Well, I think it's a safe bet that any of the games being offered for sale on XBLA are not "abandonware", and that the publishers do give a shit about what you're doing.
Actually, I'm the gal that does neither of them because baseball isn't exciting to me. Though Hockey on the other hand - and there I'd pay more for an NHL game because I've seen those games, and I've see the Seattle T-Birds, and I know I'd much rather watch an NHL game in person.
And remember, the classic games on the 360 aren't just emulated simple ports - all of them so far have had mutliplayer over Xbox Live, leaderboards, and achievements. You do get more with each one for your $5 than the simple version on the Midway collections that have been released. For some of us, that's worth it.
The same people who pay $20 for a burger, when you can buy one at Dick's in Seattle for 99 cents.
You know, this isn't a bad analogy.
Sure, you can download ROMs for free on the internet and play them on an emulator. But it takes work to find them, you have to be very careful not to get your browser hijacked from all the cram on most websites, and what you're doing isn't exactly legal. When I bought Robotron on XBLA for $5, it was easy to get a hold of it, it plays on my TV which is much bigger and has better speakers, controlling via the 360 thumbsticks is tons better than trying to play on the keyboard, and I get leaderboards and multiplayer play over Live. In other words, the additional features I get are worth $5 to me.
And while I could drive to a Dick's in Seattle for a $.99 burger, there's not exactly one near me in Redmond. I also prefer burgers from other places - the 5 Alarm turkey burger at Red Robin, for example, or a $14 Kobe beef burger at the Issaquah Brewhouse - both burgers I like better, and am willing to pay for.
Sometimes one experience is better enough than the other that you're willing to pay more.
We don't have Pac-Man yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if that one didn't make it.
Besides, the best part about XBLA? If you don't think a game's worth $5, then you don't have to spend the points to get it.:)
I bought Robotron, Gauntlet, and Joust - but not Smash TV yet. I probably won't do Defender or Root Beer Tapper, perhaps Paperboy, and very likely MK3U and Cyberball - since those two are multiplayer, which is where the fun lies. Of course, SF2 might well be ruling XBLA by that point.
The classic games have only been 400 points so far - $5. That's with included leaderboards and mutliplayer play over live. The latter is what really makes them worthwhile - being able to play with/against other people on XBL. I can play 4 player Gauntlet any time I feel like it, for example.
Besides, making something that's self-replicating and able to replicate itself from any available matter is going to be such a difficult task that I can't see it happening by accident - and even doing it deliberately is going to take a lot of work. Perhaps once molecular machines are a mature technology we might have to worry, but until then... it's more likely that a random virus from the ocean (which is full of millions of unidentified ones) is going to wipe out humanity than that we'll have to worry about grey goo.
You know, there is the possibility that perhaps that rating wasn't just the average. I realize it's outlandish to imply such a thing, cause that gives one less reason to attack Microsoft and Vista, but you can't rule it out...
Yeah, great idea. I'm sure every game developer would be chomping at the bit to port a fair chunk of their game to a completely different platform and offer it up for free.
Oh, and allowing random PC users to connect to Xbox Live and interact wouldn't be a security issue either, I'm sure. Cause no PC users would actually try and hack things to manipulate the data, alter the workings of the server, or try and screw with Xbox Live itself.
Or, just maybe, they might be wanting to discourage games from following the obsolete PC kludge method, and instead moving to something like Halo 2 uses where the concept of a specific server fades into the background, and players just get together in a group and start a game without having to worry about concepts like "finding a server"? Imagine that, multiplayer gaming where nobody has to decide to be the server or pick which server to hop onto.
Re:Why does everyone hate this game so much?
on
Review - Full Auto
·
· Score: 1
And there's never been a game that lets you blow stuff up so well. The environment is probably the most destructible I've ever seen. Just the way you can blow up so much stuff, into so many pieces, in so many different locations - and even stuff outside of the track. I spent one race just blowing stuff up with the cannon, and I tore apart a skyscraper in the distance - every hit would blow the face off part of the building.
I do agree the game needed more complexity and depth to it - and for them to fix the damn stat tracking bug on Xbox Live. But they did the core thing INCREDIBLY well.
Umm... what are you even talking about? There is NO option "Check for Upgrades" on any 360 game at all. The single dashboard update and the COD2 patch both informed the player when they connected that the update was available. You didn't have to look for it.
It's also not like you have to manually log in to Xbox Live - unless you deliberately set it that way. The console automatically does it. And even if you have it set to manual, it's all of selecting an account and pressing the button. No entering usernames or passwords or any of that crap.
In other words, all that stuff you call annoying crap has absolutely no relation to how things work on the 360.
There was actually an editor for Tunnels of Doom data, which would let you change names, graphics, etc. It was limited what you could change, but you could change enough to make it a bit more interesting and varied.
We never had problems with the ColecoVision controller wearing out. A relative of mine had one, along with the Decathalon game - which you ran on by moving the stick/pad thing back and forth. So we'd always put the palm of our hand on it and go crazy - and that's what was needed. We played a lot of the game, and never had problems with the sticks being even less responsive, and that was a LOT of abuse they took.
We had those joysticks, but ended up picking up a set of Wico joysticks. They were small, you held it in one hand, thumb and middle finger on the buttons on either side, while the joystick was in the other. They were much better than the standard ones.
I was more used to playing games with the keyboard though - it always seemed to work better than the joysticks. Besides, I spent most of my time playing Tunnels of Doom, so didn't need the joysticks for that.
This article is utter tripe. First of all, the not-quite-functional controllers should easily top the list over the ones that worked. I'd rather use an uncomfortable one that works as opposed to some power glove or infrared controller that doesn't work properly.
Then after that, even the functional ones are in bad orders. The 5200 should have been at the top of the list, since while it techincally worked right, the lack of auto-centering makes it hard to use. Then those stiff and unresonsive TI things. Oh, and don't forget all those third-party controllers, many of them which sucked pretty bad - especially some of the variety for the 2600.
Putting the Xbox Duke and the Jaguar controllers as the two worst ever has no basis in reality, and is little more then them just following the long-traditions of bashing the two. Neither of them nearly qualifies for the worst. And personally, I prefer the Jaguar controller over the Duke, and both over the PS2 controller. Yeah, that's right, I'm not a fan of the dual-shock.
I've found that a lot of people who complained about Halo's system when it first came out have long changed their opinions on how useful it is.
First, eliminating the need to pick a server was just plain brilliant. It's definitely not necessary to have dedicated servers - it's just a simpler way for developers to do it. Force the player to do more work instead of writing code to do it. Halo allows you to do all the things you talk about - set number of players, game objective, map, rules, etc. Only it doesn't force you to run a server to be able to do those. ANY group of people can get together and play game after game, each with totally different rules, and in an instant give control over game types to a different person.
Matchmaking just offers a way to not have to worry about that. Just like a PC FPS game where you may just want a random server. Even better, when playing on the playlists, you get totally new groups of people every time you play, so that you don't just stick to the same small group of people that use a certain server or two. And the game makes sure that you have similar skill levels - it's doing things for players that are nearly impossible to do manually.
The matchmaking in Halo 2 actually increases the options and variety available to you, but doesn't force you to use it. Trust me - Halo 2's party systems, host selection, and matchmaking are FAR SUPERIOR to the setup on any PC FPS game. And right now, unfortunately, it's far superior to the online play experience on any other Xbox/Xbox 360 game, as most games continue to use the same 10-year old obsolete "choose a server" method.
That's the thing - Halo doesn't HAVE a "server finder". The concept of server went mostly out the window. You can just jump in to a "playlist", which will match you up with other people and set up the game based on a certain category, or you can invite friends and ANYONE can set the map and gametype. When you start the game, it finds the best host from the group of players, and you go from there.
There's no need for anyone to set up servers, and just because your connection isn't good enough to host a game doesn't mean that you don't ever get to choose game type and rules.
I admit, the system isn't perfect, but it's so much better. The "server" concept was a necessary evil in PC FPS land that Halo happily did away with. No PC FPS game has come close to making it so easy to get into a game.
Hmm... weapon selection? Awareness of your environment? Teamwork?
Accuracy is important, true, but Halo's auto-aim is enough that for most people, it's not the defining skill of what makes them excellent at the game (ace snipers are a different story). Thus it's a slightly different type of FPS game that forces people to think more than usual because they can't just rely on accuracy to set them apart.
Have you played a PC FPS game that's done online play nearly as well? I haven't, and to my knowledge, that's because there aren't any out there.
You don't have to worry about finding the right server to play on, after 15 minutes of getting lists and finding some are running mods you can't play/don't want, others are too slow for you, others don't have enough people, etc, etc. You just say "I want to play free-for-all" or "I want to play team slayer", and they take care of the rest. You don't have to play against the same group for an hour, and you're assured of finding a game that fits the category that you want to play.
Oh, and while we're at it, ranked playlists help make sure that you're playing against people that are around your skill level to make sure it's challenging but winnable for you. No super-player beating everyone else by a mile level after level, and no room full of n00bs for you to beat up on.
Or, just as likely, the autoaim works fine, but PC FPS game players complain and complain because so much emphasis is placed on accuracy in PC games that they forget to actually worry much about OTHER skills that might make a difference, and thus they complain when Halo significantly reduces the importance of their primary FPS skill.
If you think these players are untalented, you haven't watched any videos of them playing.
There is a key difference between Halo 2 and pretty much all other FPS games. Halo has enough auto-aim that being able to aim accurately no longer becomes the "defining skill" of players. This forces people who play to have to resort to other skills to step up above everyone else - and you can just see the amazing amount of situational awareness and strategy in some of these games. Watching someone go 42-0 in a King of the Hill game, for example - 42 kills, no deaths, as their team wins decisively.
Slashdot Mirror
Not hard to find the Frag Dolls, but I suppose that would ruin precious trolling...
Well, I think it's a safe bet that any of the games being offered for sale on XBLA are not "abandonware", and that the publishers do give a shit about what you're doing.
Actually, I'm the gal that does neither of them because baseball isn't exciting to me. Though Hockey on the other hand - and there I'd pay more for an NHL game because I've seen those games, and I've see the Seattle T-Birds, and I know I'd much rather watch an NHL game in person.
And remember, the classic games on the 360 aren't just emulated simple ports - all of them so far have had mutliplayer over Xbox Live, leaderboards, and achievements. You do get more with each one for your $5 than the simple version on the Midway collections that have been released. For some of us, that's worth it.
I don't know... perhaps because what they're doing is HARD?
The same people who pay $20 for a burger, when you can buy one at Dick's in Seattle for 99 cents.
You know, this isn't a bad analogy.
Sure, you can download ROMs for free on the internet and play them on an emulator. But it takes work to find them, you have to be very careful not to get your browser hijacked from all the cram on most websites, and what you're doing isn't exactly legal. When I bought Robotron on XBLA for $5, it was easy to get a hold of it, it plays on my TV which is much bigger and has better speakers, controlling via the 360 thumbsticks is tons better than trying to play on the keyboard, and I get leaderboards and multiplayer play over Live. In other words, the additional features I get are worth $5 to me.
And while I could drive to a Dick's in Seattle for a $.99 burger, there's not exactly one near me in Redmond. I also prefer burgers from other places - the 5 Alarm turkey burger at Red Robin, for example, or a $14 Kobe beef burger at the Issaquah Brewhouse - both burgers I like better, and am willing to pay for.
Sometimes one experience is better enough than the other that you're willing to pay more.
We don't have Pac-Man yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if that one didn't make it.
:)
Besides, the best part about XBLA? If you don't think a game's worth $5, then you don't have to spend the points to get it.
I bought Robotron, Gauntlet, and Joust - but not Smash TV yet. I probably won't do Defender or Root Beer Tapper, perhaps Paperboy, and very likely MK3U and Cyberball - since those two are multiplayer, which is where the fun lies. Of course, SF2 might well be ruling XBLA by that point.
The classic games have only been 400 points so far - $5. That's with included leaderboards and mutliplayer play over live. The latter is what really makes them worthwhile - being able to play with/against other people on XBL. I can play 4 player Gauntlet any time I feel like it, for example.
Besides, making something that's self-replicating and able to replicate itself from any available matter is going to be such a difficult task that I can't see it happening by accident - and even doing it deliberately is going to take a lot of work. Perhaps once molecular machines are a mature technology we might have to worry, but until then... it's more likely that a random virus from the ocean (which is full of millions of unidentified ones) is going to wipe out humanity than that we'll have to worry about grey goo.
You know, there is the possibility that perhaps that rating wasn't just the average. I realize it's outlandish to imply such a thing, cause that gives one less reason to attack Microsoft and Vista, but you can't rule it out...
I would guess from a smile mold, myself.
Yeah, great idea. I'm sure every game developer would be chomping at the bit to port a fair chunk of their game to a completely different platform and offer it up for free.
Oh, and allowing random PC users to connect to Xbox Live and interact wouldn't be a security issue either, I'm sure. Cause no PC users would actually try and hack things to manipulate the data, alter the workings of the server, or try and screw with Xbox Live itself.
Or, just maybe, they might be wanting to discourage games from following the obsolete PC kludge method, and instead moving to something like Halo 2 uses where the concept of a specific server fades into the background, and players just get together in a group and start a game without having to worry about concepts like "finding a server"? Imagine that, multiplayer gaming where nobody has to decide to be the server or pick which server to hop onto.
And there's never been a game that lets you blow stuff up so well. The environment is probably the most destructible I've ever seen. Just the way you can blow up so much stuff, into so many pieces, in so many different locations - and even stuff outside of the track. I spent one race just blowing stuff up with the cannon, and I tore apart a skyscraper in the distance - every hit would blow the face off part of the building.
I do agree the game needed more complexity and depth to it - and for them to fix the damn stat tracking bug on Xbox Live. But they did the core thing INCREDIBLY well.
Umm... what are you even talking about? There is NO option "Check for Upgrades" on any 360 game at all. The single dashboard update and the COD2 patch both informed the player when they connected that the update was available. You didn't have to look for it.
It's also not like you have to manually log in to Xbox Live - unless you deliberately set it that way. The console automatically does it. And even if you have it set to manual, it's all of selecting an account and pressing the button. No entering usernames or passwords or any of that crap.
In other words, all that stuff you call annoying crap has absolutely no relation to how things work on the 360.
There was actually an editor for Tunnels of Doom data, which would let you change names, graphics, etc. It was limited what you could change, but you could change enough to make it a bit more interesting and varied.
Xbox Live does not require people to pay to use the service - only if they want to play multiplayer games through the service.
This does NOT apply to MMOGs. You do not have to pay for a Gold-level account to play such games when they become available.
We never had problems with the ColecoVision controller wearing out. A relative of mine had one, along with the Decathalon game - which you ran on by moving the stick/pad thing back and forth. So we'd always put the palm of our hand on it and go crazy - and that's what was needed. We played a lot of the game, and never had problems with the sticks being even less responsive, and that was a LOT of abuse they took.
We had those joysticks, but ended up picking up a set of Wico joysticks. They were small, you held it in one hand, thumb and middle finger on the buttons on either side, while the joystick was in the other. They were much better than the standard ones.
I was more used to playing games with the keyboard though - it always seemed to work better than the joysticks. Besides, I spent most of my time playing Tunnels of Doom, so didn't need the joysticks for that.
They actually later sold one with six face buttons PLUS two shoulder buttons. I have one of those, along with two of the three button ones.
This article is utter tripe. First of all, the not-quite-functional controllers should easily top the list over the ones that worked. I'd rather use an uncomfortable one that works as opposed to some power glove or infrared controller that doesn't work properly.
Then after that, even the functional ones are in bad orders. The 5200 should have been at the top of the list, since while it techincally worked right, the lack of auto-centering makes it hard to use. Then those stiff and unresonsive TI things. Oh, and don't forget all those third-party controllers, many of them which sucked pretty bad - especially some of the variety for the 2600.
Putting the Xbox Duke and the Jaguar controllers as the two worst ever has no basis in reality, and is little more then them just following the long-traditions of bashing the two. Neither of them nearly qualifies for the worst. And personally, I prefer the Jaguar controller over the Duke, and both over the PS2 controller. Yeah, that's right, I'm not a fan of the dual-shock.
I've found that a lot of people who complained about Halo's system when it first came out have long changed their opinions on how useful it is.
First, eliminating the need to pick a server was just plain brilliant. It's definitely not necessary to have dedicated servers - it's just a simpler way for developers to do it. Force the player to do more work instead of writing code to do it. Halo allows you to do all the things you talk about - set number of players, game objective, map, rules, etc. Only it doesn't force you to run a server to be able to do those. ANY group of people can get together and play game after game, each with totally different rules, and in an instant give control over game types to a different person.
Matchmaking just offers a way to not have to worry about that. Just like a PC FPS game where you may just want a random server. Even better, when playing on the playlists, you get totally new groups of people every time you play, so that you don't just stick to the same small group of people that use a certain server or two. And the game makes sure that you have similar skill levels - it's doing things for players that are nearly impossible to do manually.
The matchmaking in Halo 2 actually increases the options and variety available to you, but doesn't force you to use it. Trust me - Halo 2's party systems, host selection, and matchmaking are FAR SUPERIOR to the setup on any PC FPS game. And right now, unfortunately, it's far superior to the online play experience on any other Xbox/Xbox 360 game, as most games continue to use the same 10-year old obsolete "choose a server" method.
That's the thing - Halo doesn't HAVE a "server finder". The concept of server went mostly out the window. You can just jump in to a "playlist", which will match you up with other people and set up the game based on a certain category, or you can invite friends and ANYONE can set the map and gametype. When you start the game, it finds the best host from the group of players, and you go from there.
There's no need for anyone to set up servers, and just because your connection isn't good enough to host a game doesn't mean that you don't ever get to choose game type and rules.
I admit, the system isn't perfect, but it's so much better. The "server" concept was a necessary evil in PC FPS land that Halo happily did away with. No PC FPS game has come close to making it so easy to get into a game.
Hmm... weapon selection? Awareness of your environment? Teamwork?
Accuracy is important, true, but Halo's auto-aim is enough that for most people, it's not the defining skill of what makes them excellent at the game (ace snipers are a different story). Thus it's a slightly different type of FPS game that forces people to think more than usual because they can't just rely on accuracy to set them apart.
Have you played a PC FPS game that's done online play nearly as well? I haven't, and to my knowledge, that's because there aren't any out there.
You don't have to worry about finding the right server to play on, after 15 minutes of getting lists and finding some are running mods you can't play/don't want, others are too slow for you, others don't have enough people, etc, etc. You just say "I want to play free-for-all" or "I want to play team slayer", and they take care of the rest. You don't have to play against the same group for an hour, and you're assured of finding a game that fits the category that you want to play.
Oh, and while we're at it, ranked playlists help make sure that you're playing against people that are around your skill level to make sure it's challenging but winnable for you. No super-player beating everyone else by a mile level after level, and no room full of n00bs for you to beat up on.
Or, just as likely, the autoaim works fine, but PC FPS game players complain and complain because so much emphasis is placed on accuracy in PC games that they forget to actually worry much about OTHER skills that might make a difference, and thus they complain when Halo significantly reduces the importance of their primary FPS skill.
If you think these players are untalented, you haven't watched any videos of them playing.
There is a key difference between Halo 2 and pretty much all other FPS games. Halo has enough auto-aim that being able to aim accurately no longer becomes the "defining skill" of players. This forces people who play to have to resort to other skills to step up above everyone else - and you can just see the amazing amount of situational awareness and strategy in some of these games. Watching someone go 42-0 in a King of the Hill game, for example - 42 kills, no deaths, as their team wins decisively.