Ultima, 4 in particular, was and still is one of the only RPGs to allow you to role-play. The entire game's plot was based around how the player interacted with every NPC and encounter in the world, and the choices they made. Entirely. You could not beat the game unless you played a role that relied on verbal and moral interaction, instead of just combat and clicking through a few different dialogue trees (you could click any selection in dialogue in Planescape and still beat the game with at least one of the endings). Planescape is one of my favorite games of all time, but don't sell Ultima short. NO GAME has yet done what Ultima 4 did, by putting the player character in an outwards-looking-in perspective, and no game has come close to the continuity and cohesiveness of the Ultima 7 world, just to name two ground breaking points of the series.
but that would be every star wars fan-made movie ever made, or star trek, etc.
at one point in time I had heard this stuff was protected under copyright as long as the author(s) had no intention of selling it. I know for a fact that is the way parody laws work. I can't see much difference here.
Someone should develop a game about Microsoft shutting down independant game developers who develop independant games based on Microsoft licenses. They could even hide the actual game within the game, and it would be perfectly safe under parody law, I'd imagine. Just a thought.
Warren Spectors perspective on this subject is entirely one dimensional. He assumes that all Indie developers want to do is makes games so they can strike it rich and be successful.
I develop and publish independant games for fun. I always set the bar as high as possible and I try to create as great a piece of entertainment as I can under my limitations. Human kind did not give birth to entertainment and media to make money. It was formed because people had stories to tell and ideas to share.
So do not tell indie devs to give up. most of them are independant and creating games because they want to push their own ideas into a format they love and share it with an audience. Screw money and success, those are evil anyways.
Why exactly do you need an implant for this? This reads more as an attempt at resistance-numbing the public to the concept of implants themselves, because franky there's no viable reason you can't have all the features you listed in your keychain or wallet instead. I don't see the threat of lost or stolen hardware to be worth it.
This article seems to assume that cinematics are synonymous to storytelling, which is a mistake made by many. You do not need to force the player to watch non-interactive sequences to convey narrative. The interactive medium by nature is a platform for the player to tell their own story. Many designers confuse games as a medium for a story they themselves want to tell, as opposed to providing the player with a blank canvas that allows them to form their own.
Interesting stories are made with interesting characters. We like to see motivation, and the many choices that the characters make allow us to get to know them while weaving an interesting tale. That is the anatomy of a story: a linear history of choices made by one or more people. Developers should focus on creating as wide an interactive space (in terms of possibility) as they are capable. Allowing their audience to make the choices within this space will build their own character, and motivation in the form of overarching plot can be driven by dozens of different ways aside from cinematics.
I'm not an anti-cinematics guy, but I hate to see people bumping their heads on the same wall over and over again; namely, trying to figure out how they can force the tired, old form of linear narrative into the interactive genre. Sometimes it works, but only half way, and someday someone will realize this and create a work that we've never dreamed of playing, and it will be engaging, and memorable, and when we're done we'll play it again a dozen more times to see the outcome of different choices. Story *is* important, but there are other ways to present it.
I have to disagree with the RPG comment. Cutscenes in RPGs are a somewhat new thing. RPGs are all about player-driver stories; that's what Role-Playing is. Only in the later console generation have we had oodles of over-produced, pretty animated sequences to look at. If you look at PC RPGs they continue in the more traditional direction: YOU are the player, and YOU tell your own story. If I want to play the role of another character in another world, watching someone's camera work and seeing the character I'm supposed to identify with speak his own mind without my input, I immediately detach from the experience.
You brought up my favorite example for this argument. Sands of Time stands is not just an example that gameplay does not need cinematics, but that you can have a rewarding and thorough narrative accompanying your game without resulting in endless cutscenes. Sands of Time still manages to tell a great story through character monologue and vocal narrative, and that game literally had more depth of character than most games with hours of cinematics. I always tell everyone to play it just to see for themselves. It's a great excercise in design by Ubisoft on that one.
Yeah I thought it was strange they mentioned that series as well. I think Final Fantasy gets a lot of strife because it's just another long-running series in this medium. I'm not as big a fan of it as I used to be, (specifically because of the drastic changes in it) but I do give Square credit for reinventing the series and it's accompanying game mechanics with every iteration. I can't think of another company that has had the guts to do that. Most other studios would see that as a massive risk not worth taking.
Why do we continually let wrong-doing companies settle lawsuits by giving away advertising? This same thing happened with Microsoft back when their "punishment" was to give several school districts copies of Windows and other MS Software. This action isn't reprimanding the company at fault, but giving them more customers instead.
I wish lawsuits could only be settled with cold-hard-cash or *serious*, displayable change in company policy to avoid future indiscretions.
You can turn the voice acting off. The Japanese version had no voice acting at all, and was a bit better off because of that. Just turn the Voice setting to 0 in the menu and you'll not miss out on anything else. The only difference is that the prerendered cutscenes have voice encoded into them, but there are only a handful in the game anyhow.
So was I. I gave it a go, but their "installer" is one of those small apps that you download and then run, and then it connects to some server to download the *real* installer (while sending them all your PC's information straight to marketing, I suspect). One step away from spyware.
Screw that. I knew I should have grabbed a version of this application before Yahoo messed with it. Just giving you a heads up though it's probably too late.
This is not the issue is the gamer selling the game. It's the retail outlets pushing sales on used games instead of new games. This means when a customer comes into the store, the store will push them to buy a used copy of Gran Turismo 4, instead of the new copy (which is nearly always only a fraction of savings for the customer anyhow, but almost 100% profit for the store).
This causes the publisher to lose out on a sale for every used copy of the game sold. The game could be the best one made ever, with every gamer intending to buy a copy in the first place, but it won't sell well enough to keep the publisher afloat if the majority of the sales on it are used.
Granted this requires a lot of gamers to sell their copies in the first place, but I can kind of see where the publisher is coming from in this regard.
Either way, resorting to legal action and the whole "you're buying a license, not a game" crap is quite stupid, so I hope it doesn't come to that. My personal fear is that we're going to resort to locking down games to only play on one system and never run again on a different one (it's been discussed), or games actually degrading in quality over time forcing used copies to display their age after they've been played previously. Then we're just enforcing a superficial limitation on the digital medium, which is a smaller part of the overall digital copyright issue in the first place (falsly limiting otherwise limitless resources under the pretense of actual, lost material wealth).
I think he expected to be treated like a trustworthy, normal human being. No one likes being treated like a criminal; people are not liabilities.
The real liabilities are our mistreatment of employees, and how the reaction to lack of respect and trust takes form from them. The majority of the time that an employee does something bad to his or her workplace, it's an act of revenge or bitterness because they wronged and feel disrespected. Contrary to popular belief people do not cause mayhem and mischeif to others for no reason.
What we really need to look at is the behavior of companies towards the people they employ, and the people they consider customers.
"Game Cube has a 400 mhz processor and the Xbox 360 has 3 core processor running at 3ghz. Meaning Xbox is almost 8 times as powerful."
That is entirely false. CPU's don't work that way, even though it sounds logical. For the sake of explanation, you could build a system with a processor that runs 2x as fast as another, but if that first system has twice as much bandwidth for its bus it will run at least the same speed as the latter. It also depends a great deal on the way software is coded, but those are just two examples of an infinite number of factors to take into account. Companies like to spout and advertise specs, but realistically they are meaningless. A good mainstream example of this is the Intel CPU vs. AMD CPU battle. Intel CPU's are clocked much, much faster (for sake of simplicity) than an AMD, but the AMD can perform more calculations per second. Despite the latter being a slower processor, it's still faster than the Intel. So don't pay attention to specs. A 1ghz system isn't necessarily half the speed of a 2ghz one. In the end it doesn't matter. Nintendo has always downplayed their systems power and emphasized the the games they make. The gamecube is largely considered the weakest of the 3 current systems, but spec-wise is much more powerful than the PS2. It just depends on how you use it.
You know, I'm thinking that 2x-3x as powerful as the gamecube is about the same power as the 360 (and PS3 as well). People flipped out about that statement originally, assuming it meant the revolution was going to be some underpowered system, but every 360 game I see looks pretty much like this generation with less compression on the textures and higher res video. I'm not too worried about the revolution giving us some good games, but I'm worried about mainstream gamers opening their eyes outside of MTV and IGN enough to see the potential.
I think this is a work of satire. Especially if you read through the entire article to the closing statements. As I read through I couldn't believe he could think so highly of such a single-minded enterprise, and I heavily disagreed with his statement that hardcore gamers only wanted to games that allowed them to kill. Maybe the definition of hardcore has shifted in the years, but my pile of strategy titles would argue with that initial claim. Whether it's intentional or not, this article is pointing out how shallow and narrow our options for interactivity are. Technically we have a wider spectrum of options available to us in our games today, but it's really just a wider spectrum of violence. Solutions to problems that don't involve gunning down waves of enemies seem novel in action titles now-a-days. Half-Life was a memorable action title because you could actually *talk* to characters, the first 30 minutes of the game didn't even present you with a weapon. I hope what the author is trying to say, is that we really need to look at other ways to interact in these worlds. I like the occasional action title as much as the next guy, but by *nothing but* killing waves of mindless enemies we're not only dumbing ourselves, but making the gamer demographic look more unappealing and less intelligent from the outside as well. This is supposed to be a new artform. Play some Katamari, people!
"It interferes with self-esteem. The most disturbing fact is that children who have the least amount of self-esteem and mastery over their life are the ones most attracted to video games. According to Dr. Jane Healy in her book Endangered Minds, boys who pursue violent video games are more likely to have low self-confidence in school and be less successful in personal relationships. Studies have also shown that for girls increased time playing video or computer games is associated with lowered self-esteem. These games give children an out when they don't feel in with other groups."
What part of that is wrong or harmful? In all honesty, when I was growing up if I didn't have games as an "out" for not fitting in with nearly every other person I knew, I wouldn't be here today. I'm all for studies and whatnot, but when they start taking the positive aspects of gaming and turning it negative, this is even more obviously a sham to get attention for themselves. Games just seem to be the popular, social punching bag of the day lately.
Very overrated and unfinished game. It had great presentation, but that's about it. Everyone seems to get wrapped up in presentation and production values though, and usually forget to look at the game underneath.
If they had finished it with a satisfying conclusion and more than 3 or 5 or so dungeon environments it would have been much better, but the game ends before they have even told the story, leaving the pinnacle of it's gameplay at the first half hour (you'll get immediately wrapped up in it within the first 5 minutes, and it levels out immediately after that). I'd say Beyond Good and Evil was a "could have been" great game. So try it out if you are able to find appreciation in potential.
I'd like to think the same thing. I usually get the soundtracks to all the games I own in MP3 format. A friend of mine came over one time and pointed out that a lot of people would see that as illegal music downloading. That kind of surprised me because I had the same philosophy you had: I own the game. If I wanted, wouldn't I be able to just rip the songs from the game and take it with me anyway? I've bought a few game OSTs to titles in the past, but for the most part I just grab them from somewhere offline and enjoy listening to them while I work. Is this really going to be seen as an "illegal" activity despite the games being in my ownership? I'd rather not have publishers control what I do with my possessions that much.
Unfortunately it seems like anywhere a company is standing to lose money, they'll fight it out with their customers regardless of who's in the right. Now they there's beginning to be a market for game music in the US, I'm afraid things might go that route with laws along the lines of the DMCA potentially saying it's unlawful to take music out of another media that you already own. Blah.
Don't get me wrong, Cliff Blezinsky is a decent designer, and has been from a relatively young age in the industry, if memory serves.
However, it definitely shows the atmosphere and nature of people that make up his world. Myself and most of my friends can play the good or evil path in games that allow those decisions decision. I prefer to pathe my own way, rather than follow a predetermined course of character development, in games like Knights of the Old Republic, and ones that offer even more organic choices like Morrowind. Being good in a game is not something a lot of people choke on from my perspective. It's fun to play the bad guy and get away with the darker side of human nature that's traditionally supressed in our culture, but there's also something to be said for playing the heroic pinnacle of goodness and saving the world too.
You know, even if it were *just* a remote control (which on that, you're incorrect to begin with - though I sense your statement is more of an attempt to defame, rather than one of ignorance), it would still be a departure from the norm. What the article is saying, or at least the quote in question, is that we should move on any opportunity to support a departure from the norm based on that alone. He makes a good point that people continuously want a new experience. The revolution controller as a step in the right direction by bringing gamers closer to real interactivity, which is the entire reason and purpose of video games in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultima, 4 in particular, was and still is one of the only RPGs to allow you to role-play. The entire game's plot was based around how the player interacted with every NPC and encounter in the world, and the choices they made. Entirely. You could not beat the game unless you played a role that relied on verbal and moral interaction, instead of just combat and clicking through a few different dialogue trees (you could click any selection in dialogue in Planescape and still beat the game with at least one of the endings). Planescape is one of my favorite games of all time, but don't sell Ultima short. NO GAME has yet done what Ultima 4 did, by putting the player character in an outwards-looking-in perspective, and no game has come close to the continuity and cohesiveness of the Ultima 7 world, just to name two ground breaking points of the series.
but that would be every star wars fan-made movie ever made, or star trek, etc.
at one point in time I had heard this stuff was protected under copyright as long as the author(s) had no intention of selling it. I know for a fact that is the way parody laws work. I can't see much difference here.
Someone should develop a game about Microsoft shutting down independant game developers who develop independant games based on Microsoft licenses. They could even hide the actual game within the game, and it would be perfectly safe under parody law, I'd imagine. Just a thought.
Warren Spectors perspective on this subject is entirely one dimensional. He assumes that all Indie developers want to do is makes games so they can strike it rich and be successful.
I develop and publish independant games for fun. I always set the bar as high as possible and I try to create as great a piece of entertainment as I can under my limitations. Human kind did not give birth to entertainment and media to make money. It was formed because people had stories to tell and ideas to share.
So do not tell indie devs to give up. most of them are independant and creating games because they want to push their own ideas into a format they love and share it with an audience. Screw money and success, those are evil anyways.
Why exactly do you need an implant for this? This reads more as an attempt at resistance-numbing the public to the concept of implants themselves, because franky there's no viable reason you can't have all the features you listed in your keychain or wallet instead. I don't see the threat of lost or stolen hardware to be worth it.
This article seems to assume that cinematics are synonymous to storytelling, which is a mistake made by many. You do not need to force the player to watch non-interactive sequences to convey narrative. The interactive medium by nature is a platform for the player to tell their own story. Many designers confuse games as a medium for a story they themselves want to tell, as opposed to providing the player with a blank canvas that allows them to form their own.
Interesting stories are made with interesting characters. We like to see motivation, and the many choices that the characters make allow us to get to know them while weaving an interesting tale. That is the anatomy of a story: a linear history of choices made by one or more people. Developers should focus on creating as wide an interactive space (in terms of possibility) as they are capable. Allowing their audience to make the choices within this space will build their own character, and motivation in the form of overarching plot can be driven by dozens of different ways aside from cinematics.
I'm not an anti-cinematics guy, but I hate to see people bumping their heads on the same wall over and over again; namely, trying to figure out how they can force the tired, old form of linear narrative into the interactive genre. Sometimes it works, but only half way, and someday someone will realize this and create a work that we've never dreamed of playing, and it will be engaging, and memorable, and when we're done we'll play it again a dozen more times to see the outcome of different choices. Story *is* important, but there are other ways to present it.
And unlike Star Ocean 2, they were all different.
Take that non-believer!
I have to disagree with the RPG comment. Cutscenes in RPGs are a somewhat new thing. RPGs are all about player-driver stories; that's what Role-Playing is.
Only in the later console generation have we had oodles of over-produced, pretty animated sequences to look at. If you look at PC RPGs they continue in the more traditional direction: YOU are the player, and YOU tell your own story. If I want to play the role of another character in another world, watching someone's camera work and seeing the character I'm supposed to identify with speak his own mind without my input, I immediately detach from the experience.
Say no to Cinematics. Save Lives.
You brought up my favorite example for this argument. Sands of Time stands is not just an example that gameplay does not need cinematics, but that you can have a rewarding and thorough narrative accompanying your game without resulting in endless cutscenes.
Sands of Time still manages to tell a great story through character monologue and vocal narrative, and that game literally had more depth of character than most games with hours of cinematics.
I always tell everyone to play it just to see for themselves. It's a great excercise in design by Ubisoft on that one.
Yeah I thought it was strange they mentioned that series as well. I think Final Fantasy gets a lot of strife because it's just another long-running series in this medium. I'm not as big a fan of it as I used to be, (specifically because of the drastic changes in it) but I do give Square credit for reinventing the series and it's accompanying game mechanics with every iteration.
I can't think of another company that has had the guts to do that. Most other studios would see that as a massive risk not worth taking.
Quick, secure all your books before they poison our childrens minds with damage and violences!!!
Why do we continually let wrong-doing companies settle lawsuits by giving away advertising? This same thing happened with Microsoft back when their "punishment" was to give several school districts copies of Windows and other MS Software. This action isn't reprimanding the company at fault, but giving them more customers instead.
I wish lawsuits could only be settled with cold-hard-cash or *serious*, displayable change in company policy to avoid future indiscretions.
You can turn the voice acting off. The Japanese version had no voice acting at all, and was a bit better off because of that. Just turn the Voice setting to 0 in the menu and you'll not miss out on anything else. The only difference is that the prerendered cutscenes have voice encoded into them, but there are only a handful in the game anyhow.
So was I. I gave it a go, but their "installer" is one of those small apps that you download and then run, and then it connects to some server to download the *real* installer (while sending them all your PC's information straight to marketing, I suspect). One step away from spyware.
Screw that. I knew I should have grabbed a version of this application before Yahoo messed with it. Just giving you a heads up though it's probably too late.
This is not the issue is the gamer selling the game. It's the retail outlets pushing sales on used games instead of new games. This means when a customer comes into the store, the store will push them to buy a used copy of Gran Turismo 4, instead of the new copy (which is nearly always only a fraction of savings for the customer anyhow, but almost 100% profit for the store).
This causes the publisher to lose out on a sale for every used copy of the game sold. The game could be the best one made ever, with every gamer intending to buy a copy in the first place, but it won't sell well enough to keep the publisher afloat if the majority of the sales on it are used.
Granted this requires a lot of gamers to sell their copies in the first place, but I can kind of see where the publisher is coming from in this regard.
Either way, resorting to legal action and the whole "you're buying a license, not a game" crap is quite stupid, so I hope it doesn't come to that. My personal fear is that we're going to resort to locking down games to only play on one system and never run again on a different one (it's been discussed), or games actually degrading in quality over time forcing used copies to display their age after they've been played previously. Then we're just enforcing a superficial limitation on the digital medium, which is a smaller part of the overall digital copyright issue in the first place (falsly limiting otherwise limitless resources under the pretense of actual, lost material wealth).
I think he expected to be treated like a trustworthy, normal human being. No one likes being treated like a criminal; people are not liabilities.
The real liabilities are our mistreatment of employees, and how the reaction to lack of respect and trust takes form from them. The majority of the time that an employee does something bad to his or her workplace, it's an act of revenge or bitterness because they wronged and feel disrespected. Contrary to popular belief people do not cause mayhem and mischeif to others for no reason.
What we really need to look at is the behavior of companies towards the people they employ, and the people they consider customers.
"Game Cube has a 400 mhz processor and the Xbox 360 has 3 core processor running at 3ghz. Meaning Xbox is almost 8 times as powerful."
That is entirely false. CPU's don't work that way, even though it sounds logical. For the sake of explanation, you could build a system with a processor that runs 2x as fast as another, but if that first system has twice as much bandwidth for its bus it will run at least the same speed as the latter. It also depends a great deal on the way software is coded, but those are just two examples of an infinite number of factors to take into account. Companies like to spout and advertise specs, but realistically they are meaningless.
A good mainstream example of this is the Intel CPU vs. AMD CPU battle. Intel CPU's are clocked much, much faster (for sake of simplicity) than an AMD, but the AMD can perform more calculations per second. Despite the latter being a slower processor, it's still faster than the Intel.
So don't pay attention to specs. A 1ghz system isn't necessarily half the speed of a 2ghz one.
In the end it doesn't matter. Nintendo has always downplayed their systems power and emphasized the the games they make. The gamecube is largely considered the weakest of the 3 current systems, but spec-wise is much more powerful than the PS2. It just depends on how you use it.
You know, I'm thinking that 2x-3x as powerful as the gamecube is about the same power as the 360 (and PS3 as well). People flipped out about that statement originally, assuming it meant the revolution was going to be some underpowered system, but every 360 game I see looks pretty much like this generation with less compression on the textures and higher res video.
I'm not too worried about the revolution giving us some good games, but I'm worried about mainstream gamers opening their eyes outside of MTV and IGN enough to see the potential.
I think this is a work of satire. Especially if you read through the entire article to the closing statements. As I read through I couldn't believe he could think so highly of such a single-minded enterprise, and I heavily disagreed with his statement that hardcore gamers only wanted to games that allowed them to kill. Maybe the definition of hardcore has shifted in the years, but my pile of strategy titles would argue with that initial claim.
Whether it's intentional or not, this article is pointing out how shallow and narrow our options for interactivity are. Technically we have a wider spectrum of options available to us in our games today, but it's really just a wider spectrum of violence. Solutions to problems that don't involve gunning down waves of enemies seem novel in action titles now-a-days. Half-Life was a memorable action title because you could actually *talk* to characters, the first 30 minutes of the game didn't even present you with a weapon.
I hope what the author is trying to say, is that we really need to look at other ways to interact in these worlds. I like the occasional action title as much as the next guy, but by *nothing but* killing waves of mindless enemies we're not only dumbing ourselves, but making the gamer demographic look more unappealing and less intelligent from the outside as well.
This is supposed to be a new artform. Play some Katamari, people!
"It interferes with self-esteem. The most disturbing fact is that children who have the least amount of self-esteem and mastery over their life are the ones most attracted to video games. According to Dr. Jane Healy in her book Endangered Minds, boys who pursue violent video games are more likely to have low self-confidence in school and be less successful in personal relationships. Studies have also shown that for girls increased time playing video or computer games is associated with lowered self-esteem. These games give children an out when they don't feel in with other groups."
What part of that is wrong or harmful? In all honesty, when I was growing up if I didn't have games as an "out" for not fitting in with nearly every other person I knew, I wouldn't be here today.
I'm all for studies and whatnot, but when they start taking the positive aspects of gaming and turning it negative, this is even more obviously a sham to get attention for themselves.
Games just seem to be the popular, social punching bag of the day lately.
Very overrated and unfinished game. It had great presentation, but that's about it. Everyone seems to get wrapped up in presentation and production values though, and usually forget to look at the game underneath.
If they had finished it with a satisfying conclusion and more than 3 or 5 or so dungeon environments it would have been much better, but the game ends before they have even told the story, leaving the pinnacle of it's gameplay at the first half hour (you'll get immediately wrapped up in it within the first 5 minutes, and it levels out immediately after that). I'd say Beyond Good and Evil was a "could have been" great game. So try it out if you are able to find appreciation in potential.
I'd like to think the same thing. I usually get the soundtracks to all the games I own in MP3 format. A friend of mine came over one time and pointed out that a lot of people would see that as illegal music downloading. That kind of surprised me because I had the same philosophy you had: I own the game. If I wanted, wouldn't I be able to just rip the songs from the game and take it with me anyway? I've bought a few game OSTs to titles in the past, but for the most part I just grab them from somewhere offline and enjoy listening to them while I work. Is this really going to be seen as an "illegal" activity despite the games being in my ownership? I'd rather not have publishers control what I do with my possessions that much.
Unfortunately it seems like anywhere a company is standing to lose money, they'll fight it out with their customers regardless of who's in the right. Now they there's beginning to be a market for game music in the US, I'm afraid things might go that route with laws along the lines of the DMCA potentially saying it's unlawful to take music out of another media that you already own. Blah.
For a moment I thought it was a list of scary things from Todd Hollenshead, and that John Romero was the second scariest thing to him. ;p
What happens when a bull accidently wanders in?
Don't get me wrong, Cliff Blezinsky is a decent designer, and has been from a relatively young age in the industry, if memory serves.
However, it definitely shows the atmosphere and nature of people that make up his world. Myself and most of my friends can play the good or evil path in games that allow those decisions decision. I prefer to pathe my own way, rather than follow a predetermined course of character development, in games like Knights of the Old Republic, and ones that offer even more organic choices like Morrowind.
Being good in a game is not something a lot of people choke on from my perspective. It's fun to play the bad guy and get away with the darker side of human nature that's traditionally supressed in our culture, but there's also something to be said for playing the heroic pinnacle of goodness and saving the world too.
You know, even if it were *just* a remote control (which on that, you're incorrect to begin with - though I sense your statement is more of an attempt to defame, rather than one of ignorance), it would still be a departure from the norm. What the article is saying, or at least the quote in question, is that we should move on any opportunity to support a departure from the norm based on that alone.
He makes a good point that people continuously want a new experience. The revolution controller as a step in the right direction by bringing gamers closer to real interactivity, which is the entire reason and purpose of video games in the first place.