At DICE this year, Chris Taylor of Gas Powered Games (developer of the Dungeon Siege games and the just-released Supreme Commander title) had a very intersting talk regarding improving work/life balance at his company. It appears that you don't really need a "work-till-you-drop" work schedule to ship big games after all.
I think it's an interesting, and necessary, shift in the game development culture. As the industry matures, so does its business practices. Understandably, there are lots of passionate folks who prefer to stay up late to work on their game, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to. Additionally, those who stay up late may actually be contributing negatively to the product (decisions and code generated at 2 AM may not be the best).
So yeah, I agree that the typical hardcore work development schedules need to change... but that doesn't mean you have to move your studio East to achieve them.
I don't know about GRAW, since I haven't played it, but I can speak a little to Crackdown and Saint's Row, having played a lot of both. (Yes, I got the retail copy of Crackdown before it officially released)
Both Crackdown and Saint's Row certainly have your fair share of hispanic thugs that you take down. But to be fair, they also have several other gangs of various ethnic types. Saint's Row has your stereotypical rap-listening, gold-chain wearing African-American gang that you have to take down, as well as your stereotypical car-modding, street racing Asian thugs. Crackdown also has your stereotypical communist-loving, heavy metal listening, ultra-punk Eastern European gang, and a stereotypical rich, technology-loving, Asian gang.
Note how many times I said stereotypical in that last paragraph. It's because it's true. As an Asian-American myself, yeah I can say that I had fun playing those games, but it still irks me everytime these racial stereotypes are used in games. No doubt, developers also poke fun at other races as well. For example, there's a hilarious radio station in Saint's Row that makes fun of the Religious Right as racist, scientifically-backwards nut jobs (similar to the Colbert Report on Comedy Central).
That said, it would be nice if games didn't have to resort to racial stereotyping, no matter if it is "fair" by equally making fun of every race. Just because it's fair doesn't necessarily make it "fine" or "okay". It's perpetually reinforcing these stereotypes, no matter how incorrect they may be. Not every Italian guy is a member of the mob, or every Christian a racist hick, or Muslim a terrorist threat, or every Asian a kung-fu expert, etc.
Unfortunately, I know why developers continue to do this in games. Simply put, it sells. And I know I'm guilty and hypocritical because I still buy these games despite it.
A lot of this commentary is still focused on Nintendo's old core "hardcore" fanbase. Metroid Prime? Super Smash Bros? Even Super Mario Galaxy... these are not games that are going to be consumed by the new casual owners of the Wii (folks like your parents and even grandparents). So what if the only game your parents play is Wii Sports, and they only turn it on to entertain their friends/family/guests? Your father is not suddenly going to be a hardcore player of Zelda, nor should that expectation be there. The next title they will pick up might be Wii Play. Critics will complain, "Wii Play is just more of the same Wii Sports type of action", and they'll be right. So yeah, it's not that great for typical hardcore gamers that want 10+ hours of content in their games... but it's perfect for mom and pop which still consume the Wii casually. And that's the point.
All you need to do is take a look at the DS to see where Nintendo is going with the Wii. You've got a ton of light, casual content, in the form of brain training, casual sims (Nintendogs) and light puzzlers. Plus in Japan, there are all sorts of "non-games" (cookbooks, dictionaries, etc.). In the meantime, because the userbase is there and so large, there's plenty of traditional "hardcore" content as well (Castlevania, RPGs, etc.) to keep the main fanbase pleased.
I think it's a bloody smart business model to adopt. However, it's going to take a while for it to take shape on the Wii, just like it took a year to develop for the DS. Just be patient, gamers. In the meantime, there are all sorts of other games to play on "those other consoles", if you prefer the traditional hardcore games.
Like your friend, I'd probably quit it, too. If game is designed to force player restart then the game world should go on and not reset when restarting. Otherwise it feels like a cheap trick to force same content again instead of making effort to create continuous story.
On one hand, the traditional gamer in me agrees with you. I hate it when games force you to backtrack through old levels and such, without adding much extra... thus making it seem like the developers are just "padding" the length of the game (*cough* Halo *cough*).
However, I don't think it's a hard and fast rule that such a mechanic is bad. I'm all for creativity and innovation, if done such a way that it doesn't feel like a cheap trick. I was expecting my 2nd (and 3rd) runs through Dead Rising to be boring and monotonous, but it really wasn't. In fact, I would argue that some early game encounters CANNOT be done on a first playthrough, since the main character just wouldn't have enough health and other stats to get through them.
The problem is that the messaging to players really could have been done better, or it could have been made somehow more natural. That I can agree with.
First of all, Planescape: Torment... awesome game. It arguably sports the best plot/story in an RPG ever. Just wanted to get that out of the way.:)
It does take a little while to get your head around dying on purpose though.
Dead Rising has a similar purpose (dying on purpose). The main character is definitely not immortal. However, upon dying, you can choose to either reload from your last save point, or "save and quit" which actually saves your current stats, quits the current game, and forces you to restart from the beginning.
At first, it sounds dumb. Why would you ever want to replay parts of the game again? For a long time, I resisted doing this. However, the game got extraordinarily difficult after a while, and I eventually got myself locked into an unwinnable situation: I had saved the game at a certain part of a mission, and there was literally not enough time for me to complete it in time, thus forcing a "game over" scenario every time. Grudgingly, I accepted my fate, and did the "save and quit" method.
Surprisingly, I had a blast going through the beginning part of the game again. Having your skills carry over (which in Dead Rising equates to some very important things such as health, stats, special moves, and item capacity) made the initial parts of the game a LOT easier. And since I had a good idea of what was going on, I could position myself to "be in the right place at the right time". Thus, this second playthrough ended up being a lot different than my first run.
I almost think that Dead Rising was designed so that the player would have to restart over at some point. However, it's too bad that this was not messaged appropriately. I have a friend who quit the game, complaining that it was "impossibly hard", since he refused to restart the game over.
I wish we could dump the term "hardcore", since it is so confusing now. I am someone who plays typically hardcore games (shooters, RTS games, etc.), but not nearly as much as I used to, or compared to other typical fans of those genres. Does that make me a "casual hardcore gamer"?
Granted, I can understand why the term came into existence. In the past, it was thought that anyone who played hardcore games generally put a lot of time into it. Those who played casual games, generally didn't spend too much time with them. Either that isn't the case anymore, or it's always been mixed up and we're just noticing it more now.
I stand by my assertion that the number of gamers who play with hardcore frequency is higher now then it's ever been.
I definitely agree here. However, I think what the original story is implying is that the percentage of hardcore gamers (distinguished either by the types of games they play, or the frequency at which they play them) among all gamers is decreasing. That I can agree with, as the whole games industry is definitely becoming more and more mainstream and accepted (gamers getting older, having families, raising kids who are gamers as well, etc.). There are just so many more gaming options as well, besides the typical hardcore games... most notably casual web games and mobile/cell-phone games. Then there's also this huge thing called the DS Lite as well...
I find it interesting that you cite the community behind the hardcore casual game crowd, as I strongly believe it's the community aspects of modern games that are the driving force behind creating more and more hardcore gamers.
I agree completely. One game that I definitely play with hardcore frequency is World of Warcraft. There are many people in my guild (mostly made up of working adults like me) where WoW is their "first game" in a way. The reason they keep coming back day after day is not necessarily the game itself, but the social aspects. Games are what get people in at first, but it's the community that keeps them coming back again and again and again. I argue that this has been proven in games of all genres, from casual to hardcore titles.
Actually, when I think of casual games I think of the games that my wife plays: JewelQuest, solitare, and mine sweeper. I wouldn't class a "Pixar Cars" game as a casual game. It may be a kid game, but it that still doesn't mean that it can't be difficult for the casual adult gamer. (Heck, I played one of my kids Sponge Bob's game to try to get them past a level to the next save stop and I was surprised that it was hard. It had limitless lives, but the task (racing course) was difficult for even me, which startled me.)
You are correct that typical casual games are titles such as Bejeweled, Zuma, Solitaire, and Minesweeper. There are, though, several similarities between licensed fare and casual games, such as being cheaper to develop and being targeted to a much wider audience than typical hardcore games. But you're right that there are enough differences between movie games and casual games to split them apart.
I propose a new category for these movie/franchised titles: mainstream games. They're not exactly your typical casual or hardcore titles, but one thing is for certain... they are meant to be consumed by as wide an audience as possible. I think it's pretty similar to other content considered mainstream (American Idol, one-hit-wonder pop bands, generic action movies, and most TV sitcoms). The quality may not be that great, but they sure are popular!
I think the point the GP was trying to make (and I agree with) is that contrary to what the article is claiming "hardcore" shouldn't be based on the types of games being purchased. IMO "hardcore" describes the amount of time someone sets aside out of the rest of their life to game.
Although I certainly think you have a point here, as someone who works in the Casual Games industry, I should point out that the term "casual gamer" is different that what you might expect. It's basically a consumer of casual games, which are your lighter-fare titles such as Bejeweled, Hearts, Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. I think it's sort of an open question whether or not this includes licensed/franchised games as well (games based on movies, etc.), but I am inclined to think that it would. Those titles often share characteristics found in typical casual game fare, such as being relatively cheap to produce, and often having lighter game mechanics (thus more approachable to people of all ages and game experience).
If you only ever play Happy Feet, Cars, Open Season, and countless other cheap poorly rated franchised games but you play them every waking moment, I'd say that you're a hardcore gamer.
Ironically, in the casual games industry, there are certainly "hardcore casual gamers". Yes, it sounds like an oxymoron, but it isn't. One great example are the gamers at Pogo.com. The games on that site are definitely considered "casual" by many, yet the point incentives and community features of the site often draw users (typically 30+ year old women) to spend literally hours a day, playing their favorite games there. So yes, they are considered to be "hardcore casual gamers", much like the person in your example (someone who plays hours of cheap licensed/franchised titles).
I don't want to get into a semantics argument, since I agree that the terms casual and hardcore can be bloody confusing, depending on who you're talking to. But I wanted to give everyone some context of what the industry usage of "casual" means.
First of all, I completely agree with the other comments regarding this guy's blog. It's not an article. Why do we care about some random guy's comments? If it was some well-known game developer or industry veteran, then maybe that would be Slashdot worthy. But as far as I can tell, he's just some story writer on a game site I haven't heard of. I'm not saying the site or the writer is bad, per say, just that it's not exactly newsworthy...
But in any case, I think one point he misses out is that some games are better suited than others for the multiplayer experience. I agree that a lot of the multiplayer games on Nintendo platforms (particularly the N64 era), were great experiences. Many of those games, though, were almost party games in a way, as they almost seemed to rely on having that close contact with your friends (high-fiving, smack-talking, controller-trading experience). And he's right, those type of games don't really translate well online.
However, there are many games which do perfectly well through online multiplayer, or are even made better by it. Team-based shooting games, is one great example. I've been playing some Rainbow Six: Vegas with friends, doing both cooperative story missions, and team multiplayer. Having the full screen to myself, as well as voice communication, really adds to the experience (as well as make it quite realistic). This is not something that would translate very well to split-screen action. It would work very well in a LAN environment, but let's be serious. Those are difficult to setup, and certainly not something you can do every day easily, unless you all happen to live in a close environment (college dorms or such).
The other big example is MMORPGs. Obviously having online multiplayer is a necessity. We all know how popular World of Warcraft is.
So in short, saying "Online Multiplayer Isn't That Important" doesn't mean much to me. What type of games is he talking about? It's certainly true in some circumstances, but not in others.
Think of a movie as disturbing as The Woodsman, where Kevin Bacon played a child molester. What minority would've touched that role? Forest Whitaker, maybe, because he seems to be willing to take odd roles, but I don't know of any other. I'm not actually offended by whites playing bible-thumping zealots or serial killers, because that's part of human frailty that you're going to see in film and on TV. But I think people would cry "racism" if an asian murderer (much less black or hispanic) was slowly torturing Scarlett Johansson in the latest blockbuster.
I haven't seen the Woodsman, so I can't comment specifically on that role. In any case, I guess it's a difference in opinion because I don't think people would cry "racism" if such a role was done well. I'm really not sure why they would, other than someone misunderstanding that minorities want to be somehow "protected" from such roles. If the role is done well (much like how Anthony Hopkins perfected the role of Hannibal Lecter), then why can't an Asian actor portray a sadistic killer? As I said before, frankly I'd like to see more Asian-Americans in serious roles beyond the "he does martial arts" fluff we tend to get.
Now I can agree that a minority actor probably would not like the role at all, if it was put in some stereotypical light. For example, "black gang member torturing a white cop" or "Asian mafia gangbanger on a killing spree". Those would be continuations of bad racial stereotypes, which really does no one any good.
I believe you're overestimating American culture. I like to think we're getting better, but we have a long way to go. But something tells me that all cultures are susceptible to stereotypes. I was in Thailand a few years ago and met a Japanese guy. When he found out that I was from Texas, he asked me, "Are you a cowboy?" I said, "No--are you a samurai?" We both got a good laugh out of it, but it made me think about how we all see each other. I worked with a black woman who said once of another co-worker (Chinese), "I bet he knows kung fu." My response was, "I bet you have a great jump shot." She got it, and we had a shared joke from then on.
Thanks for that great story!:) I do wish more folks like you had that type of experience. As a lot of Americans unfortunately discover as they travel around the world, racism is NOT an American-only product. I agree that American culture is getting better, but as you put it, does have some ways to go.
But I'm still trying to get that Jamaican woman I work with to make me some Jerk chicken.
That reminds me that there's a difference between racial stereotypes and heritage. Being Asian, it's definately true that I grew up eating a lot of Asian cuisine, so yeah, I wouldn't mind at all talking about Asian food at all. But then again, I've also heard the stupid stereotypes of "Oh, you must love rice and eat it all the time" or something similar. I suppose it's all about how you bring it up.:)
Dude, when you're stuck as the NASCAR-luvin' redneck, or the bible-thumping zealot, or as the serial killer (every damned last one of them), then I'll cry you a river.
That's not really fair, since there are more than enough examples of caucasians in leading roles as the good guy as well: action stars, boxing champs, primary love interest, you name it.
But are asians always the sidekicks now? Jackie Chan is always either the star or an equal half of a buddy arrangement, and Chow Yun Fat (is that his name?) is the main character in his movies.
You may not know it, but most of the films you've seen of them actually originate from Hong Kong. And go figure, much of the ones brought over have them in the role as the ass-kicking martial artist, because it makes the most money. I'm not complaining about their roles, since at least they do have starring roles in films for once, and I really do enjoy their movies. However, I'd be rich man if I got a dollar for every person that asked if I knew martial arts just because my nationality.:)
I agree that you're typecast, but Hollywood isn't known for complex, nuanced characters. They're going to play it safe. You can't have the full range of character development if you aren't willing to be the stupid guy or the bad guy once in a while. Would the asian activist groups (there have to be some out there, I'm guessing) be okay with an asian serial killer? Child molester/murderer? Really stupid guy? Or would they decry negative stereotypes?
First of all, yes, of course there are Asian-American culture/activist groups. What would make you think otherwise?
And no, if there happened to be an Asian-American casted in a "bad role", where his/her race really didn't picture into it, of course I wouldn't mind. That's sort of a stupid question to ask. Do you get pissed off when there's a white guy portrayed as a bible-thumping zealot or a serial killer? Oh wait, you do.
You know, there ARE bible-thumping zealots, serial killers, child molesters, corrupt politicians, and idiots of all races. Caucasians, unfortunately, don't have a lock on those roles. I'm fine with Asian-Americans being cast in those negative roles, of course provided they have opportunities to be put in positive ones as well... that aren't your type-casted racial stereotypes.
and the newer Saints Row - the character should be black. Face it; its gangstah-style, white people only look silly trying to do the whole gangster-thing.
In Saint's Row, you can totally customize your character's appearance. So I made him look exactly like me (an Asian-American), although perhaps bit more beefier and muscular.:)
It seemed silly at first, but it fit in pretty well. For those who don't know, Saint's Row actually has you dealing with gangs of various different ethnicities. There's your stereotypical black, hispanic, and asian gangs. So actually, it was fairly racial agnostic I'd say (or rather, made fun of all races equally?). There's also a hilarious in-game radio station that really poked fun at right-wing religious conservatives (think the Colbert Report from Comedy Central).
As an Asian American myself, I would at least like fewer racial stereotypes in games. How many times in games is Asian guy relegated to the "smart side-kick who's good at math and gadgets" or the "obligatory I-know-martial-arts" guy? Or an Asian woman is the "sexy, sleek I-know-martial-arts" girl? Well, I guess you could carry over those same stereotypes into all forms of media (TV and movies as well).
Anyone know if there's similar precendent for the manager firing for alcohol/tobacco sales? For example, if I manage a 7-Eleven store, and one of my cashiers sells beer to a minor without checking ID (and gets caught doing so), then I'm also libel to get fired?
I am guessing the answer is no, which makes it odd for GameStop to enforce such a policy in their own stores. For one thing, it's actually illegal to sell alcohol/tobacco to a minor, whereas it's not that way with M-rated games. So it seems odd to make such a strict policy for something that's not even technically illegal, and much safer than alcohol/tobacco.
That said, I do agree that the clerk him/herself should be severely reprimanded/fired. Why have a rating system at all, if it's not going to be enforced? It would take a lot of the "oomph" out of the sails of these anti-video-game lawyers/politicians, if we could show that the rating system is actually enforced properly. (Plus, reducing the amount of whiny 12-year old kids in my online FPS shooters, is surely a good thing)
I think you, sir, are the troll. Could you throw FUD or accusations of murder or attempted murder after the fact in the direction of FSF or Linux Users?
I hesitated to make that last comment because, you're right... it does seem troll-ish. I didn't mean to insinuate that FSF or Linux Users are just "potential murderers and ticking time bombs" by any means. (I actually have a lot of respect for that community, and know people in it) My point was, though, that every community does have it's zealots, which unfortunately do more bad than good. I know there are certainly pro-MS zealots as well. As always, there's always the chance that one bad apple can spoil the barrel. One unfortunate analogy would be the Pro-Life movement, and how abortion clinic bombers have soiled their reputation. Of course the vast majority of Pro-Life folks really condone those violent actions, but whether or not the general public is able to move past that perception is a different thing entirely. (And no, I am not a Pro-Life guy either)
By doing it now, you are claiming us of a zealotry (no, internet posts don't count, especially when someone releases steam) that has not surfaced yet...
I sincerely hope that it just remains, as you said, someone "releasing steam". Looking at a lot of the AC replies to my comments, though, you can see that it's... quite a bit of steam.:)
I could respond to each one and explain my viewpoints and opinions, but that would take a lot of time... and I'm not even sure it would be heard. (However, I would be willing to talk to people about this stuff, say over drinks in a bar or something. Much easier to communicate in person, than over Slashdot posts) But I do appreciate that there are a lot of people that are understanding, and that it's often the company that people have a beef with, and not every individual that happens to work there.
I hate to quibble, but I have played an 8-player system link game of Halo with buddies, and it wasn't earth shattering. I'm one of the few that finds Halo grossly overrated.
Maybe I'd get into Madden, or NCAA online, or maybe GRAW. But people keep telling me that Halo online is the Holy Grail of gaming experiences. I'm guessing that they haven't played a whole lot of PC FPS games online before.
I agree with you, and this is coming from someone who works in MS Game Studios and knows folk that work at Bungie. I'm not saying that Halo was bad by any means, just that it really is an evolution of FPS multiplayer gaming, brought down to the console. It's good, but for me, it's not the "holy grail" of gaming either.
One thing I've noticed that's common with those who DO think that Halo is "DA BOMB", is that it was their first FPS multiplayer experience. My brother, who is younger by 2 years, mentioned to me that Halo was the big game on campus when he was in school. You could apparently walk down the halls and hear the raucos sounds of frat boys lobbing plasma grenades and cursing at their friends. For me and my friends, it was Counter-Strike on the PC (and the sounds of players purchasing guns at the beginning of each round). So we take a look at Halo and think, "Ahh, that's interesting. An FPS on a console. Neato." It's cool, but not exactly earth shattering. (Besides, we played other FPS games, like Goldeneye, quite a bit already)
I do think that one thing that the whole Xbox Live experience has done, though, is a natural migration of one-room LAN and System-Link parties, into being able to play from your own home. Now that my friends and I have "grown up" (no longer living close together in college), being able to simulate some aspect of that FPS multiplayer experience is handy. Obviously it has its upsides (being able to play with a friend across the country) and downsides (having to listen to whiny 12-year olds and their smack talk).
Disclaimer: I work at MS, although in the Games studios, and no where near the Windows and Office division. We're sort of the red-headed step-child of MS, since we were not exactly "corporate". I can't really comment on the original story, since I have no idea if it's true/FUD, and I don't have insight to give (other than yeah, it seems really slimey).
maybe someone should shoot them in the motherfucking head.
First of all, I know this is just a troll. Yet, it's quotes like these which make me wonder just how crazy/zealous people can be. I worry that there will be an incident years from now, where some anti-MS nut swings by Redmond and starts capping who has an MS parking thing on their car, or carries their MS badge. Obviously it's bad for anyone who works at MS when they start have to fearing their lives, but it would also be horrible for things like the FSF or Linux-fans as it could make them look bad, in the eyes of a Joe User (who doesn't follow the tech industry).
Wait, there's MMORPGs where you can solo? The whole game? Funny how he doesn't name the MMO he's talking about, because it likely doesn't exist. Eventually, you're forced to group.:[
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the whole game", but you can certainly solo from level 1 to 70 in World of Warcraft. I'm not talking about just grinding endlessly on mobs either. There are plenty of quests that can be done solo, across all the different classes. Granted, some classes may have it easier than others, but it's possible.
In fact, having the game being so easy to solo is actually a problem at the later levels, when many folks do start grouping more often to tackle the dungeons. It becomes very apparent (and painful) when you are in a pick-up group with folks that really don't know key things such as aggro management, crowd control, etc. since they've been soloing the vast majority of the game.
There's spectaters for about anything. And sponsors will follow.
People watch bowling. Pool. Pro Paintball. Once late at night I caught a demolition style "race" of trucks pulling campers (the drivers had sponsors).
It doesn't really take much of an audience to get sponsors. The key to lining them up is for the event organizers to make it clear to the sponsors who will be seeing their ads. If the spectaters interests and the sponsors are in agreement, then the deal works. I'd bet one could find sponsors for snail racing because there will be someone watching.
So I see no reason why computer games can't be either.
Exactly. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out.
I believe some Magic the Gathering Championship was on one of the ESPN channels last year. I can't imagine that being particularly interesting to many people (then again, I'm not a fan of the game). If Magic can make its way on TV, then certainly some heated matches of Starcraft or Counter-Strike could...
Thats why most games don't embrace it- because most gamers (not all, but most) don't want it. When faced with a sandbox game, I pick it up, go to play it, and then go "Now what?" There's no storyline to follow, no objective to complete. No way to progress in the game. Its fun for maybe 15 minutes, then its boring as hell. Its a niche market, there's room for a few games like that, but most games will avoid that style of gameplay.
I agree that there are some sandbox games that are too non-linear. Morrowind was definately that way for me. After the initial section of the game, I had no idea what to do next. I found myself uninterested in the game after that. The sequel, Oblivion, did a much better job of setting some objectives, though, which helped tremendously.
One reason why GTA is so popular as a sandbox game is because you DO have a storyline to go through. You can choose to finish the next objective/mission... or you can take a break and blow up a lot of cars just for fun. Having the choice is important.
Those aren't really sandboxes as much as playgrounds. There are lots of rides on them and you can choose when you want to go on them, but they, for the most part, only work in the way they are designed. A truer example of a sandbox might be Sim City.
I don't want to get into a deep discussion of the differences between "sandbox" and "playground" games, but I did want to point out that in the gaming culture and industry, Grand Theft Auto is often referred to the poster-child of sandbox gaming. You may not agree to that, or argue that there different levels of non-linear gameplay within sandbox games, but that's a different issue...
Infoworld, Computerworld, my brother's 72 inch HDTV, my sister's 42 inch HDTV, and my home 32 inch 480p digital TV.
Just referencing magazine names and journals doesn't really count, the same way that just randomly saying "I read this in the Wall Street Journal" doesn't help. Links to the actual articles themselves would be the proper thing to do. Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, isn't scientific either (and I know I'm guilty of this myself).:)
HDTV-adoption is going to happen sooner or later. It's obvious from the technical standpoint that it's better. Whether or not users notice the difference is defininately a valid question to ask, but that also seems pretty darn clear as well, at least from all the people I've talked to on-and-offline. After all, if HDTV really "didn't matter", then why did your siblings buy HDTVs?
To me, HDTV-adoption is going to be like broadband-adoption. It's pretty clear that there's an advantage here, but it's all dependent on price. I remember not too long ago, it seemed like it would take forever for broadband to overtake dial-up, but now that's happened. It'll be the same with HDTV sets, but it'll take a while for prices to continue to go down. Then there's also the "my TV broke, time to get a new one... might as well get an HDTV set" scenarios as well.
From what I've heard, the difference between modern digital TVs (480p) and 1080i or 1080p HDTV sets is pretty minimal unless you're either sitting closer than 4 feet or are sitting 6-8 feet away with more than 40 inch 1080p HDTV.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Source?
Just go to any electronics store, and check out the difference between an SDTV and an HDTV (it doesn't even have to be 1080p, 720p is fine) with an HD signal. Move around and change the distance at you're viewing it as well. Not only do you have the widescreen aspect ratio, but the picture is significantly clearer. If the difference was "pretty minimal" as you put it, you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many HDTVs being sold then.
Now, the difference between levels of HD... that is, 720p vs 1080i, or 720p vs 1080p, that is much harder to notice. I am guessing your original source is referring to that.
Granted, not everyone can afford an HDTV yet, which is why adoption is still low. It will still take years for it to replace SDTV sets, the same way it took years for DVD to replace VHS. But you seem to be implying that there's not much benefit to going HD, when there most certainly is.
My thing is also mainly RPG. And I bought the Wii on launch day (first time ever), knowing that the best tactical RPG I've played since FFT on PS1, Fire Emblem GC (Souen no kiseki), was to have a sequel on the Wii.
Remember kids, it's all subjective.;) I would argue that Fire Emblem is NOT the "best tactical RPG" ever. I won't go into why, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, I was referring to games on the Wii now... not in the future. If that were the case, then you could argue that everyone who likes RPGs should get a PS3, since they're going to get all of the big and good ones, just like the PS2. I don't like such arguments usually, though, because why not wait until the games come out until you buy the system?
Yup, I totally agree. Talk to any hardcore gamer during the NES era, and just mentioning "Battletoads" is likely to incite anger and rage. Total pain in the ass.
Funny thing is that I was finally able to get past the stupid racing level by memorizing all the jumps exactly. However, I always gave up after the next level (which involved a bunch of snakes and more jumping), because after dying, I didn't want to go back through the blasted game again. Talk about being burned out...
Slashdot Mirror
At DICE this year, Chris Taylor of Gas Powered Games (developer of the Dungeon Siege games and the just-released Supreme Commander title) had a very intersting talk regarding improving work/life balance at his company. It appears that you don't really need a "work-till-you-drop" work schedule to ship big games after all.
... but that doesn't mean you have to move your studio East to achieve them.
I think it's an interesting, and necessary, shift in the game development culture. As the industry matures, so does its business practices. Understandably, there are lots of passionate folks who prefer to stay up late to work on their game, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to. Additionally, those who stay up late may actually be contributing negatively to the product (decisions and code generated at 2 AM may not be the best).
So yeah, I agree that the typical hardcore work development schedules need to change
I don't know about GRAW, since I haven't played it, but I can speak a little to Crackdown and Saint's Row, having played a lot of both. (Yes, I got the retail copy of Crackdown before it officially released)
Both Crackdown and Saint's Row certainly have your fair share of hispanic thugs that you take down. But to be fair, they also have several other gangs of various ethnic types. Saint's Row has your stereotypical rap-listening, gold-chain wearing African-American gang that you have to take down, as well as your stereotypical car-modding, street racing Asian thugs. Crackdown also has your stereotypical communist-loving, heavy metal listening, ultra-punk Eastern European gang, and a stereotypical rich, technology-loving, Asian gang.
Note how many times I said stereotypical in that last paragraph. It's because it's true. As an Asian-American myself, yeah I can say that I had fun playing those games, but it still irks me everytime these racial stereotypes are used in games. No doubt, developers also poke fun at other races as well. For example, there's a hilarious radio station in Saint's Row that makes fun of the Religious Right as racist, scientifically-backwards nut jobs (similar to the Colbert Report on Comedy Central).
That said, it would be nice if games didn't have to resort to racial stereotyping, no matter if it is "fair" by equally making fun of every race. Just because it's fair doesn't necessarily make it "fine" or "okay". It's perpetually reinforcing these stereotypes, no matter how incorrect they may be. Not every Italian guy is a member of the mob, or every Christian a racist hick, or Muslim a terrorist threat, or every Asian a kung-fu expert, etc.
Unfortunately, I know why developers continue to do this in games. Simply put, it sells. And I know I'm guilty and hypocritical because I still buy these games despite it.
A lot of this commentary is still focused on Nintendo's old core "hardcore" fanbase. Metroid Prime? Super Smash Bros? Even Super Mario Galaxy ... these are not games that are going to be consumed by the new casual owners of the Wii (folks like your parents and even grandparents). So what if the only game your parents play is Wii Sports, and they only turn it on to entertain their friends/family/guests? Your father is not suddenly going to be a hardcore player of Zelda, nor should that expectation be there. The next title they will pick up might be Wii Play. Critics will complain, "Wii Play is just more of the same Wii Sports type of action", and they'll be right. So yeah, it's not that great for typical hardcore gamers that want 10+ hours of content in their games ... but it's perfect for mom and pop which still consume the Wii casually. And that's the point.
All you need to do is take a look at the DS to see where Nintendo is going with the Wii. You've got a ton of light, casual content, in the form of brain training, casual sims (Nintendogs) and light puzzlers. Plus in Japan, there are all sorts of "non-games" (cookbooks, dictionaries, etc.). In the meantime, because the userbase is there and so large, there's plenty of traditional "hardcore" content as well (Castlevania, RPGs, etc.) to keep the main fanbase pleased.
I think it's a bloody smart business model to adopt. However, it's going to take a while for it to take shape on the Wii, just like it took a year to develop for the DS. Just be patient, gamers. In the meantime, there are all sorts of other games to play on "those other consoles", if you prefer the traditional hardcore games.
However, I don't think it's a hard and fast rule that such a mechanic is bad. I'm all for creativity and innovation, if done such a way that it doesn't feel like a cheap trick. I was expecting my 2nd (and 3rd) runs through Dead Rising to be boring and monotonous, but it really wasn't. In fact, I would argue that some early game encounters CANNOT be done on a first playthrough, since the main character just wouldn't have enough health and other stats to get through them.
The problem is that the messaging to players really could have been done better, or it could have been made somehow more natural. That I can agree with.
At first, it sounds dumb. Why would you ever want to replay parts of the game again? For a long time, I resisted doing this. However, the game got extraordinarily difficult after a while, and I eventually got myself locked into an unwinnable situation: I had saved the game at a certain part of a mission, and there was literally not enough time for me to complete it in time, thus forcing a "game over" scenario every time. Grudgingly, I accepted my fate, and did the "save and quit" method.
Surprisingly, I had a blast going through the beginning part of the game again. Having your skills carry over (which in Dead Rising equates to some very important things such as health, stats, special moves, and item capacity) made the initial parts of the game a LOT easier. And since I had a good idea of what was going on, I could position myself to "be in the right place at the right time". Thus, this second playthrough ended up being a lot different than my first run.
I almost think that Dead Rising was designed so that the player would have to restart over at some point. However, it's too bad that this was not messaged appropriately. I have a friend who quit the game, complaining that it was "impossibly hard", since he refused to restart the game over.
Granted, I can understand why the term came into existence. In the past, it was thought that anyone who played hardcore games generally put a lot of time into it. Those who played casual games, generally didn't spend too much time with them. Either that isn't the case anymore, or it's always been mixed up and we're just noticing it more now.I definitely agree here. However, I think what the original story is implying is that the percentage of hardcore gamers (distinguished either by the types of games they play, or the frequency at which they play them) among all gamers is decreasing. That I can agree with, as the whole games industry is definitely becoming more and more mainstream and accepted (gamers getting older, having families, raising kids who are gamers as well, etc.). There are just so many more gaming options as well, besides the typical hardcore games
I propose a new category for these movie/franchised titles: mainstream games. They're not exactly your typical casual or hardcore titles, but one thing is for certain
I don't want to get into a semantics argument, since I agree that the terms casual and hardcore can be bloody confusing, depending on who you're talking to. But I wanted to give everyone some context of what the industry usage of "casual" means.
First of all, I completely agree with the other comments regarding this guy's blog. It's not an article. Why do we care about some random guy's comments? If it was some well-known game developer or industry veteran, then maybe that would be Slashdot worthy. But as far as I can tell, he's just some story writer on a game site I haven't heard of. I'm not saying the site or the writer is bad, per say, just that it's not exactly newsworthy ...
But in any case, I think one point he misses out is that some games are better suited than others for the multiplayer experience. I agree that a lot of the multiplayer games on Nintendo platforms (particularly the N64 era), were great experiences. Many of those games, though, were almost party games in a way, as they almost seemed to rely on having that close contact with your friends (high-fiving, smack-talking, controller-trading experience). And he's right, those type of games don't really translate well online.
However, there are many games which do perfectly well through online multiplayer, or are even made better by it. Team-based shooting games, is one great example. I've been playing some Rainbow Six: Vegas with friends, doing both cooperative story missions, and team multiplayer. Having the full screen to myself, as well as voice communication, really adds to the experience (as well as make it quite realistic). This is not something that would translate very well to split-screen action. It would work very well in a LAN environment, but let's be serious. Those are difficult to setup, and certainly not something you can do every day easily, unless you all happen to live in a close environment (college dorms or such).
The other big example is MMORPGs. Obviously having online multiplayer is a necessity. We all know how popular World of Warcraft is.
So in short, saying "Online Multiplayer Isn't That Important" doesn't mean much to me. What type of games is he talking about? It's certainly true in some circumstances, but not in others.
Now I can agree that a minority actor probably would not like the role at all, if it was put in some stereotypical light. For example, "black gang member torturing a white cop" or "Asian mafia gangbanger on a killing spree". Those would be continuations of bad racial stereotypes, which really does no one any good.Thanks for that great story!
And no, if there happened to be an Asian-American casted in a "bad role", where his/her race really didn't picture into it, of course I wouldn't mind. That's sort of a stupid question to ask. Do you get pissed off when there's a white guy portrayed as a bible-thumping zealot or a serial killer? Oh wait, you do.
You know, there ARE bible-thumping zealots, serial killers, child molesters, corrupt politicians, and idiots of all races. Caucasians, unfortunately, don't have a lock on those roles. I'm fine with Asian-Americans being cast in those negative roles, of course provided they have opportunities to be put in positive ones as well
It seemed silly at first, but it fit in pretty well. For those who don't know, Saint's Row actually has you dealing with gangs of various different ethnicities. There's your stereotypical black, hispanic, and asian gangs. So actually, it was fairly racial agnostic I'd say (or rather, made fun of all races equally?). There's also a hilarious in-game radio station that really poked fun at right-wing religious conservatives (think the Colbert Report from Comedy Central).
As an Asian American myself, I would at least like fewer racial stereotypes in games. How many times in games is Asian guy relegated to the "smart side-kick who's good at math and gadgets" or the "obligatory I-know-martial-arts" guy? Or an Asian woman is the "sexy, sleek I-know-martial-arts" girl? Well, I guess you could carry over those same stereotypes into all forms of media (TV and movies as well).
Anyone know if there's similar precendent for the manager firing for alcohol/tobacco sales? For example, if I manage a 7-Eleven store, and one of my cashiers sells beer to a minor without checking ID (and gets caught doing so), then I'm also libel to get fired?
I am guessing the answer is no, which makes it odd for GameStop to enforce such a policy in their own stores. For one thing, it's actually illegal to sell alcohol/tobacco to a minor, whereas it's not that way with M-rated games. So it seems odd to make such a strict policy for something that's not even technically illegal, and much safer than alcohol/tobacco.
That said, I do agree that the clerk him/herself should be severely reprimanded/fired. Why have a rating system at all, if it's not going to be enforced? It would take a lot of the "oomph" out of the sails of these anti-video-game lawyers/politicians, if we could show that the rating system is actually enforced properly. (Plus, reducing the amount of whiny 12-year old kids in my online FPS shooters, is surely a good thing)
I could respond to each one and explain my viewpoints and opinions, but that would take a lot of time
One thing I've noticed that's common with those who DO think that Halo is "DA BOMB", is that it was their first FPS multiplayer experience. My brother, who is younger by 2 years, mentioned to me that Halo was the big game on campus when he was in school. You could apparently walk down the halls and hear the raucos sounds of frat boys lobbing plasma grenades and cursing at their friends. For me and my friends, it was Counter-Strike on the PC (and the sounds of players purchasing guns at the beginning of each round). So we take a look at Halo and think, "Ahh, that's interesting. An FPS on a console. Neato." It's cool, but not exactly earth shattering. (Besides, we played other FPS games, like Goldeneye, quite a bit already)
I do think that one thing that the whole Xbox Live experience has done, though, is a natural migration of one-room LAN and System-Link parties, into being able to play from your own home. Now that my friends and I have "grown up" (no longer living close together in college), being able to simulate some aspect of that FPS multiplayer experience is handy. Obviously it has its upsides (being able to play with a friend across the country) and downsides (having to listen to whiny 12-year olds and their smack talk).
In fact, having the game being so easy to solo is actually a problem at the later levels, when many folks do start grouping more often to tackle the dungeons. It becomes very apparent (and painful) when you are in a pick-up group with folks that really don't know key things such as aggro management, crowd control, etc. since they've been soloing the vast majority of the game.
I believe some Magic the Gathering Championship was on one of the ESPN channels last year. I can't imagine that being particularly interesting to many people (then again, I'm not a fan of the game). If Magic can make its way on TV, then certainly some heated matches of Starcraft or Counter-Strike could
One reason why GTA is so popular as a sandbox game is because you DO have a storyline to go through. You can choose to finish the next objective/mission
HDTV-adoption is going to happen sooner or later. It's obvious from the technical standpoint that it's better. Whether or not users notice the difference is defininately a valid question to ask, but that also seems pretty darn clear as well, at least from all the people I've talked to on-and-offline. After all, if HDTV really "didn't matter", then why did your siblings buy HDTVs?
To me, HDTV-adoption is going to be like broadband-adoption. It's pretty clear that there's an advantage here, but it's all dependent on price. I remember not too long ago, it seemed like it would take forever for broadband to overtake dial-up, but now that's happened. It'll be the same with HDTV sets, but it'll take a while for prices to continue to go down. Then there's also the "my TV broke, time to get a new one
Just go to any electronics store, and check out the difference between an SDTV and an HDTV (it doesn't even have to be 1080p, 720p is fine) with an HD signal. Move around and change the distance at you're viewing it as well. Not only do you have the widescreen aspect ratio, but the picture is significantly clearer. If the difference was "pretty minimal" as you put it, you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many HDTVs being sold then.
Now, the difference between levels of HD
Granted, not everyone can afford an HDTV yet, which is why adoption is still low. It will still take years for it to replace SDTV sets, the same way it took years for DVD to replace VHS. But you seem to be implying that there's not much benefit to going HD, when there most certainly is.
Anyway, I was referring to games on the Wii now
Yup, I totally agree. Talk to any hardcore gamer during the NES era, and just mentioning "Battletoads" is likely to incite anger and rage. Total pain in the ass.
...
Funny thing is that I was finally able to get past the stupid racing level by memorizing all the jumps exactly. However, I always gave up after the next level (which involved a bunch of snakes and more jumping), because after dying, I didn't want to go back through the blasted game again. Talk about being burned out