on the 360. What interests me is that the Wii controls, done right, could be a lot closer to the keyboard/mouse setup: nunchuck controls movement, and the Wii-mote offers precise control of the view and targeting.
Well, it's mostly because, for some reason I don't know, I have never been interested in Metroid Prime.
Not sure why, but if it's supposed to be for casual or family gamers, maybe it's the advertising.
I've never played a Metroid Prime game either, but I've also been a huge fan of the original 2D Metroid games. I think it's supposed to appeal to people like me, who also happen to like FPS games. But since I skipped out on the GameCube, and Metroid Prime DS didn't interest me, I guess the advertising failed.
However, I am interested in the one for the Wii, to see how Nintendo handles the controls for that game.
And the lineup for this year seems crammed full of good Wii games - my only concern is the paucity of decent RPG titles. Now if we could port a certain Molyneux game from the xBox...
Lionhead Studios, makers of Fable, were taken over by Microsoft Game Studios, so unfortunately for you, there's no chance of it being ported over to the Wii. That's too bad, since there were some pretty cool things revealed about Fable 2 at GDC.
As for RPGs for the Wii, I am looking forward to Super Paper Mario. It sounds like it's more platformer than RPG though, but should still be a quality game.
Of course, I still have to get a Wii first. It's March and it's still out of stock. Until it's just readily available at Best Buy or Costco next time I'm there, I won't be getting one. I refuse to do the whole waking up really early or calling stores constantly, etc. thing. There shouldn't be work involved in buying a console, especially one that's many months after ship... *grumbles*
Sigh. I guess that means it's time to see lots of sub-standard games ported to the Wii...
It does seem like there are a lot of ports coming to the Wii, especially from the DS and PS2 platforms. The 1UP Yours podcast a few weeks ago talked about this phenomenon in detail.
On one hand, there is the negative connotation that ports are generally "sub-standard". On the other hand, the DS and PS2 are extremely popular platforms with some amazing games on them. And having a large game library (more choices) isn't such a bad thing. After all, many of the successful consoles in history have had humongous libaries, often filled with "sub-standard" games and ports (SNES, PS, PS2). If anything, it's a good thing that the Wii is building a hefty library, since the GameCube scene was relatively bare.
We as arguably "hardcore gamers" (who spend time posting on Slashdot, reading reviews, watching G4TV, etc.) will fortunately know what games to avoid, and what to pick up. So in the end, it's not so bad for us. After all, there are quite a few people that do buy and enjoy these "sub-standard" games (to each their own).
You'll notice I didn't reply to the slurs against me from the parent - I calls them as I sees them, and (not amazingly) that's how the market is reacting.
Sorry if I offended you.:) I do enjoy the dialogue that we have, as someone who also regularly visits the game articles here. You do bring a very specific viewpoint of the industry (the mostly casual one), which I am particularly fond of since that's what I work on.
And probably that - the Wii-designed FPS titles - will be done by a third-party. It takes a certain mindset to deal with that. And Nintendo probably doesn't have enough of those people. At least the dev cost won't be high.
I really expect we won't see decent top-of-the-line FPS from Nintendo until probably the next gen console they are working on. Call of Duty is maybe half of the way there with COD3, but that's third party. And the multi-console strategy they're using means we shouldn't expect major revolutions in FPS until some other third party develops them.
I am surprised you haven't talked about Metroid Prime 3 for the Wii. While Red Steel was widely panned by critics and players alike, I am hoping that Nintendo does show developers the right way to use the Wii controls in their only first-party FPS title.
If anything, I don't think we'll see any decent FPS games for the Wii from third parties, since many of them will be ports. I imagine much of the development time is going to be spent on porting the engine from the 360 or PS3 to the Wii hardware, with unfortunately not much time focused on the control aspect itself. A lot of people were hoping that Red Steel would stand out, having been created from the ground up for the Wii, but being a launch game (with its compressed schedules and such) really hurt its development.
Slashdot Mirror
So yeah, if you're already good enough to be in a band, more power to you. Then Guitar Hero is just a cheap imitation. But for the rest of us, who don't have the time to learn guitar (especially enough to play these rock songs), I'll take the cheap imitation gladly, thankyouverymuch
Granted, those games don't cost the $200-300 that people are estimating that the entire Rock Band set will cost, but I think that's pretty weird thinking in the first place. I have a bunch of friends who are excited about the game. We'll probably end up buying just the one edition of the game with the instrument that we want to focus on. It also helps that the game will be compatible with existing guitar controllers, so that actually reduces the cost quite a bit if you already have them.
As someone who knows how to play various instruments (having been in band/orchestra for many years), I will say that playing an instrument when you're good at it, can be a lot of fun. However, there's also the years upon years of experience of practice that it takes. And even then, it's obvious that most folks just won't ever have the talent that rock stars have.
On the other hand, with much less practice, I can play a video game that simulates the skill involved in playing a musical instrument. It's immersive (crowds cheering for me) and I'm playing actual songs that I like (versus "Row row row your boat" for the first few weeks while learning a real instrument). Furthermore, since it's easy for me to pick up and learn, it's probably easy for my friends as well. So, in short time, my buddy and I can get in some awesome, and fun, guitar duos.
Of course Guitar Hero II should not be an actual replacement for learning guitar, but it was never meant to be. Just because it's impractical in that sense, though, doesn't mean it's a stupid idea of a game.
On a personal note, I have noticed that a lot of my fellow former-musician friends also have taken a liking to Guitar Hero. Your comments seem to imply that we'd be the first to realize that a game like Guitar Hero is a waste of time. It's actually the opposite. Since we've all understand how much time and energy it took to master our respective instruments (for myself, it was the violin and the trumpet), we know that it can take months, if not years, to get good enough at the guitar to even come close to playing some of the well-known rock songs. The decision ultimately becomes quite simple. I'll take rocking with Van Halen in only a few hours, thank-you-very-much.
However, at the end of the day, there is still a lot of "twitch element" to the game, as well as the skill of knowing when to switch strategies.
I believe Arena PvP is similar to Starcraft. There are lots of strategies to SC that you can read up on (build orders, how pull off a Zerg rush, how to defend against such a rush, etc.). Same goes for WoW PvP (what specs to use, how to battle against a warlock, how to fully utilize your skills as a rogue, etc.). However with both, there's the "twitch" aspects that make up the skill. In Starcraft, you have to have fast enough reflexes to make your moves, know when to switch strategies, etc. In WoW, it's the same as there are lots of timed button presses, moving into the right position, knowing how to react, when to switch strategies, etc.
Walmart does carry the PS3 (and other expensive items, such as HDTVs), and yes, it isn't included in the NPD.
That said, we have to work with what we've got. While incomplete, that doesn't mean the NPD numbers are completely useless. It just means you have to take it with a grain of salt. The industry and media have been using the numbers for quite some time now, and even though it's incomplete, they are generally a good sign of sales trends. Essentially, that means the numbers that are missing (big-box retailers, online sellers) either aren't contributing that much in extra sales, or (more likely) they don't skew the data one way or another.
To be fair to both sides of the "console fanboy war", it's difficult to make comparisons of the PS3 launch to the Wii/360 one, because of the supply constraints with the latter consoles. It's far too early for "either side" to declare victory any time soon. Both anti-Sony fanboys, and the pro-Sony fanboys, should go on vacation for a few weeks, and come back when the sales numbers can be compared more adequately. Then, it will be a lot harder for anyone to "spin the numbers".
The Wii and 360 were supply-constrained, so they sold out 100% of their respective shipments. I don't know exactly what they were, but seem to recall around the 100k number. A cynic would say that the reason why the PS3 broke records is only because the competition couldn't make enough to sell. On the other hand, having enough supply to meet demand isn't exactly a bad thing either. On the gripping hand, having a lot of product sitting on store shelves isn't going to make retailers very happy.
The numbers are going to be the most interesting a few weeks after launch. If the launch numbers reflect everyone who wanted a PS3, well, that's obviously a bad sign for Sony. However, if we see comparable sales numbers in the coming weeks and months, then it's a sign that demand is still flowing and isn't just one-time.
Overall, I thought the article was rather well written. There were certainly parts of it that I disagreed with, but as someone who has played MMORPGs for years (including currently WoW), I can see a lot of the points he makes.
One idea that popped up while reading this, was varying quests by level in an MMORPG (addressing points #1 and #2 of the article, namely boring gameplay and grinding). Anyone who has played WoW knows that most of the quests boil down to the following archetypes:
1) Fetch X number of Y objects
2) Kill Z things
3) Escort X from point A to B (keeping it alive)
Then there are quests that combine the above (such as fetch X items, but you can only do it by killing Z creatures).
First of all, there really needs to be more variance in the type of quests that are available. The Burning Crusade expansion for WoW started seeing more of this (the bombing quest comes to mind).
I think there's a lot that can be done, if there were more class-specific quests. One of the reasons why the current quests are so generic, is because they have to be solvable by anyone. It doesn't assume quests are done by any particular class. Well, why not? As a rogue, I have a ton of interesting abilities at my disposal. I would love to have quests that forced me to use some of the lesser-used skills and talents that I have, as it would certainly mix things up. (And I might learn a new thing or two)
Once you have more variety in the types of quests available, I think the next thing you want to do is disperse them. I think the simple "kill X creature" quests are actually fine for the initial levels, because you're still relatively new to the game, your class, how things work, etc. That's why a lot of people roll alternate characters so frequently, because there's a lot of fun in "figuring out how X works". Unfortunately, after 20 levels or so, the newness wears away and there's not much variety anymore in killing creatures. That's when you then start introducing the more varied quests, such as the ones that encourage you to try different spells (or maybe a new one that you just picked up), etc.
One example from another industry would be movie ticket prices. Every couple of years, it seems like the price to see a movie increases by 50 cents to a dollar (which sucks). But notice they do so at an interval that makes sense. It's not like they up the price by 12 cents one year, then 23 cents the next. And they may not do it every year either.
Now, I don't really know if inflation really is a major cause in game price increases. I'd need access to all sorts of data to see how much inflation really mattered in this. But to me, it's certainly plausible. Undoubtedly there are other issues at play too (publishers, developers, retailers needing more profit, etc.), but I also think it's unwise to totally discount inflation like you appear to be doing. Inflation is being mentioned because it is an important economic statistic. Go talk to the Fed chief, and he might argue that it is a "GOLDEN WORD".
Other media, such as DVDs, CDs, books, follow the same "fixed price" principle as games (although to a lesser degree). Even their prices do go up after time. You should try looking up the prices of some of these items 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago (assuming those technologies existed).
Going back to the fixed price model (not sure of the exact term for this, btw), should the industry consider going away from that? Or at least lessen the impact? If instead games went up $5 two years ago, and then another $5 this year, would there be any less grumbling? On one hand, it makes sense to do it with the introduction of a new console generation. On the other hand, $10 is a fairly significant jump for some people.
Frankly, I'm surprised that more game companies just don't say "inflation" and basically end it at that (regardless of whether or not it actually is inflation). Most people are familiar with the general concept, as we all feel it in our normal lives (especially as it comes to things such as the cost of food and gas).
And along with all of this, you still have to consider inflation, and how that affects everything in some shape or form.
Yeah, of course I was bummed that game prices jumped up this generation. But considering inflation especially, I certainly wasn't surprised.
Gaming fans are, in general, not engineers. They don't know how game design and development functions, nor should they really be expected to. Unfortunately, that means when they are shown early builds of games, they often make bad assumptions. Lots of E3 builds are panned for their looks. That isn't fair at all for developers that tend to focus on implementing/tweaking/balancing gameplay first, and graphics later. (And arguably, I think that's the right thing to do) To some degree, the gaming media and press follow along with the fans, focusing on the "bells and whistles", simply because that's what the fans are most interested in. This is why early builds such as Shadowrun and Too Human got criticized heavily, especially when compared to games like Gears of War which demoed a lot better. (Obviously GoW was a lot farther along)
So, the danger in presenting your ideas out to the public is getting a lot of negative criticism where it doesn't really belong (graphics not ready yet). As a developer, you can just choose to ignore those bits, and focus on the criticism that is important (gameplay mechanics, play balance, etc.). Unfortunately, that ignores the business and marketing side of things. Bad press is bad press. It can also sap team morale.
That's why a lot of the things Dennis talks in the podcast (getting rid of previews totally, keeping a game hidden from everyone until it's actually done, etc.) are pretty interesting. Ultimately, though, I think it's all "pie in the sky" and likely won't happen. There are probably just as many games that benefit from optimistic hype (E3 builds that make the game seem better than it actually is), as there are ones that suffer from unfair negative hype.
You could argue that PA should be able to tell if they do make a bad game, and then decide not to ship it
That said, I give them enormous kudos for going on this venture and wish them the best. But I'm not going to hold them up to the same high standards you guys seem to be. Do I want a game that I have fun with? Sure! But "best adventure game of all time" is a lot to ask for
It's very interesting to see Penny Arcade on the "other side of the fence", so to speak ... on the side of being a game developer, rather than just talking about them. You can definitely see this influencing some of their comments and blogs, for example their recent article on the controversial Denis Dyack / Too Human podcast. Dyack was on the EGM show lambasting one of the writers for calling last year's E3 demo "terrible". While he sounded quite insane and childish at times ("I'm telling you my game is awesome, you just have to believe me!"), he did make some interesting points regarding the state of media/press in the industry, especially when it comes to the notion of previewing really early builds of games.
At first, I was surprised to PA have such a calm response to Dyack's outburst. Other bloggers have said rather unpolite words to Dyack. But it makes sense, particularly because PA was probably in the middle of trying to make a similar decision. Should we show this early trailer of the game, or not? When it's "your baby", it does become quite personal if someone does criticize it really harshly.
That's why Dragon Quest IX is a mixed bag for me. I think it's very cool that it's coming exclusive to a Nintendo console. But being limited to the "relatively small" screens of the DS is disappointing. Of course, this can all change if Squeenix can do something incredibly innovative that can only be done using the DS-specific features (dual screen, stylus, etc.). And if that's the case, then I'd love to see what they can do with Wii-mote.
But if it ends up just being a typical J-RPG, just on a portable instead of a traditional console, then no matter how good the game is, there is going to be some disappointment because the experience in a portable game is somewhat limiting.
Still, having impressive visuals do draw me. I think it has to do with the nature of the genre. Much of RPGs are about being immersed in the environment. It's easy for that to happen if the story is good and the visuals are appealing. The actual game mechanics themselves are quite secondary, which is why games like Dragon Quest VIII, which was very simplistic in gameplay, still did extraordinarily well. I should note that DQVIII didn't use realistic 3D imagery, but instead opted for extremely rich looking cel-shading, which was visually appealing.
That said, there is no reason why you can't have impressive looking RPGs on the Wii (perhaps focusing more on stylized art, rather than "raw polygon output") and innovative gameplay (actual sword swinging using the Wii-mote, etc.). If the player base continues to expand at the pace at it is, then no doubt this will happen. (Keep in mind that the Wii is still quite behind the 360 in worldwide sales, although that may change by the end of the year)
The only exception is in the portable space, where MS doesn't have a platform. There are already first-party IP that have been developed for Nintendo portables, such as Age of Empires DS.
It's interesting how fanboys of all consoles tend to have a very narrow view of things. Nintendo fanboys live and breath the Mario/Zelda/Metroid-universe, Xbox fanboys with Halo, Age of Empires, etc. and Playstation fanboys with Gran Turismo, SOCOM, etc. There are plenty of great first-party games available on all the big platforms, despite what fanboys might claim.
I first started playing FPS games on the PC, titles such as DOOM, Quake, Counter-Strike, Half-Life 2, etc. I'm much more comfortable with the keyboard/mouse setup, than I am with the dual-analog stick in consoles. I always feel like a putz when playing shooters on the 360. What interests me is that the Wii controls, done right, could be a lot closer to the keyboard/mouse setup: nunchuck controls movement, and the Wii-mote offers precise control of the view and targeting.
However, I am interested in the one for the Wii, to see how Nintendo handles the controls for that game.
As for RPGs for the Wii, I am looking forward to Super Paper Mario. It sounds like it's more platformer than RPG though, but should still be a quality game.
Of course, I still have to get a Wii first. It's March and it's still out of stock. Until it's just readily available at Best Buy or Costco next time I'm there, I won't be getting one. I refuse to do the whole waking up really early or calling stores constantly, etc. thing. There shouldn't be work involved in buying a console, especially one that's many months after ship
On one hand, there is the negative connotation that ports are generally "sub-standard". On the other hand, the DS and PS2 are extremely popular platforms with some amazing games on them. And having a large game library (more choices) isn't such a bad thing. After all, many of the successful consoles in history have had humongous libaries, often filled with "sub-standard" games and ports (SNES, PS, PS2). If anything, it's a good thing that the Wii is building a hefty library, since the GameCube scene was relatively bare.
We as arguably "hardcore gamers" (who spend time posting on Slashdot, reading reviews, watching G4TV, etc.) will fortunately know what games to avoid, and what to pick up. So in the end, it's not so bad for us. After all, there are quite a few people that do buy and enjoy these "sub-standard" games (to each their own).
If anything, I don't think we'll see any decent FPS games for the Wii from third parties, since many of them will be ports. I imagine much of the development time is going to be spent on porting the engine from the 360 or PS3 to the Wii hardware, with unfortunately not much time focused on the control aspect itself. A lot of people were hoping that Red Steel would stand out, having been created from the ground up for the Wii, but being a launch game (with its compressed schedules and such) really hurt its development.