"YOU CAN NOT PLAY AN RPG ON ANY SYSTEM OTHER THAN PEN & PAPER!
Uhhh, thats probably one of the most blatantly incorrect statements I've ever read. You can roleplay in any medium! Pen and paper was the available medium when "role playing games" were introduced, not the defining element. However, there are so many different ways to "role play" (or "play roles") it's insane... (you can even do it during sex, kiddo.)
"Only in a pen & paper game can you truly assume the role of a character and interact with the fictional world in any way possible"
The whole point of a video game is to assume the role of a character and interact with a fictional world.
Traditionally RPGs on a console or computer have been considered to be a game which included stats of characters with growth values, something you could call a storyline, and a non-real time combat system
Uhh, gee, kinda sounds like Dungeons and Dragons in a different format...
With the passing of time, the RPG definition has generalized to where the only defining trait of an RPG now (on a computer or console system) is having stats that grow in one manner or another
So the new Lord of the Rings is an RPG? Soul Calibur is an RPG? These games have RPG like elements, but are not RPGs.
The only other trait on a pure RPG game is a non-real time combat system, but for the full definition of an RPG (be it pure or hybrid) is simply a game with stats that grow.
Final Fantasy has adapted a real time combat system. Basically what has happened is games have adapted elements in RPGs that people like, a prevelant one being character growth.
What defines RPGs are a quest and a prevelant story line. Games that are story driven, rather than action based, are usually referred to as RPGs. Obviously, since character growth is a huge charactaristic of pen and paper D&D, it is another necessary element, but not the defining one. Think D&D: you have a story, characters that grow, and a stat/text battle system. The focus is on interactions between characters, not physical action. Modern RPGs attempt to emulate that system in a digital format.
I'm sorry, but currently, the most effective and widely accepted form of RPG is currently the digital format.
"Square somehow is becoming worst in their desire to never ever let go of FF"
Are you kidding? Final Fantasy brought the text based RPG (as opposed to say Zelda) to the masses. What was once a very specialized 'niche genre' is now a very profitable market. From a purely economical standpoint, Square would be insane to drop the Final Fantasy name. I bought my Playstation just to play Final Fantasy VII when it came out. Prior to that, I was happy with my SNES (due to the fact it had all of the good RPGs). Look how well FF has sold compared to Vagrant Story, The Bouncer, Chaos Legion, etc. Final Fantasy is the RPG for the masses. Final Fantasy 1,2, and 3 were probably a bit too difficult for the average gamer (particularly 1 and 2), but now the series appeals to just about everyone. And their profits reflect it.
"I'll be amazed when I see an FF game do something new, and not just pretty graphics and FMV"
Okay, you obviously haven't played Final Fantasy XI. They've created an MMORPG using the brilliantly designed Final Fantasy graphics, inferface, and world, and then linked Japan, America, and the PS2 market. The game is more innovative than any other MMORPG on the market due to its appeal and ease of use. I found everquest to be too difficult and complicated to get into but 2 days into it, I can't get enough FFXI. 4 guys in my hall went out and picked it up because it's just so damn good and easy to get into. They are all also new to MMORPGs, but it feels like we've all been playing them for years.
As for the FMV, I think the stories and cool characters are what's appealing to everyone. The stories are much better than most movies out today. I'd like to see them tone them down a bit (Xenosaga, ugh!), but all in all, Final Fantasy VII is probably one of the best games ever made. The atmosphere Square creats in each FF game is just incredible.
Personally, I think it's incredible that Square has taken Final Fantasy and evolved it into one of the most innovative, entertaining, and appealing series ever.
The public accepts the idea that batteries die and need to be replaced, so therefore, battery companies make money. What would be their incentive to create better batteries? So that the public would have to purchase them less frequently? Then we'd probably just end up paying the difference for the better battery. I doesn't sound like a good business model to take a cut in profits to make everyone's life a little bit easier. I don't really think there's much of a public demand to reform the battery industry, so therefore there's no need to do so for the industry. Just keep up with the technology.
I guess on a side note, my rechargable batteries are a godsend. While you can debate the economics of it all (40$ for a charger and 4 batteries), I just like not having to worry about having batteries for my MP3 player [Nike PSA64]. I use it primarily for working out, I go through a battery every week or two, throw it in the charger, and then replace it. They've lasted all summer and still give me numerous days of life. Prior to purchasing them, I was going through batteries like a mad man, buying a pack every two weeks to keep up with my working out. I think its the best solution for anyone who goes through a lot of batteries...
Does anyone find it strange how little hype KOTOR has been getting? I only own a PS2 and a PC... I had actually considered getting an X-Box just to play it. About two weeks ago I was in EB and I asked one of the sales people when it was coming out for PC, and he said "oh, that's just an internet rumor...". I asked if he could double check for me, and to his surprise he said it was coming out in November. It's not even on the front of EB Games Website.
I'm frankly very shocked that such a highly critically acclaimed game, initially viewed as being X-Box exclusive, is receiving so little advertising this close to it's ship date. With so many quality games released this month, I'm baffled. Star Wars games usually sell okay just because of the name, let alone ones that have been this well received.
That's the beauty of video games, that the reviews pretty much make them or break them. I highly doubt Ico would have sold so well if not for it's critical acclaim. You can pretty much alwasy skip the hype and the BS, because the game is always hyped to death, but then the reviews tell it like it is.
Also- I think that reviewers rush to get their review out- to be first, or at least not to be last.
Oh no doubt, but they also receive games before they get released. I'd imagine if a developer thinks a game is going to be well critically received, it'd be in their best interest to get the reviews out as soon as possible just to start a buzz. I mean, if a game is getting 9's on every website on it's release date, chances are I'm going to pick it up. On the other hand, if the game isn't going to be that good but can sell on name alone, then it's probably in their best interest to keep it out of the hands of reviewers for as long as possible.
This means that a reviewer has played the game for one day- and we are really getting his initial reaction. Simpsons Hit and Run is a good example of this. The game is really good- for a while...then it seems to get very boring.
HA! Thats the game I just traded in for Medal of Honor. It got boring REAL fast. I'm a huge Simpsons fan, don't get me wrong, it just got spent. Even GTA3/Vice City got spent, but I kept them both for awhile because my friends liked them. It defenetly lacked substance after the initial Simpsons thrill wore off.
Maybe this is why Electronics Botique has gotten so into promoting pre-ordering games. It seems like everytime that you pre-order a game, you get some kind of incentive, usually more store credit for trading in old games. Just recently, I received an additonal 3$ trade in value for every game I traded in, and since I traded in 10 games, well, you can do the math... and all I had to do was pre-order SSX3 (which I didn't even purchase, I know it had great reviews, I just don't like snowboarding games). Maybe they assume that once you pre-order it, you somehow feel locked into purchasing it, or maybe you'll purchase it before the reviews even come out. I refuse to purchase a game that gets below an 80% on Gametab.
From a business standpoint, you'd think this would be a bad idea. Though I pre-purchased Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (FINALLY a game based on the Marine Corps), if it ends up getting bad reviews, I'll use my store credit towards something else AND keep my extra bonuses. I'd imagine a lot of people will do the same thing, and EB will be left with a huge overstock of a crappy game.
As for the value of reviews, some games are worth every penny. Goldeney, Age of Mythology, Warcraft, Halo, Madden, Neverwinter Nights, Grand Theft Auto 3, Final Fantasy... at 100$ these games still would have been a bargain, due to the countless hours spent playing them. All of these games received phoenominal reviews. Frankly, with the exception of a few games, I usually buy games soley based on the reviews they recieve. If I'm going to shell out 50$, it had better damn well be a good game, especially for the console, because of the limited online capabilities. If everyone bought games soley based on reviews (provided the reviews weren't overly biased), then it would force companies to release only very high quality games.
While I agree that it's a waste of a budget in Oregon, it's fascenating that entertainment is actually creating languages and defining a seperate culture.
Language been an evolving process for thousands of years, actually growing less complex and more flexible as the society grows more complex. (Ancient Greek is EXTREMELY complex where as modern Greek had to adapt). Roddenberry managed to do this in less than 50 years, though I doubt Klingon contains the complexities and flexibility of a modern language.
Society is defined as "A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture" for which Star trek now fits the bill, so we're actually creating societies and cultures within a society and a culture through entertainment, yet we're all still linked to a larger one by our nationality, being a human, etc.
What I'm saying is that the ability to knowingly create a distinct culture is pretty interesting, and it shows society has become incredibly complex and that entertainment and pop culture play such a huge role in our society today that its mind blowing.
"Most successful real-time strategy titles follow the same formula we have here," he said. "The big difference is that we've also been provided an excellent opportunity to expand the tremendously popular EverQuest universe. We've got this great background world and these great characters to play with. Few competitors can claim that."
Translate - we've found that slapping "Everquest" on anything will sell, so we can produce a whole slew of games using our brandname by borrowing ideas from innovating companies rather than innovating ourselves, and do it pretty cheaply.
The only innovative aspect about Everquest is that it's accessible. Dungeons and Dragons, LORD (Legend of the Red Dragon), etc have all done it before and done it better, this is yet another example of Sony taking a great idea, throwing a huge budget behind it, and making profit thanks to the innovation of others.
Everquest can be extremely enjoyable. It really brings paper D&D to life, lets you meet people from all over the world, and is like having a good Dungeon Master around 24/7, but acknowledge that all they do is take existing ideas and capitalize on them. This RTS is just another example.
It is doubtful the monkey would be able to make the connection between the monitor, joysticks, screen display, etc. It is difficult to teach them communication mediums, sign language and flash cards being the preferred method, be that as they can understand them.
However, if they could do so, it would be fascenating. My best friend is doing his internship in Africa to study primates, his major being psychology with a concentration in evolutionary psych, this is the sort of thing they study.
If you read this article closely, it was done for "performance art", not as an actual science experiment. I was pretty fired up when I first read it...
Actually no you stupid uneducated media journalist, that is "pop psychology", he established that primates have a hippocampus, a part of the brain to which memory and emotions are closely related. He theorized that they are CAPABLE of producing literature, not that they WILL produce literature. If that were the case, they would scribble on walls much like ancient man. For all humans know, primates very well may produce literature, but we don't understand the medium they use to do so. It has been proven that primates can communicate emotions, but they need to be taught how to use a communication medium, such as sign language.
Furthermore, primates are not random letter generators, they're an incredibly complex species who's brain is about 99.9% genetically comparable to a humans (a chimps brain), therefore the variables involved are insane.
The Plymouth experiment was funded by England's Arts Council and part of the Vivaria Project, which plans to install computers in zoos across Europe to study differences between animal and artificial life.
Wasn't it Weizenbaum that theorized human intellegence could be replicated through a series of complex algorythems? This idea is excellent, and studying less complex primate brains from an AI perspective could shed much insight into our own. So why are they wasting their money on "performance art"?
I suppose the author is now going to tell us these monkeys are "right brained", "intra-personal intuitive judgmental", and on the top of the "food chain".
You know, last night I was flipping through the channels when I came across the new "Jewel" video on VH1. If you remember Jewel from back in the day, she was a cute little girl with a guitar who did coffee shop type songs, it was kind of catchy. She became popular because she did something (more) genuine, a bit more original, something simple, a little bit different than everyone out there, much like Norah Jones today.
Now, years later, her video appears more like a rap video, its got big flashy letters, her walking through a fashion shoot, NYC, and doing other 'high speed' things big artists do in their videos. A huge budget has been added to what was once appreciated for being simple and original... And I can promise you, her album isn't going to sell shit. Now she's just like every other dime a dozen 'artist' out there.
Face it, many people are fed up with the overprocessed garbage, and when they're given a new medium to listen to new music, they'll take advantage of it.
As for "where everyone listens to indie or rap garbage". How about Hendrix? Zepplin? Dylan? Joplin? The music wasn't created in a studio by record execs. It's harsh, it's unpolished, none of the artists were pretty, but it's still the best music ever created (by most standards), and it continues to sell strong decades after it was made. It's not "pop", it doesn't dominate the charts, and record companies couldn't tell you why it's good, nor emulate the sound and capitalize off the success. But it worked.
The RIAA overlooks niche music, squishing all popular styles of music into something they can play on the radio. Of course music on the radio is going to be popular if that's all you're exposed to, thats the idea.
They refuse to let artists grow or invest the proper time into them. For instance, an artist first sells tons of albums off their originality/talent, then they try to do a followup album, complete with RIAA budget and backing, and BAM! it sucks. Then you never hear from that band again. Think 99% of the bands you heard once or twice in 1998.
Other times they find a decent artist and he or she sells only 100,000 copies of their first album, and it's all over.
I suggest that the record companies put more effort into developing bands and less into curbing piracy.
Perhaps, unlike your claim, people actually want to hear music that's currently popular. Yeah, I'm sure N'Sync and 50 Cent will be around in a few years from now... people don't WANT to listen, they just know no better because their options are so limited.
...but maybe if the RIAA spent more time producing products people wanted to purchase and less time alienating their users they wouldn't have this problem!
Justin Timberlake, Christina Agularia, Kelly Clarkson, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park are being shoved down the throats of their listeners with their preprocessed, $18 garbage, its no goddamned wonder CD sales are down! In one quick swoop, Napster made available all of the "good" music people want to hear AND made the CD format obsolete.
I'm sorry, but I believe it's time for the RIAA to buckle down and try and change their business model if they want to stick around.
What makes no sense about spam is that it seems like the only people really making money off of it are the spammers themselves. It's a shame I don't have it on hand, but more than 75% of the services being offered according to one account, aren't even legit, the main exception being pornography websites. (I'm sure many of you will remember the article, and someone will respond to this with it).
Case in point, what I'm wondering is, who are the companies funding spammers? Judging by the relativly low success rate of bulk email, I'd imagine you're actually losing quite a bit of money to pay a company money to send out emails for your company, emails that potentially damage the reputation of your company due to the vast amounts of illigitimate business and anti spam sentiment on the net.
Simply stated, it sounds like:
Step 1: Send mass emails Step 3: collect profit
I willing to bet their business model was derived from the underpants gnomes...
But just think! Now it'll be almost impossible for me to find free access hardcore porn, fix my credit, learn thousands of Ebay secrets, get that penis enlargement I've always dreamed of, and hear about unique business proposals, such as the time a rich Nigerian banker needed my help to claim millions of dollars, all in one sitting!
c'mon people... they don't have great offers like this in your local supermarket, mind you!
whooooa, wait a second... on one hand, sony is a major critic of recording media, citing in their case against Napster (along with the RIAA) that CD/R sales are up but CDs are down. The music industry, which Sony is a major player in, has been trying to devolop CDs that won't work in a PC, and CD players that won't read CD/Rs. Then on the other hand, now they're implementing DVD drives that can read actually DVD/Rs. Jesus, next thing you know, Sony might start devoloping devices that help you listen to mp3's...
My point is that the music industry wants to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand they argue "music is intellectual property, you're stealing it just as you're stealing a CD when you download music!" but by that argument, I've paid for much of this intellectual property and are entitled to it. I purchased a lot of music on records and tapes, and by their argument, I have purchased the rights to this intellectual property. Therefore, by that argument, a lot of my music library is "legal".
The question at hand is, when you buy music, are you purchasing a physical CD or the rights to intellectual property? If it's intellectual property, when do you no longer have the rights to your old MC Hammer CD (don't lie, we all had it) you lost?
anyway, thanks for reading and responding to my post.
Word of mouth, actually. 90% of the bands I hear of now are through word of mouth, NOT the radio, MTV or RIAA produced mediums. My sister had started attending Thursday's live shows and said I should give one of their songs a listen, so I did by downloading one off Kazaa. I enjoyed it and eventually decided to download the whole album, which I later purchased at a live concert of theirs, the same concert where they encouraged listeners to download and spread their music [Plea For Peace]. This lead me to visit their website, where they advertised other bands (My Chemical Romance, The Noise Consiracy) which I was exposed to inadvertantly. None of these bands will hit MTV due to their lack of ability to market, however, they do find popularity in their own niche.
Word of mouth and local music scenes are very powerful tools. We have become so conditioned to turn on MTV or a Top 20 radio station and have a DJ tell us exactly what is good and what isn't, that most people don't even bother to venture out and hear actual live music and learn to appreciate it for themselves. Record execs find good looking people, write a catchy tune, play it on all the mediums you will be exposed to 30 times a day, essentially shoving the music down everyone's throat. No creativity, no innovation, just "this will sell to teenagers, play it on the radio". It's the McDonaldization of the record industry, the industry tries to appeal to the largest number of people possible using as little resources as possible. For instance, Thursday isn't marketable to the majority of people out there, so the record execs wouldn't waste their time.
The P2P revolution is that it puts music back in the hands of the people, not the RIAA. Yes, some people use kazaa to download the same schlock sold in Sam Goody, but I'd say all in all, a very good number of people use it to acquire new innovative music. I myself probably hear at least 3 or 4 new bands a week, bands that never will make it on the radio nor MTV.
"She added that the company was in discussions with the five largest record labels -- Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group; Sony Music; AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group; Bertelsmann AG; and EMI Group Plc -- to license their music."
What I originally liked about Napster was the fact I wasn't constrained to downloading from the traditional schlock the radio and MTV push on us. I'd say 80% of the music I've been introduced to in the last few years is thanks to Napster and Kazaa lite. I'd of never heard bands like Thursday, Death Cab for Cutie, or Rival Schools without digital music, now they're some of my favorite artists, all of whom I've attended their concerts. Now digital music is all I listen to, and I've been freed from listening to corperate schlock. I couldn't tell you who's on the Top 20 right now, nor have I watched MTV or listened to the radio for about 3 years (seriously).
It's the same problem in a different medium: push pre-processed garbage music down peoples throats. HELLO! That's why people aren't buying music in the first place! Why pay 17$ for a CD which you might listen to two songs on? Most of the time I get bored of that song after a month or two anyway.
The biggest thrill of Napster, though, was being able to get all those old songs you used to have, but your CDs were stolen/scratched/lost or you don't own a tape/record player. About half my.mp3 collection is "recovered", songs I owned at one point but the medium became damaged or obsolete. If these songs are "intellectual property", then I legally own at least half of them. Why should I be charged twice?
I wonder if their new ploy will work with my portible.mp3 player...
If all books go into ebook format, won't it make it that much easier to just "Edit" "Find" phrases and paragraphs in a book, rather than actually reading the entire book? Believe me, the Internet Classics Archive has been a godsend this semester for me, however, I confess that I also didn't read much the material I should have, rather just searched for the phrases I needed to write my thesis. Being a philosophy major, its come to a point where I barely buy books because they're almost useless in book format (just like music not in.mp3 format for me is also useless).
I'm sure to people who do indepth research it'll be a godsend, where people actually read the material but need to find key topics quickly, however, I think it's going to help provoke a world of undereducated undergrads.
At this point, maybe the RIAA would do better to focus on producing quality music and innovative ways to distrobute it instead of dumping all of their funds into stopping what they believe is piracy.
I mean, I know this might sound a little crazy and all, actually producing a quality product that people want, in a format convient to them, in order to take their money...
Yes, if I'm not mistaken. However, T-shirts were handed out immediately upon getting into the top ten, so you got one just by getting in that percentile at one point or another.
Does anyone remember that Starfox competition that Nintendo sponsored? It featured a custom StarFox cart for the SNES that you could play in all of the major toy stores. Gamers could play as many times as they liked to compete for the high score, and at the end, all of the high scores were submitted to Nintendo.
The winner of each store took home a black StarFox bomber jacket, top ten got a T-shirt, and everyone got pin for playing. The grandprize winner scored a trip to Hawii. In my neighborhood, it caused a huge stir about StarFox and I'm willing to bet Nintendo sold a boatload of copies.
I've managed to get the.rom for my emulator, but I'd imagine the cart itself is pretty rare. I thought that it was a pretty cool contest. (possibly due to the fact I took home a nice big StarFox jacket, which I never wore in order to avoid getting beaten up).
Slashdot Mirror
"YOU CAN NOT PLAY AN RPG ON ANY SYSTEM OTHER THAN PEN & PAPER!
Uhhh, thats probably one of the most blatantly incorrect statements I've ever read. You can roleplay in any medium! Pen and paper was the available medium when "role playing games" were introduced, not the defining element. However, there are so many different ways to "role play" (or "play roles") it's insane... (you can even do it during sex, kiddo.)
"Only in a pen & paper game can you truly assume the role of a character and interact with the fictional world in any way possible"
The whole point of a video game is to assume the role of a character and interact with a fictional world.
Traditionally RPGs on a console or computer have been considered to be a game which included stats of characters with growth values, something you could call a storyline, and a non-real time combat system
Uhh, gee, kinda sounds like Dungeons and Dragons in a different format...
With the passing of time, the RPG definition has generalized to where the only defining trait of an RPG now (on a computer or console system) is having stats that grow in one manner or another
So the new Lord of the Rings is an RPG? Soul Calibur is an RPG? These games have RPG like elements, but are not RPGs.
The only other trait on a pure RPG game is a non-real time combat system, but for the full definition of an RPG (be it pure or hybrid) is simply a game with stats that grow.
Final Fantasy has adapted a real time combat system. Basically what has happened is games have adapted elements in RPGs that people like, a prevelant one being character growth.
What defines RPGs are a quest and a prevelant story line. Games that are story driven, rather than action based, are usually referred to as RPGs. Obviously, since character growth is a huge charactaristic of pen and paper D&D, it is another necessary element, but not the defining one. Think D&D: you have a story, characters that grow, and a stat/text battle system. The focus is on interactions between characters, not physical action. Modern RPGs attempt to emulate that system in a digital format.
I'm sorry, but currently, the most effective and widely accepted form of RPG is currently the digital format.
Dating Sims? You have GOT to be kidding me.
If you're that compelled to interact with females in a digital enviroment, play an MMORPG where at least they can communicate back.
"Square somehow is becoming worst in their desire to never ever let go of FF"
Are you kidding? Final Fantasy brought the text based RPG (as opposed to say Zelda) to the masses. What was once a very specialized 'niche genre' is now a very profitable market. From a purely economical standpoint, Square would be insane to drop the Final Fantasy name. I bought my Playstation just to play Final Fantasy VII when it came out. Prior to that, I was happy with my SNES (due to the fact it had all of the good RPGs). Look how well FF has sold compared to Vagrant Story, The Bouncer, Chaos Legion, etc. Final Fantasy is the RPG for the masses. Final Fantasy 1,2, and 3 were probably a bit too difficult for the average gamer (particularly 1 and 2), but now the series appeals to just about everyone. And their profits reflect it.
"I'll be amazed when I see an FF game do something new, and not just pretty graphics and FMV"
Okay, you obviously haven't played Final Fantasy XI. They've created an MMORPG using the brilliantly designed Final Fantasy graphics, inferface, and world, and then linked Japan, America, and the PS2 market. The game is more innovative than any other MMORPG on the market due to its appeal and ease of use. I found everquest to be too difficult and complicated to get into but 2 days into it, I can't get enough FFXI. 4 guys in my hall went out and picked it up because it's just so damn good and easy to get into. They are all also new to MMORPGs, but it feels like we've all been playing them for years.
As for the FMV, I think the stories and cool characters are what's appealing to everyone. The stories are much better than most movies out today. I'd like to see them tone them down a bit (Xenosaga, ugh!), but all in all, Final Fantasy VII is probably one of the best games ever made. The atmosphere Square creats in each FF game is just incredible.
Personally, I think it's incredible that Square has taken Final Fantasy and evolved it into one of the most innovative, entertaining, and appealing series ever.
The public accepts the idea that batteries die and need to be replaced, so therefore, battery companies make money. What would be their incentive to create better batteries? So that the public would have to purchase them less frequently? Then we'd probably just end up paying the difference for the better battery. I doesn't sound like a good business model to take a cut in profits to make everyone's life a little bit easier. I don't really think there's much of a public demand to reform the battery industry, so therefore there's no need to do so for the industry. Just keep up with the technology.
I guess on a side note, my rechargable batteries are a godsend. While you can debate the economics of it all (40$ for a charger and 4 batteries), I just like not having to worry about having batteries for my MP3 player [Nike PSA64]. I use it primarily for working out, I go through a battery every week or two, throw it in the charger, and then replace it. They've lasted all summer and still give me numerous days of life. Prior to purchasing them, I was going through batteries like a mad man, buying a pack every two weeks to keep up with my working out. I think its the best solution for anyone who goes through a lot of batteries...
Does anyone find it strange how little hype KOTOR has been getting? I only own a PS2 and a PC... I had actually considered getting an X-Box just to play it. About two weeks ago I was in EB and I asked one of the sales people when it was coming out for PC, and he said "oh, that's just an internet rumor...". I asked if he could double check for me, and to his surprise he said it was coming out in November. It's not even on the front of EB Games Website.
I'm frankly very shocked that such a highly critically acclaimed game, initially viewed as being X-Box exclusive, is receiving so little advertising this close to it's ship date. With so many quality games released this month, I'm baffled. Star Wars games usually sell okay just because of the name, let alone ones that have been this well received.
That's the beauty of video games, that the reviews pretty much make them or break them. I highly doubt Ico would have sold so well if not for it's critical acclaim. You can pretty much alwasy skip the hype and the BS, because the game is always hyped to death, but then the reviews tell it like it is.
Also- I think that reviewers rush to get their review out- to be first, or at least not to be last.
Oh no doubt, but they also receive games before they get released. I'd imagine if a developer thinks a game is going to be well critically received, it'd be in their best interest to get the reviews out as soon as possible just to start a buzz. I mean, if a game is getting 9's on every website on it's release date, chances are I'm going to pick it up. On the other hand, if the game isn't going to be that good but can sell on name alone, then it's probably in their best interest to keep it out of the hands of reviewers for as long as possible.
This means that a reviewer has played the game for one day- and we are really getting his initial reaction. Simpsons Hit and Run is a good example of this. The game is really good- for a while...then it seems to get very boring.
HA! Thats the game I just traded in for Medal of Honor. It got boring REAL fast. I'm a huge Simpsons fan, don't get me wrong, it just got spent. Even GTA3/Vice City got spent, but I kept them both for awhile because my friends liked them. It defenetly lacked substance after the initial Simpsons thrill wore off.
Maybe this is why Electronics Botique has gotten so into promoting pre-ordering games. It seems like everytime that you pre-order a game, you get some kind of incentive, usually more store credit for trading in old games. Just recently, I received an additonal 3$ trade in value for every game I traded in, and since I traded in 10 games, well, you can do the math... and all I had to do was pre-order SSX3 (which I didn't even purchase, I know it had great reviews, I just don't like snowboarding games). Maybe they assume that once you pre-order it, you somehow feel locked into purchasing it, or maybe you'll purchase it before the reviews even come out. I refuse to purchase a game that gets below an 80% on Gametab.
From a business standpoint, you'd think this would be a bad idea. Though I pre-purchased Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (FINALLY a game based on the Marine Corps), if it ends up getting bad reviews, I'll use my store credit towards something else AND keep my extra bonuses. I'd imagine a lot of people will do the same thing, and EB will be left with a huge overstock of a crappy game.
As for the value of reviews, some games are worth every penny. Goldeney, Age of Mythology, Warcraft, Halo, Madden, Neverwinter Nights, Grand Theft Auto 3, Final Fantasy... at 100$ these games still would have been a bargain, due to the countless hours spent playing them. All of these games received phoenominal reviews. Frankly, with the exception of a few games, I usually buy games soley based on the reviews they recieve. If I'm going to shell out 50$, it had better damn well be a good game, especially for the console, because of the limited online capabilities. If everyone bought games soley based on reviews (provided the reviews weren't overly biased), then it would force companies to release only very high quality games.
Oh that's just great. Now a degree in KLINGON has more practical application than my liberal arts degree...
Sadly, now a degree in Klingon probably now has more practical application than a degree in liberal arts.
I should have listened to my parents...
While I agree that it's a waste of a budget in Oregon, it's fascenating that entertainment is actually creating languages and defining a seperate culture.
Language been an evolving process for thousands of years, actually growing less complex and more flexible as the society grows more complex. (Ancient Greek is EXTREMELY complex where as modern Greek had to adapt). Roddenberry managed to do this in less than 50 years, though I doubt Klingon contains the complexities and flexibility of a modern language.
Society is defined as "A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture" for which Star trek now fits the bill, so we're actually creating societies and cultures within a society and a culture through entertainment, yet we're all still linked to a larger one by our nationality, being a human, etc.
What I'm saying is that the ability to knowingly create a distinct culture is pretty interesting, and it shows society has become incredibly complex and that entertainment and pop culture play such a huge role in our society today that its mind blowing.
"Most successful real-time strategy titles follow the same formula we have here," he said. "The big difference is that we've also been provided an excellent opportunity to expand the tremendously popular EverQuest universe. We've got this great background world and these great characters to play with. Few competitors can claim that."
Translate - we've found that slapping "Everquest" on anything will sell, so we can produce a whole slew of games using our brandname by borrowing ideas from innovating companies rather than innovating ourselves, and do it pretty cheaply.
The only innovative aspect about Everquest is that it's accessible. Dungeons and Dragons, LORD (Legend of the Red Dragon), etc have all done it before and done it better, this is yet another example of Sony taking a great idea, throwing a huge budget behind it, and making profit thanks to the innovation of others.
Everquest can be extremely enjoyable. It really brings paper D&D to life, lets you meet people from all over the world, and is like having a good Dungeon Master around 24/7, but acknowledge that all they do is take existing ideas and capitalize on them. This RTS is just another example.
It is doubtful the monkey would be able to make the connection between the monitor, joysticks, screen display, etc. It is difficult to teach them communication mediums, sign language and flash cards being the preferred method, be that as they can understand them.
However, if they could do so, it would be fascenating. My best friend is doing his internship in Africa to study primates, his major being psychology with a concentration in evolutionary psych, this is the sort of thing they study.
If you read this article closely, it was done for "performance art", not as an actual science experiment. I was pretty fired up when I first read it...
Actually no you stupid uneducated media journalist, that is "pop psychology", he established that primates have a hippocampus, a part of the brain to which memory and emotions are closely related. He theorized that they are CAPABLE of producing literature, not that they WILL produce literature. If that were the case, they would scribble on walls much like ancient man. For all humans know, primates very well may produce literature, but we don't understand the medium they use to do so. It has been proven that primates can communicate emotions, but they need to be taught how to use a communication medium, such as sign language.
Furthermore, primates are not random letter generators, they're an incredibly complex species who's brain is about 99.9% genetically comparable to a humans (a chimps brain), therefore the variables involved are insane.
The Plymouth experiment was funded by England's Arts Council and part of the Vivaria Project, which plans to install computers in zoos across Europe to study differences between animal and artificial life.
Wasn't it Weizenbaum that theorized human intellegence could be replicated through a series of complex algorythems? This idea is excellent, and studying less complex primate brains from an AI perspective could shed much insight into our own. So why are they wasting their money on "performance art"?
I suppose the author is now going to tell us these monkeys are "right brained", "intra-personal intuitive judgmental", and on the top of the "food chain".
You know, last night I was flipping through the channels when I came across the new "Jewel" video on VH1. If you remember Jewel from back in the day, she was a cute little girl with a guitar who did coffee shop type songs, it was kind of catchy. She became popular because she did something (more) genuine, a bit more original, something simple, a little bit different than everyone out there, much like Norah Jones today.
Now, years later, her video appears more like a rap video, its got big flashy letters, her walking through a fashion shoot, NYC, and doing other 'high speed' things big artists do in their videos. A huge budget has been added to what was once appreciated for being simple and original... And I can promise you, her album isn't going to sell shit. Now she's just like every other dime a dozen 'artist' out there.
Face it, many people are fed up with the overprocessed garbage, and when they're given a new medium to listen to new music, they'll take advantage of it.
As for "where everyone listens to indie or rap garbage". How about Hendrix? Zepplin? Dylan? Joplin? The music wasn't created in a studio by record execs. It's harsh, it's unpolished, none of the artists were pretty, but it's still the best music ever created (by most standards), and it continues to sell strong decades after it was made. It's not "pop", it doesn't dominate the charts, and record companies couldn't tell you why it's good, nor emulate the sound and capitalize off the success. But it worked.
The RIAA overlooks niche music, squishing all popular styles of music into something they can play on the radio. Of course music on the radio is going to be popular if that's all you're exposed to, thats the idea.
They refuse to let artists grow or invest the proper time into them. For instance, an artist first sells tons of albums off their originality/talent, then they try to do a followup album, complete with RIAA budget and backing, and BAM! it sucks. Then you never hear from that band again. Think 99% of the bands you heard once or twice in 1998.
Other times they find a decent artist and he or she sells only 100,000 copies of their first album, and it's all over.
I suggest that the record companies put more effort into developing bands and less into curbing piracy.
Perhaps, unlike your claim, people actually want to hear music that's currently popular. Yeah, I'm sure N'Sync and 50 Cent will be around in a few years from now... people don't WANT to listen, they just know no better because their options are so limited.
...but maybe if the RIAA spent more time producing products people wanted to purchase and less time alienating their users they wouldn't have this problem!
Justin Timberlake, Christina Agularia, Kelly Clarkson, 50 Cent, and Linkin Park are being shoved down the throats of their listeners with their preprocessed, $18 garbage, its no goddamned wonder CD sales are down! In one quick swoop, Napster made available all of the "good" music people want to hear AND made the CD format obsolete.
I'm sorry, but I believe it's time for the RIAA to buckle down and try and change their business model if they want to stick around.
What makes no sense about spam is that it seems like the only people really making money off of it are the spammers themselves. It's a shame I don't have it on hand, but more than 75% of the services being offered according to one account, aren't even legit, the main exception being pornography websites. (I'm sure many of you will remember the article, and someone will respond to this with it).
Case in point, what I'm wondering is, who are the companies funding spammers? Judging by the relativly low success rate of bulk email, I'd imagine you're actually losing quite a bit of money to pay a company money to send out emails for your company, emails that potentially damage the reputation of your company due to the vast amounts of illigitimate business and anti spam sentiment on the net.
Simply stated, it sounds like:
Step 1: Send mass emails
Step 3: collect profit
I willing to bet their business model was derived from the underpants gnomes...
But just think! Now it'll be almost impossible for me to find free access hardcore porn, fix my credit, learn thousands of Ebay secrets, get that penis enlargement I've always dreamed of, and hear about unique business proposals, such as the time a rich Nigerian banker needed my help to claim millions of dollars, all in one sitting!
c'mon people... they don't have great offers like this in your local supermarket, mind you!
whooooa, wait a second... on one hand, sony is a major critic of recording media, citing in their case against Napster (along with the RIAA) that CD/R sales are up but CDs are down. The music industry, which Sony is a major player in, has been trying to devolop CDs that won't work in a PC, and CD players that won't read CD/Rs.
Then on the other hand, now they're implementing DVD drives that can read actually DVD/Rs. Jesus, next thing you know, Sony might start devoloping devices that help you listen to mp3's...
Seriously, does anyone else see the irony?
My point is that the music industry wants to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand they argue "music is intellectual property, you're stealing it just as you're stealing a CD when you download music!" but by that argument, I've paid for much of this intellectual property and are entitled to it. I purchased a lot of music on records and tapes, and by their argument, I have purchased the rights to this intellectual property. Therefore, by that argument, a lot of my music library is "legal".
The question at hand is, when you buy music, are you purchasing a physical CD or the rights to intellectual property? If it's intellectual property, when do you no longer have the rights to your old MC Hammer CD (don't lie, we all had it) you lost?
anyway, thanks for reading and responding to my post.
Word of mouth, actually. 90% of the bands I hear of now are through word of mouth, NOT the radio, MTV or RIAA produced mediums. My sister had started attending Thursday's live shows and said I should give one of their songs a listen, so I did by downloading one off Kazaa. I enjoyed it and eventually decided to download the whole album, which I later purchased at a live concert of theirs, the same concert where they encouraged listeners to download and spread their music [Plea For Peace]. This lead me to visit their website, where they advertised other bands (My Chemical Romance, The Noise Consiracy) which I was exposed to inadvertantly. None of these bands will hit MTV due to their lack of ability to market, however, they do find popularity in their own niche.
Word of mouth and local music scenes are very powerful tools. We have become so conditioned to turn on MTV or a Top 20 radio station and have a DJ tell us exactly what is good and what isn't, that most people don't even bother to venture out and hear actual live music and learn to appreciate it for themselves. Record execs find good looking people, write a catchy tune, play it on all the mediums you will be exposed to 30 times a day, essentially shoving the music down everyone's throat. No creativity, no innovation, just "this will sell to teenagers, play it on the radio". It's the McDonaldization of the record industry, the industry tries to appeal to the largest number of people possible using as little resources as possible. For instance, Thursday isn't marketable to the majority of people out there, so the record execs wouldn't waste their time.
The P2P revolution is that it puts music back in the hands of the people, not the RIAA. Yes, some people use kazaa to download the same schlock sold in Sam Goody, but I'd say all in all, a very good number of people use it to acquire new innovative music. I myself probably hear at least 3 or 4 new bands a week, bands that never will make it on the radio nor MTV.
"She added that the company was in discussions with the five largest record labels -- Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group; Sony Music; AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group; Bertelsmann AG; and EMI Group Plc -- to license their music."
.mp3 collection is "recovered", songs I owned at one point but the medium became damaged or obsolete. If these songs are "intellectual property", then I legally own at least half of them. Why should I be charged twice?
.mp3 player...
What I originally liked about Napster was the fact I wasn't constrained to downloading from the traditional schlock the radio and MTV push on us. I'd say 80% of the music I've been introduced to in the last few years is thanks to Napster and Kazaa lite. I'd of never heard bands like Thursday, Death Cab for Cutie, or Rival Schools without digital music, now they're some of my favorite artists, all of whom I've attended their concerts. Now digital music is all I listen to, and I've been freed from listening to corperate schlock. I couldn't tell you who's on the Top 20 right now, nor have I watched MTV or listened to the radio for about 3 years (seriously).
It's the same problem in a different medium: push pre-processed garbage music down peoples throats. HELLO! That's why people aren't buying music in the first place! Why pay 17$ for a CD which you might listen to two songs on? Most of the time I get bored of that song after a month or two anyway.
The biggest thrill of Napster, though, was being able to get all those old songs you used to have, but your CDs were stolen/scratched/lost or you don't own a tape/record player. About half my
I wonder if their new ploy will work with my portible
If all books go into ebook format, won't it make it that much easier to just "Edit" "Find" phrases and paragraphs in a book, rather than actually reading the entire book? Believe me, the Internet Classics Archive has been a godsend this semester for me, however, I confess that I also didn't read much the material I should have, rather just searched for the phrases I needed to write my thesis. Being a philosophy major, its come to a point where I barely buy books because they're almost useless in book format (just like music not in .mp3 format for me is also useless).
I'm sure to people who do indepth research it'll be a godsend, where people actually read the material but need to find key topics quickly, however, I think it's going to help provoke a world of undereducated undergrads.
At this point, maybe the RIAA would do better to focus on producing quality music and innovative ways to distrobute it instead of dumping all of their funds into stopping what they believe is piracy.
I mean, I know this might sound a little crazy and all, actually producing a quality product that people want, in a format convient to them, in order to take their money...
Yes, if I'm not mistaken. However, T-shirts were handed out immediately upon getting into the top ten, so you got one just by getting in that percentile at one point or another.
Does anyone remember that Starfox competition that Nintendo sponsored? It featured a custom StarFox cart for the SNES that you could play in all of the major toy stores. Gamers could play as many times as they liked to compete for the high score, and at the end, all of the high scores were submitted to Nintendo.
.rom for my emulator, but I'd imagine the cart itself is pretty rare. I thought that it was a pretty cool contest. (possibly due to the fact I took home a nice big StarFox jacket, which I never wore in order to avoid getting beaten up).
The winner of each store took home a black StarFox bomber jacket, top ten got a T-shirt, and everyone got pin for playing. The grandprize winner scored a trip to Hawii. In my neighborhood, it caused a huge stir about StarFox and I'm willing to bet Nintendo sold a boatload of copies.
I've managed to get the