Now, listen, everyone. Stop using this stupid word! It's Fan Boys. Fanboys. Just people who are fans of something. For fucks sake, it's not some kind of French-derived cultivated word.
I know this is offtopic, but I did want to point out something. In my own strange world, I do use two spellings of the term. "Fan boys" are fans of a certain product, but they do so tastefully and intelligently. They probably don't exist. "Fanbois" are those l33t spe4king kids with messages like "M$ IS TEH SUXXXX!!!!!!!111!!" and "i luv sepirrr0th, Ninendo can suk my wiiiiiiiiiii", who do call themselves "fanbois" with that purposeful spelling.
Hence, "fanbois". It's my way of making reference to them in a derogatory fashion.
Bah, console displays suck. Store employees often don't set them up right (composite cables on a HDTV!?) or take care of them. Many of the displays I see are "demoing" error or blank screens.
Additionally, I believe you can only demo ESRB-rated "E" (everyone) games, which means no Resistance for the PS3 or Gears of War for the 360. Nintendo is actually fortunate here, since they don't rely on M-rated titles to be some of the best games for their systems.
That said, I am excited for Guitar Hero II, although I'll be waiting for it on the 360.
I'm not so sure on Wii Sports. I got a chance to try out two games recently, Tennis and Boxing. Both were interesting, but really seemed gimmicky. It disturbed me that in Tennis, you didn't control player movement and all you could do was swing. As for boxing, my character didn't really do what I always wanted it to do. You know how people "button mash" to win certain games? For Wii games, it's all about the "violent shaking". That said, I've heard that Tennis and Boxing may be the worst of the Wii titles, so I am hoping that the other sports are better.
That said, I agree completely with your statement that Wii Sports will expand beyond the existing gaming crowd. As a free pack-in game, it does a great job introducing the console to non-gamers. I just don't know how long its going to last. Anyone who thinks that the Wii is going to suddenly take the middle-age non-gamer public by storm, is going to be mightly depressed. It's not going to make a gamer out of your parents, but it might be something they pull out every so often, when they have friends over.
Then again, that might be good enough for Nintendo, since they make money off console sales and don't need a high attach rate like Sony and MS do.
One last thing, what you pay is what you get. As you'll notice, the Audio Authority switcher is not cheap (about $150-200). The cheap switchers are, well, much cheaper. But as someone who's crazy sensitive about graphics quality, I wanted to make sure that my expensive consoles on my expensive HDTV wasn't degraded in any way. In the past, the cheap switchers noticeably affected graphics quality. I can safely say that this isn't the case with the AA 1154A.
I hate to sound like a paid advertisement, but it took me a while to find one that I liked.:) (I even posted a journal entry asking for help)
From those numbers it really seems like nintendo has screwed the pooch with this launch or that they are artificially restricting supply to give the illusion that greater demand exists. They should have had many more units available for sale given they are using essentially the same hardware that was found in the gamecube.
When will people realize that this whole "artificially restricting supply" theory is just wrong. First there were claims that MS was doing this with the 360, then next with Sony, and finally with Nintendo. The theory is just absurd.
Do you think those companies want to miss their sales forecasts, and get punished in the stock market for doing so? Of course not. All three companies have run into supply problems because, well, releasing a console worldwide is pretty damn difficult. (Consider that in the past, hardware releases were generally not global either) Should MS, Sony, and Nintendo be chastised for their errors? Certainly.
But this whole "oh, they're just artificially restricting supply to make the illusion of demand" is just nonesense. It's usually spouted off by fanbois who can't imagine that there are actually consumers that want the "other" system.
I've never experienced like that before. Maybe it's because I only have one console on at a time, so if the screen went dark, there'd be no reason to switch to anything else? And I know for certain that I've had black/white flashes in games. FFXII has quite a few of them as loading screens.
I have a similar dilemma myself. I have a PS2, 360, and (hopefully soon) a Wii. Unfortunately, my HDTV only has so many component inputs.
I finally purchased a component switcher recently, the Audio Authority 1154A. It's powered, which keeps the quality very high, and even better, will automatically sense which console is on and send that signal to the TV. No more messing with extra remote controls or having to press a button on the unit to switch. It's very nice feature, especially since the next-gen systems should allow you to wireless turn on the console (well, I know the 360 does at least).
That said, I've heard some people may have problems with auto-sensing units in general. I'm not sure if it's a problem with their TV or the other units they plug into the siwtcher (certain DVD players, etc. I imagine). I do know, though, that the PS2 and 360 play along very well.
A year ago, I would have agreed completely with your assessment that Bloggers != Consumers.
Nowadays, I'm not so sure.
When you have a random 13-year-old kid blogging how much he loves the Wii on a site like 1UP.com, you know that blogging isn't just something done by educated adults with Internet connections anymore. If we were to go to a random classroom of middle-school students, and asked how many of them read or posted in blogs/forums/etc. on the Internet, I have a feeling the percentage would be rather shocking.
That said, whether or not this study has any merit is still hard to say. What sites were they looking at? What kind of demographics are on those sites? I'd associate bloggers/posters on 1UP.com and GameFAQs to be a lot closer to the average consumer than, say, the posters here on Slashdot.
why would that piss anyone off, like: "fuck!! theyre releasing a linux disc? fuck!!!! the friggin web browser was one thing, but this is the last straw, AHHHRHRRRAAAHGGGG!!! fucking sony. this settles it im getting a wii." rippin their hair out and shit. punching the wall, breaking furniture. then the guy takes it out on the poor dog, "fucking DOG!" kicking him, "FUCKING SONY" kick, kick, kick. "ARGHHHHHH" do you really think its going to be sold as a pc, like the marketing hype, "sony playstation 3, personal computer." i think the playstation name is pretty widely known to be a game console at this point. im really not sure how anyone could get upset about this.
Gamers can be fickle. MS took a lot of flack when they first demoed the 360, concentrating a lot on all the platform features outside of the games themselves. They showed a lot of attention to the media capabilities, achievement system, Live Marketplace, etc. At the time, a lot of gamers were yelling, "Come on, show us the games already!". Nowadays, a lot of gamers actually like these features, so it's not an issue. After all, many of them were extensions of gaming (gamer score, how to get more demos, see trailers, have custom playlists in your games, etc.).
Most gamers would be fine if Sony did something similar with the PS3. Actually, they expect it now. Feature parity is something that would be nice across the consoles.
However, if Sony went beyond and started focusing on crap that's less and less game related ("You can use the PS3 to type up your homework!"), then it can cause that gamer angst. There's the perception too, that if you spend X amount of time on some non-gaming related feature (say the web browser), that's X less time spent on something that WAS gaming related (better buddy list support).
Granted, I could be wrong and there could be hordes of gamers that can't wait to boot up their console to browse their web or finish their Chemistry paper, but somehow I don't think that's the case...
First of all, I realize that Sony dropping Blu-ray and going in with the HD-DVD camp is pretty much out of the question, but let's play the "what if" game anyway...
I can't help but think that if Sony had gone with HD-DVD, so there was only one high-def DVD format, things might be a lot different. Yeah, the PS3 would probably still be quite overpriced compared to the other consoles, but there's no longer the stigma that you MAY be spending $100-200 extra dollars on a format that may go no where. It's a much simpler proposition selling people something that's essentially X (game console) + A (high-def DVD), when they're convinced that A is going to be worth something in the future.
If Sony started truly started marketing the PS3 big-time as a PC, I can guarantee that this move would piss off many gamers. They want a game console, and one that does a really job at it. Your typical hard-core gamer doesn't want some secondary PC they can use to read their mail or do their homework on. After all, they probably already have a PC or a laptop for that. The PS3 is supposed to be something that gets turned on when you want to play a game.
So that's the danger of Sony and Linux on the PS3. They can't push it too much, for fear of alienating their core fan-base. Marketing it to the mainstream doesn't make sense either, since those folks are, again, most likely to own computers already, and ones running Windows.
I love gaming, it's by far my favorite hobby, but I'm still keenly aware of the sheer and utter boredom that most non-gamers experience when I ask them to 'hold on a minute' and put them in a spectators' position for even a couple minutes of play. Video games are just not a vicarious pleasure.
I think it depends on the game, just like it depends on the sport. A twitchy shooter game is probably going to be a lot more interesting thatn, say, a competitive game of Tetris.
But that's just like any sport. IMHO, football is a lot more interesting to watch than baseball, or golf. Then again, you certainly have more than enough people watching those two sports, as they're multi-billion dollar industries. Yet bowling and other sports aren't there yet either.
Also, I think there's a maturity that has to happen outside the sport itself, such as how you do the announcing, set up cameras, the scoring systems, etc. I will say that some Capture the Flag games might be VERY interesting to watch, even for an outsider, if only you had the cameras set in the right place, and a decent announcer for the match. The same goes for some RTS games. Instead of being only limited to the player's view, if there were an "outside" camera... that might make things a lot more interesting.
It's akin to the TV setup for Texas Hold'em. If I were just watching a game in person, it might not be that interesting. But on TV, I'm able to see what cards everyone else is holding, I've got an announcer explaining strategies and why certain players are doing certain things, and I can even see the statistics of how likely a player is going to win. All those things are, in a way, "outside" the game... yet make it, IMHO, a whole lot more interesting to watch now.
There's a part of me that thinks that choosing to spend your mindless recreation time watching other people engage in their mindless recreation time is intensely creepy and vouyeristic. There's also a part of me that thinks that the fact that many people are willing to passively watch people play video games on television is quite possibly the horrendously inevitable culmination of a 'do-nothing culture.'
Isn't this how sports watching start out though?
Sports started off as just a recreational activity. You could say that watching people play a game is silly, when you could be playing it yourself. But I can think of two main reasons why people watch sports:
1. Professionals playing the game are a lot better at it than you are - It can be fun to see the amazing skill involved at the pro level, versus what happens in your regular pick-up games - You can also learn from the best, and maybe pick up a few techniques you can apply to your own game
2. Team aspect - There's the whole "ra-ra" mentality, of cheering for your college/country/region or your favorite person - If you can't be good enough to play professional, then you can live vicariously through your team
Granted, not everyone buys it. There are certainly many folks that "don't get" sports (and stereotypically, this includes a lot of geeks/nerds). But I can't see how watching video game competitions is that much different than sports, in the reasons above.
I agree. Of course it's all subjective, but I've found far more shows to watch the last two years than ever before: Lost, Heroes, The Office, Arrested Development (which is sadly gone), Desperate Housewives (wife sucked me in here, but it's surprisingly good, no surprise it has won Emmys), and Studio 60. And those are just shows on the primary networks. There are a ton of shows on other networks (FX, Sci-Fi, HBO, etc.) that are apparently quite good (Battlestar Galactica, The Shield, Nip Tuck, Deadwood, The Sopranos...).
Of course, the vast majority of shows are still crap, including all of the reality shows (which are dwindling in number), but IMHO, TV has made quite a comeback the past two years. This is where having a DVR is really useful, since I can batch up a few shows, and then watch them whenever I want to. No more having to slog through some mediocre sitcoms or dramas, just so you can get to the "good show" of that night.
But is this market open to independent developers? If not, then which market is?
Which market are you referring to? The PC or console? (The grandparent mentioned Xbox Live Arcade)
The PC market is definately open to independent developers, if you're okay with developing on Windows. Just go to the bargain bin aisle for games in Walmart/Target/Best Buy, and you'll see a ton of low budget, indie-developed titles. The problem is that there isn't much of a market for party games on PCs, because of the problem you mentioned earlier. For the most part, people have their PCs in offices, not in their living room. They're connected to monitors, not TVs.
As for the console market, it's definately opening up. Plenty of indie developers are on the Xbox Live Arcade service, and then there's also the upcoming XNA Game Studio Express initiative. Similar opportunities will be opening up for the PS3 service, and hopefully the Wii as well.
I stongly disagree, I've been doing to stuff for a while, and let me tell you, I witnessed people resisting wordprocessors in the office because they thought they were more complicated, harder to use, etc.
The customer who is used to using typewriters will NEVER be able to help you spec out a word processor.
They DON'T understand what technology can do and thus can not fully understand how to apply it.
That's a really bad attitude. Granted, there are some Luddites that don't understand technology, are afraid of it, and won't be able to help you out very much. But "NEVER" is a very strong word.
It's only natural for customers to be resistant to change, especially if what they have going for them, works. That's why, as engineers, it's partially our job for being effective communicators. Show them some examples of what word processors can do beyond typewriters. But also be honest, and be aware of the disadvantages, and be ready to have long discussions about it.
Too often I run into engineers that are really excited about technology X and all they want to do is use it NOW NOW NOW. Anybody who says otherwise, or gets in their way, or slows the process down, is suddenly a Luddite and "just doesn't understand technology". Those engineers don't get very far in their careers, and understandably so.
Your original post is an excellent example of how engineers should NOT work with customers. Customers rarely know exactly what they want. That's why you have to spend time (sometimes a lot) on flushing out all the details, making sure people don't make assumptions, etc. It's time consuming and not easy, but it saves a helluva lot of time and money in the future, if done right. (And your example shows it)
Unfortunately, these are often skills not well taught in college, since the focus is often just on "can you write good code?". We need more general Software Engineering courses that teach this stuff, to reduce this "code first, ask later" mentality that seems much too prevalent these days.
It's very simple. People are idiots. That's why gadgets break. Not because people break them, but because when people see things like the iPod that have a battery that you can't replace yourself, they buy them, anyway! What kind of idiot buys a gadget with a battery sealed in it? I know that I certainly wouldn't, but millions upon millions of people continue to throw their dollars at these pieces of crap, and when they die, they buy ANOTHER one, often from the same company.
The companies are laughing all of the way to the bank. They have mindless drones buying everything that they release, no matter how shitty, and the people come back and buy more! With so many stupid people buying these pieces of crap over and over, the only incentive that the manufacturers have is to make cheaper crap that breaks even quicker, because they know that no matter what, people will buy them again, and again, and again...
Gee, what a horrible attitude. I hope you don't work in any customer service job.
People aren't idiots. It's just capitalism. If folks wanted a quality gadget, one that never breaks, doesn't have any design issues, etc., then they'd pay for one. However, most folks would rather have a cheaper gadget, and take the risk that it might crap out on them, or may not be 100% what they're looking for. On the flip-side, you also have the early adopters, that are willing to pay more money to get a gadget sooner, despite whatever quality/design issues the initial versions may have. Again, that's what they want. There's a business for it. If it didn't exist, companies would be catering to them.
Personally, I don't fall into either camp. I'm willing to pay a little bit more, wait a little longer, do some more research, and find exactly what I'm looking for. But I can understand that not everyone wants to do that. Calling them "mindless drones" though is being very holier-than-thou.
well, Nintendo has done something similar with the Wii, you can have a new one sent out to you and then send your old one back to them or they will pay to have your old one fixed. That seems fair.
Now, I'm no fan of Sony, but your example is a bad one. Nintendo is only replacing Wii consoles that have been found to have issues. They are NOT allowing anyone with Wii to replace their console, even though some of them have been shown to have hardware problems. Same for MS, and same for Sony. It's just a matter of cost.
Yeah, in general, I hate hype because of stories like yours. It trumps up games too much, so that it's only downhill from there. And there's always the fact that games are subjective. Maybe a game that everybody likes... just isn't for you.
I haven't watched the collector's DVD myself yet, but it definately makes sense what they are saying. There are many times in the single-player campaign where things are MUCH easier if you figure out the right way to flank the enemy. It's the same way in multi-player as well. Also, how else are you going to chainsaw-bayonet someone, unless you're up close and personal?:)
Just for the record, using COD2 as an example, I use the two analog sticks on my 360. They give me an infinite amount of very fast control (My sensitivity is ultra high) in camera and movement, assuming my thumbs are on their game. The game on the computer uses the mouse for camera (infinite) and 4 buttons for up, down, left and right. So what control do you feel you lose exactly?
Technically, you're correct. However, I've been playing FPS games on PCs for years longer than on shooters. Also, I use the mouse every day for work, so obviously I am used to that control scheme.
The problem is that my thumbs have not been "trained" for FPS games. Sure, I could put in hours every day of playing Halo, and I'll probably get better. That's been the case for many gamers that I know, who are probably just as good using a controller as they are with a mouse+keyboard combo. But with the limited amount of time I have now, that's just not going to happen.
I think the reason why the controls in Gears work is actually because of the cover. My biggest problem in most shooters is that my thumbs are not "twitchy" enough. I can't get a headshot in less than a second, as many hardcore gamers can (although I'm pretty good with that with a mouse). But since cover is a big deal, I can hide behind some rocks, peek out, get a target, duck back in, peek out once more (and the target is right where I left it), and go from there.
I haven't played many other tactical shooters, so maybe they have a similar feel. All I know is that I really haven't enjoyed a console shooter like this... ever?
100,000 pre-orders filling up for a Japanese RPG in Japan doesn't sound that far fetched. From anecdotal experience, I've found Japanese friends to be big on bundles. They are equally big on Blue Dragon, mainly because of the creator. Hironobu Sakaguchi is bigger with the Japanese than John Carmack is with FPS fans altogether.
It doesn't surprise me that 100k of pre-orders have been filled for a Japanese RPG. What's shocking is that it's for one on the Xbox 360, where sales have been anemic. It seems to point to good signs for MS.
Also, try not to explain away the numbers by using the idea that these people would try to save trips. The Japanese are more mobile than Americans. Going to the game store isn't going out of the way. It's just part of another trip.
Good point, although I'm not sure I completely buy it. For your typical Blue Dragon fan, you can either get a 360 now and check out the other games that are on it. Or perhaps only BD interests you, so you'd rather just pick up the console then. I have no idea, nor should I pretend to know, the mind of the average Japanese video gamer.
In any case, all the speculation will end in a few weeks anyway, once the dang thing ships and we start getting real numbers. I guess my main point is that the sales numbers in Japan now, while interesting, don't tell the whole story. I think we agree on that, at least.
Actually, yes ... it's the gameplay
on
Gears Sells a Million
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The real question is: if Gears of War didn't have such pretty graphics -- i.e. it looked like, say, Quake 3 -- would **anyone** be gushing over this game? Would anyone care?
Have you played the game? I have a feeling that you have not.
Yes, the game is pretty, no doubt about it. But if you read through a lot of the comments, opinions, reviews, etc., you'll quickly see that it's actually the gameplay that people are gushing over. Nice, no?
If this game were released last generation on the Xbox, PS2, or GC... then yes, people would still be gushing over it. Frankly, it raises the bar in what I expect from shooters from now on. I don't want just prettier graphics.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, Mistwalker Studios is headed by Hironobu Sakaguchi, who created the original Final Fantasy series.
Some folks would say that Blue Dragon is "more JRPG" than FFXII, which actually had more of a MMO and western feel to it.
Hence, "fanbois". It's my way of making reference to them in a derogatory fashion.
Ehh, I should have mentioned ... but that's what I did. It was in a holiday party situation.
:)
Actually, that probably didn't help the situation. Everyone was interested in the food and mingling, more than playing any type of game.
Wii Sports would have a pretty cool party game to have when I was in college. Potentially dangerous too.
Bah, console displays suck. Store employees often don't set them up right (composite cables on a HDTV!?) or take care of them. Many of the displays I see are "demoing" error or blank screens.
Additionally, I believe you can only demo ESRB-rated "E" (everyone) games, which means no Resistance for the PS3 or Gears of War for the 360. Nintendo is actually fortunate here, since they don't rely on M-rated titles to be some of the best games for their systems.
That said, I am excited for Guitar Hero II, although I'll be waiting for it on the 360.
I'm not so sure on Wii Sports. I got a chance to try out two games recently, Tennis and Boxing. Both were interesting, but really seemed gimmicky. It disturbed me that in Tennis, you didn't control player movement and all you could do was swing. As for boxing, my character didn't really do what I always wanted it to do. You know how people "button mash" to win certain games? For Wii games, it's all about the "violent shaking". That said, I've heard that Tennis and Boxing may be the worst of the Wii titles, so I am hoping that the other sports are better.
That said, I agree completely with your statement that Wii Sports will expand beyond the existing gaming crowd. As a free pack-in game, it does a great job introducing the console to non-gamers. I just don't know how long its going to last. Anyone who thinks that the Wii is going to suddenly take the middle-age non-gamer public by storm, is going to be mightly depressed. It's not going to make a gamer out of your parents, but it might be something they pull out every so often, when they have friends over.
Then again, that might be good enough for Nintendo, since they make money off console sales and don't need a high attach rate like Sony and MS do.
One last thing, what you pay is what you get. As you'll notice, the Audio Authority switcher is not cheap (about $150-200). The cheap switchers are, well, much cheaper. But as someone who's crazy sensitive about graphics quality, I wanted to make sure that my expensive consoles on my expensive HDTV wasn't degraded in any way. In the past, the cheap switchers noticeably affected graphics quality. I can safely say that this isn't the case with the AA 1154A.
:) (I even posted a journal entry asking for help)
I hate to sound like a paid advertisement, but it took me a while to find one that I liked.
Do you think those companies want to miss their sales forecasts, and get punished in the stock market for doing so? Of course not. All three companies have run into supply problems because, well, releasing a console worldwide is pretty damn difficult. (Consider that in the past, hardware releases were generally not global either) Should MS, Sony, and Nintendo be chastised for their errors? Certainly.
But this whole "oh, they're just artificially restricting supply to make the illusion of demand" is just nonesense. It's usually spouted off by fanbois who can't imagine that there are actually consumers that want the "other" system.
I've never experienced like that before. Maybe it's because I only have one console on at a time, so if the screen went dark, there'd be no reason to switch to anything else? And I know for certain that I've had black/white flashes in games. FFXII has quite a few of them as loading screens.
I have a similar dilemma myself. I have a PS2, 360, and (hopefully soon) a Wii. Unfortunately, my HDTV only has so many component inputs.
I finally purchased a component switcher recently, the Audio Authority 1154A. It's powered, which keeps the quality very high, and even better, will automatically sense which console is on and send that signal to the TV. No more messing with extra remote controls or having to press a button on the unit to switch. It's very nice feature, especially since the next-gen systems should allow you to wireless turn on the console (well, I know the 360 does at least).
That said, I've heard some people may have problems with auto-sensing units in general. I'm not sure if it's a problem with their TV or the other units they plug into the siwtcher (certain DVD players, etc. I imagine). I do know, though, that the PS2 and 360 play along very well.
A year ago, I would have agreed completely with your assessment that Bloggers != Consumers.
Nowadays, I'm not so sure.
When you have a random 13-year-old kid blogging how much he loves the Wii on a site like 1UP.com, you know that blogging isn't just something done by educated adults with Internet connections anymore. If we were to go to a random classroom of middle-school students, and asked how many of them read or posted in blogs/forums/etc. on the Internet, I have a feeling the percentage would be rather shocking.
That said, whether or not this study has any merit is still hard to say. What sites were they looking at? What kind of demographics are on those sites? I'd associate bloggers/posters on 1UP.com and GameFAQs to be a lot closer to the average consumer than, say, the posters here on Slashdot.
Most gamers would be fine if Sony did something similar with the PS3. Actually, they expect it now. Feature parity is something that would be nice across the consoles.
However, if Sony went beyond and started focusing on crap that's less and less game related ("You can use the PS3 to type up your homework!"), then it can cause that gamer angst. There's the perception too, that if you spend X amount of time on some non-gaming related feature (say the web browser), that's X less time spent on something that WAS gaming related (better buddy list support).
Granted, I could be wrong and there could be hordes of gamers that can't wait to boot up their console to browse their web or finish their Chemistry paper, but somehow I don't think that's the case
First of all, I realize that Sony dropping Blu-ray and going in with the HD-DVD camp is pretty much out of the question, but let's play the "what if" game anyway ...
I can't help but think that if Sony had gone with HD-DVD, so there was only one high-def DVD format, things might be a lot different. Yeah, the PS3 would probably still be quite overpriced compared to the other consoles, but there's no longer the stigma that you MAY be spending $100-200 extra dollars on a format that may go no where. It's a much simpler proposition selling people something that's essentially X (game console) + A (high-def DVD), when they're convinced that A is going to be worth something in the future.
If Sony started truly started marketing the PS3 big-time as a PC, I can guarantee that this move would piss off many gamers. They want a game console, and one that does a really job at it. Your typical hard-core gamer doesn't want some secondary PC they can use to read their mail or do their homework on. After all, they probably already have a PC or a laptop for that. The PS3 is supposed to be something that gets turned on when you want to play a game.
So that's the danger of Sony and Linux on the PS3. They can't push it too much, for fear of alienating their core fan-base. Marketing it to the mainstream doesn't make sense either, since those folks are, again, most likely to own computers already, and ones running Windows.
But that's just like any sport. IMHO, football is a lot more interesting to watch than baseball, or golf. Then again, you certainly have more than enough people watching those two sports, as they're multi-billion dollar industries. Yet bowling and other sports aren't there yet either.
Also, I think there's a maturity that has to happen outside the sport itself, such as how you do the announcing, set up cameras, the scoring systems, etc. I will say that some Capture the Flag games might be VERY interesting to watch, even for an outsider, if only you had the cameras set in the right place, and a decent announcer for the match. The same goes for some RTS games. Instead of being only limited to the player's view, if there were an "outside" camera
It's akin to the TV setup for Texas Hold'em. If I were just watching a game in person, it might not be that interesting. But on TV, I'm able to see what cards everyone else is holding, I've got an announcer explaining strategies and why certain players are doing certain things, and I can even see the statistics of how likely a player is going to win. All those things are, in a way, "outside" the game
Sports started off as just a recreational activity. You could say that watching people play a game is silly, when you could be playing it yourself. But I can think of two main reasons why people watch sports:
1. Professionals playing the game are a lot better at it than you are
- It can be fun to see the amazing skill involved at the pro level, versus what happens in your regular pick-up games
- You can also learn from the best, and maybe pick up a few techniques you can apply to your own game
2. Team aspect
- There's the whole "ra-ra" mentality, of cheering for your college/country/region or your favorite person
- If you can't be good enough to play professional, then you can live vicariously through your team
Granted, not everyone buys it. There are certainly many folks that "don't get" sports (and stereotypically, this includes a lot of geeks/nerds). But I can't see how watching video game competitions is that much different than sports, in the reasons above.
I agree. Of course it's all subjective, but I've found far more shows to watch the last two years than ever before: Lost, Heroes, The Office, Arrested Development (which is sadly gone), Desperate Housewives (wife sucked me in here, but it's surprisingly good, no surprise it has won Emmys), and Studio 60. And those are just shows on the primary networks. There are a ton of shows on other networks (FX, Sci-Fi, HBO, etc.) that are apparently quite good (Battlestar Galactica, The Shield, Nip Tuck, Deadwood, The Sopranos ...).
Of course, the vast majority of shows are still crap, including all of the reality shows (which are dwindling in number), but IMHO, TV has made quite a comeback the past two years. This is where having a DVR is really useful, since I can batch up a few shows, and then watch them whenever I want to. No more having to slog through some mediocre sitcoms or dramas, just so you can get to the "good show" of that night.
The PC market is definately open to independent developers, if you're okay with developing on Windows. Just go to the bargain bin aisle for games in Walmart/Target/Best Buy, and you'll see a ton of low budget, indie-developed titles. The problem is that there isn't much of a market for party games on PCs, because of the problem you mentioned earlier. For the most part, people have their PCs in offices, not in their living room. They're connected to monitors, not TVs.
As for the console market, it's definately opening up. Plenty of indie developers are on the Xbox Live Arcade service, and then there's also the upcoming XNA Game Studio Express initiative. Similar opportunities will be opening up for the PS3 service, and hopefully the Wii as well.
It's only natural for customers to be resistant to change, especially if what they have going for them, works. That's why, as engineers, it's partially our job for being effective communicators. Show them some examples of what word processors can do beyond typewriters. But also be honest, and be aware of the disadvantages, and be ready to have long discussions about it.
Too often I run into engineers that are really excited about technology X and all they want to do is use it NOW NOW NOW. Anybody who says otherwise, or gets in their way, or slows the process down, is suddenly a Luddite and "just doesn't understand technology". Those engineers don't get very far in their careers, and understandably so.
Your original post is an excellent example of how engineers should NOT work with customers. Customers rarely know exactly what they want. That's why you have to spend time (sometimes a lot) on flushing out all the details, making sure people don't make assumptions, etc. It's time consuming and not easy, but it saves a helluva lot of time and money in the future, if done right. (And your example shows it)
Unfortunately, these are often skills not well taught in college, since the focus is often just on "can you write good code?". We need more general Software Engineering courses that teach this stuff, to reduce this "code first, ask later" mentality that seems much too prevalent these days.
People aren't idiots. It's just capitalism. If folks wanted a quality gadget, one that never breaks, doesn't have any design issues, etc., then they'd pay for one. However, most folks would rather have a cheaper gadget, and take the risk that it might crap out on them, or may not be 100% what they're looking for. On the flip-side, you also have the early adopters, that are willing to pay more money to get a gadget sooner, despite whatever quality/design issues the initial versions may have. Again, that's what they want. There's a business for it. If it didn't exist, companies would be catering to them.
Personally, I don't fall into either camp. I'm willing to pay a little bit more, wait a little longer, do some more research, and find exactly what I'm looking for. But I can understand that not everyone wants to do that. Calling them "mindless drones" though is being very holier-than-thou.
Yeah, in general, I hate hype because of stories like yours. It trumps up games too much, so that it's only downhill from there. And there's always the fact that games are subjective. Maybe a game that everybody likes ... just isn't for you.
:)
I haven't watched the collector's DVD myself yet, but it definately makes sense what they are saying. There are many times in the single-player campaign where things are MUCH easier if you figure out the right way to flank the enemy. It's the same way in multi-player as well. Also, how else are you going to chainsaw-bayonet someone, unless you're up close and personal?
The problem is that my thumbs have not been "trained" for FPS games. Sure, I could put in hours every day of playing Halo, and I'll probably get better. That's been the case for many gamers that I know, who are probably just as good using a controller as they are with a mouse+keyboard combo. But with the limited amount of time I have now, that's just not going to happen.
I think the reason why the controls in Gears work is actually because of the cover. My biggest problem in most shooters is that my thumbs are not "twitchy" enough. I can't get a headshot in less than a second, as many hardcore gamers can (although I'm pretty good with that with a mouse). But since cover is a big deal, I can hide behind some rocks, peek out, get a target, duck back in, peek out once more (and the target is right where I left it), and go from there.
I haven't played many other tactical shooters, so maybe they have a similar feel. All I know is that I really haven't enjoyed a console shooter like this
Good point, although I'm not sure I completely buy it. For your typical Blue Dragon fan, you can either get a 360 now and check out the other games that are on it. Or perhaps only BD interests you, so you'd rather just pick up the console then. I have no idea, nor should I pretend to know, the mind of the average Japanese video gamer.
In any case, all the speculation will end in a few weeks anyway, once the dang thing ships and we start getting real numbers. I guess my main point is that the sales numbers in Japan now, while interesting, don't tell the whole story. I think we agree on that, at least.
Yes, the game is pretty, no doubt about it. But if you read through a lot of the comments, opinions, reviews, etc., you'll quickly see that it's actually the gameplay that people are gushing over. Nice, no?
If this game were released last generation on the Xbox, PS2, or GC