Yeah, I guess the whole 2-millennium-spanning, 12-character-playing, insanity-effect-generating genre has been done to death.
They are just gimics in the survival-horror genre. Timesplitters did it before ED (minus the insanity effects), but that hardly makes it a unique game.
This is exactly why Nintendo is, in my opinion, doing the right thing by staying away from on-line play. If only 1% of your potential install base is using the on-line capabilities for a game, why bother supporting it at all?
At the same time, perhaps developers and publishers should stop releasing new types of games in case they don't sell. Better to be safe with Tomb Raider 4 than risk releasing another Rez.
While I can appreciate console manufacturers trying to attract the PC gamer with the lure of online multiplay, I'd much rather sit down with three other friends (or more, if you rotate out people) and play Super Smash Bros.: Melee, or TimeSplitters 2, or even The Bouncer.
This argument keeps getting trotted out, but makes no sense at all. What if you don't have any friends handy to play those games in multiplayer? What if you fancy playing a multiplayer game at that point in times?
I have really got into playing Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory online for the PC and it is fantastic stuff. I don't know the people I play with, but that doesn't stop it being great.
Sure, playing in front of the TV with four mates is great fun. But playing online is great when you have no one around, and when you want to play a game with lots of players.
Then you're either not looking or too picky. There are plenty of top-notch titles in just about every genre available for the system. Far more than 'just' Mario and Zelda.
Or, you know, the games just aren't to his taste. I actually agree with his statement as there is very little on the GC that has interested me at all.
Two suggestions I'll throw out are Eternal Darkness and Viewtiful Joe. Fantastic, unique games that you won't find on any other system.
Eternal Darkness is one of my 'current-gen' favourites so far, but it certainly isn't unique.
care to explain it then, slowly and in detail, so that I might understand?
When Nintendo said that they had doubled their market share after the price drop, that meant that they were suddenly selling twice as many consoles and no extra PS2's or Xbox's were being sold.
Example:
Pre-price drop, the percentage of consoles being sold was 50% PS2, 30% Xbox and 20% GC.
Post price drop, the percentage of consoles being sold was 40% PS2, 20% Xbox and 40% GC.
Note that this doesn't mean that sales for the PS2 and Xbox dropped, it just means that sales for the GC rose.
Nintendo most certainly have not doubled their installed userbase in such a short time - that would mean selling a few million consoles in less than a month and totally outselling the PS2 as well.
You don't own a Cube, do you? How about you leave the comments about the system to those who know what we're talking about, instead of playing the ignorant hater position?
Yawn. Please, can we stop this "You are a hater!" business please as it is very boring.
As someone who owns a Cube and a PS2, let me say this: I've bought 5-6 times as many games for my Cube than for my PS2 in the past few weeks (and I typically buy a lot of games - I don't rent).
Sorry, what is this supposed to prove other than your own personal gaming tastes?
As a GC, Xbox and PS2 owner there are only two GC games that I consider worth owning - Eternal Darkness and Monkey Ball. I got F-Zero GX but that is going back to be swapped for Viewtiful Joe. I prefer Wipeout 3SE to be honest.
I am also quite proficient with the Japanese language. By the tone of your question, it seems that you assume that distinguishing between good and bad voice acting in another language is difficult, which seems incredibly naive to me. Have you never played any Japanese-language games, or watched any foreign-language films or television?
I don't see how you could tell good and bad voice acting in another language, because how they pronounce their words will be vastly different to how we do it, especially Japanese.
To me, a Japanese person may sound angry when in fact they are not.
With ~1% of the Xbox owners beeing subscribed to Live I don't see "much desire". Nintendo will start offering online play when they can expect to get money out of it.
Someone could have said that they couldn't see much desire for another console after the Atari 2600 finally bombed out in spectacular style, but look where the NES took Nintendo.
I am guessing that you are one to moan at developers and publishers not taking risks with their games, but here you are quite happy to say that Nintendo shouldn't take their games online because it is much safer.
(1) Them attempting to have Xbox games in every genre is *driving away* 3rd party publishers. There's no incentive to develop a type of game for that platform if Microsoft already has it covered. A competent game development team would probably be able to make a better *game* than a Microsoft internal team (who are a bunch a monkeys, I tell ya) - but they have no hopes in competing based on the *marketing* and money that MS likes to throw at their own titles. 3rd parties can't even compete on the branding: for example, Microsoft's "Xbox Sports Network" titles. At least Sony had the decency to separate theirs ("989 Studios").
You are talking out of your arse. Making games in all the genres wouldn't drive anyone away at all. The PS2 has a game in every genre, and that has the biggest 3rd party support out of all them.
And your marketting comment is stupid, as it is the same for ALL the console makers.
2) Microsoft's Xbox team repeatedly and consistently ignored 3rd party developer input when they were designing the Xbox. Witness - the Xbox controller. Nobody outside of Microsoft liked it. Microsoft asked developers repeatedly, developers repeatedly told Microsoft that it sucked. And they were completely ignored - probably because some high up egomaniac like Ed Fries greenlighted it and their underlings were all "yes" men and didn't want to say that it sucked.
That's probably why they developed the Controller S.
(3) Xbox Live. You have no option of ignoring Microsoft's "Live" system if you want to make an online game. Everything *must* go through Microsoft, and gamers must pay Microsoft $5 a month for the ability to play online. Which immediately makes trying to develop or sell an online game far, far worse for a developer. Doubly so for a persistent online game or MMORPG because MS scalps $5 a month before you get a chance to ask customers to pay for access to your game. And Xbox games aren't allowed to talk to other systems. Which means no cross-platform Xbox and PS2/Gamecube/PC games to boost online population.
The reason is MUST got through Microsofts system is so everything works together. The Friends List is universal and so is your Gamertag. The XBL fee doesn't make it worse for a developer to sell a game, because the games have significant offline content to them. If anything, they will sell more because those with XBL tend to buy most of the XBL games.
The chances of compatible cross-platform online titles are extremely remote anyway. And your comment about the people online pretty much proves you haven't even got XBL.
(4) Voice acting. In multiplayer games there should be no voice, other players is all you should hear talking. In single player - fine, whatever. I don't hate it, but don't care for it either. I don't care what language it's in (with subtitles), so long as it's not *bad* acting and I can have them shut the hell up when I'm tired at the end of the day and just want to kill something.
Erm, and what online games have this voice acting you are going on about? The only one I know of is Ghost Recon where the soldiers might quietly say "Got him!" when they shoot someone.
You're complaining about Zelda, and then you defend Morrowind? In Zelda, you just push the A button a bunch of times and they shut up. Maybe B shuts them up immediately, I dunno, but in any event I do not remember ever being annoyed by the conversation system of any Zelda game. (Sailing around empty oceans in wind waker or building experience in zelda 2--okay that sucks.)
Morrowind, on the other hand, was a nightmare. They had that terrible "question" system, so that you could ask every single person about every single stupid thing your avatar had ever heard in the entire universe, but 99% of the time every character would say the exact same text that every other character in the universe would say.
As I said, in the likes of Morrowind, BG2 and NWN I can skim read the text and exit it all by clicking the 'Cancel' button. In something like Zelda I cannot - they have to finish their little speech first, and even then that requires me to keep pressing the A button to scroll it two lines at a time.
In fact, Morrowind, and Neverwinter Nights actually vindicate the stance of Miyamoto et. al.. I own both of those games, but I've played very little of them, because I was completely put off by all the meaningless text, cookie cutter plots, and general busy-work philosophy of gaming and narrative design that went into making them. (I also own BG2, and never finished it, but the dialogue in that game actually seemed interesting)
It doesn't vindicate anything, it just means you do not like more open and non-linear RPG's.
For me, the sheer size and non-linear aspects of Morrowind/BG2/NWN is superb and has put me off many Japanese RPGs because they are so linear.
This whole discussion shows me why Microsoft is dependent on second and third party developers to make good software for it (which is no big deal, Sony is too.) Microsoft has a typical business mentality that it can just throw money into a process and expect better quality products to result. But Art and Games are differnt from Operating Systems. The more money and investment you throw into a project, the higher the risk involved with making it, and therefore you become less willing to allow your staff to be creative and take the risks necessary to produce a truly ground-breaking game. Nintendo has been around the block a few times, and wisely understands the tradeoff between willingness to take risks and an emphasis on shiny graphics technology and voices.
Your last sentence emphasises why MS has to rely on 3rd party so much - because they are just starting out. Nintendo certainly didn't have such a pool of development talent when they started out.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say with your comment on shiny graphics technology and voices, though.
And that was my point - aside from the way in which this particular bit of trash talk is utterly illogical, I don't understand why they're going after Nintendo with such vigor - it's far from their major competitor
Did you actually READ the interview? Fries was asked about the voice thing, and he gave his answer. There is nothing illogical about it all, and he isn't going after Nintendo with any vigor at all - in the very next sentence he says his most played game is Pokemon.
I suggest that you try not to look at every single bit of critisism to Nintendo as being Ninty Bashing. It is getting very boring.
Almost every interview with XBox people that makes it onto/. contains a few lines in which they make comments about how Nintendo is hopelessly behind the times, doomed, unworthy, etc.
This is a pattern with them - they trash talk Nintendo. They do it professionally, but it's still clearly trash talk.
Well, that seems pretty normal to me - after all, they ARE a competitor.
OK, this is a new one. I mean, I've read more anti-Nintendo stuff than anyone sane should have to read, but I've never heard Nintendo criticized for their lack of voice acting before.
He is not bashing Nintendo, he is just disagreeing with their attitude towards voice acting.
On top of that, I have trouble thinking of a game that anyone ever said "Yeah, the voice acting on that game was great! Buy the game for the voice acting!" Kingdom Hearts is the closest to that I can come up with.
And your point is what...?
And why is Microsoft doing the criticism? DO they really think they have more to gain by attacking Nintendo than by going after Sony? Sony is at least pursuing the same market they are - Nintendo is not. If they manage to get Nintendo out of the business, it will probably not substantively increase their sales.
This isn't MS attacking Nintendo at all, and you seem to be reading far too much into it. He just disgrees with their attitude towards voice acting.
Some days, I think small niche products offend Microsoft more than actual large competition. I wonder why that is.
And some days I think that people get far too het up about such small things.
If a game has a lot of people saying things, then I want either of two things - 1) Have everything spoken like in KoToR, Baldurs Gate 2 and Shenmue or 2) Have no speech, but make it so I can skim read and skip ahead as I want like in Baldurs Gate 2, Morrowind or Neverwinter Nights.
In something like Zelda, you can only read a couple of lines at a time and it is far too slow to try and skip ahead with what they are saying, especially if you didn't mean to talk to that person again.
MS Apologist. Where has Microsoft let you go today?
I am not an 'MS Apologist', I am a realist. This stuff happens all the time.
Fact #1: Bungie started as a Mac-only developer.
Yes, and...? Developers changing platforms is hardly new.
Fact #2: Halo 2 was developed as a multi-platform game (Mac & PC, console ports to follow inevitably).
Who says that the console ports would inevitably follow...?
And again, this is not a new occurence. GTA3 was going to be multiplatform, but ended up being a PS2 exclusive for ages when Sony threw some cash at the developers. Halo is now out for the PC, and there may well be a Mac conversion at some point - so what is your problem?
Fact #3: Bungie founders made public announcements that Microsoft would have little influence over the availability of their titles.
Again, so what? Things change in the world of business, and the console business is BIG.
Fact #4: Halo, Bungie's sole product since the sellout, is now a Microsoft exclusive.
Erm, and since when is something like this a new occurence? Do you actually follow the games industry at all...?
Your comparisons to Super Monkey Ball and Gran Turismo are misleading and irrelevant, since the above sequence of events does not apply to either game series.
That is a totally and utterly irrelevant point. The point is that consoles are sold based on what games are available for them, and exclusive games are as old as the industry itself.
And if you can't see why people have reason to be angered over the Bungie sellout, surely your thinking is tainted by bias (as would mine be, from the opposite - and correct, mind you - standpoint)
Biased?!? How the hell am I biased if I see this 'sell out' as no different to what has been going on for years...?!?
Fact #5: Microsoft is still evil.
Oh please. Name me one multi national company that isn't 'evil'.
Fact #6: I will never purchase a Microsoft product.
Heh, how pathetic. You are like the people who still hold a grudge against Sony for killing the Dreamcast.
Fact #7: I'm not pissed off about Halo, I'm pissed off that more people aren't pissed off about Halo, and that some people don't know why others could possibly be pissed off about Halo.
The only reason anyone would be pissed off about Halo is because they are blinded by their own delusions and ignorance. If you refuse to play Halo because it is an MS product then that is your fault and your fault alone. You cannot pin the blame on MS unless you are a petulant child.
I have to say I agree. Having looked at Halo, I don't see why anyone who has ever played a decent FPS would be so amazed by it. Was it solely the fact of it being a good FPS for a console?
No, it is because Halo is a good FPS regardless of platform.
I have played all the major PC FPS games, but I was still amazed by Halo because it is pure quality.
I have played Halo over and over again, which is more than can be said for any PC single player FPS game. To me, Halo is the best single player FPS currently available.
So, are you an X-Box player or PC? Did you play the game two years ago or last month? More importantly, have you played Deus Ex or Max Payne?
I am both a console gamer and a PC gamer, and I think that Halo is fantastic stuff. I will admit that at first I didn't see what the fuss was about, but by the time I first came out in the open on Attack on the Control Room to be confronted by a huge battle going on, I was hooked.
At the same time, I think that Max Payne 2 and Deus Ex are great. You can add the likes of System Shock 2, Medal of Honor, Unreal Tourny, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Return to Wolfy to the list as well.
As far as the PC goes, BF1942 did vehicles first and better. A souped up Humvee, a hovercraft and a tank don't make the game better.
I am pretty sure that Tribes did the vehicles before BF1942, but that is besides the point. I think the vehicles in Halo are great, and the same goes for BF1942. I would not say that one does it 'better', because the two games do it very differently.
As for "classic sci-fi" -- the reason that such works are called "classic" is because their plots were unique and groundbreaking. Perhaps you meant to say "overwrought and overdone"?
Well, Deus Ex is hardly original in that respect.
I hate to keep harping on the point, but Deus Ex does everything Halo does (minus the vehicles) better and with more class. RPG elements, fantastic story, RPG-like upgrades, more than two weapons at a time (with an RPG-like inventory), and aliens that freaked the hell out of me (and still do). System Shock 2 is another example of an FPS done right. And no, the muppets in Halo didn't count.
Deus Ex doesn't do anything better than Halo, because they are two totally different games. I find it incredible that you even make the comparison.
Well... how about fans who don't wat to support Microsoft by buying an Xbox?
Then, um, you don't get to play the game. It's that simple, and if you are going to let some sad little principle get in the way of playing a game that you really like then that is your problem.
If you want to play Monkey Ball, you buy a GC. If you want to play GT3, you buy a PS2. If you want to play Halo, you buy an Xbox.
Trust me, the Mac community is not overjoyed by the loss of the company that was once their best game developer.
Oh please. Are we supposed to be sympathetic about this?
The consoles makers get developers and games to be exclusive on their platforms all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like exclusivity
Yes, it would be so much better if each console had exactly the same games wouldn't it?
and I don't like waiting for a game just because Microsoft wants to make some cash.
Erm... you do know that companies are out to make money, right...?
I'm not going to pay full price for a six month-old game.
Oh for God's sake, grow up.
Yeah, I guess the whole 2-millennium-spanning, 12-character-playing, insanity-effect-generating genre has been done to death.
They are just gimics in the survival-horror genre. Timesplitters did it before ED (minus the insanity effects), but that hardly makes it a unique game.
I have always preferred generating my own character, because then you can play the game how you want (fighter/mage/thief/etc).
This is exactly why Nintendo is, in my opinion, doing the right thing by staying away from on-line play. If only 1% of your potential install base is using the on-line capabilities for a game, why bother supporting it at all?
At the same time, perhaps developers and publishers should stop releasing new types of games in case they don't sell. Better to be safe with Tomb Raider 4 than risk releasing another Rez.
While I can appreciate console manufacturers trying to attract the PC gamer with the lure of online multiplay, I'd much rather sit down with three other friends (or more, if you rotate out people) and play Super Smash Bros.: Melee, or TimeSplitters 2, or even The Bouncer.
This argument keeps getting trotted out, but makes no sense at all. What if you don't have any friends handy to play those games in multiplayer? What if you fancy playing a multiplayer game at that point in times?
I have really got into playing Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory online for the PC and it is fantastic stuff. I don't know the people I play with, but that doesn't stop it being great.
Sure, playing in front of the TV with four mates is great fun. But playing online is great when you have no one around, and when you want to play a game with lots of players.
Then you're either not looking or too picky. There are plenty of top-notch titles in just about every genre available for the system. Far more than 'just' Mario and Zelda.
Or, you know, the games just aren't to his taste. I actually agree with his statement as there is very little on the GC that has interested me at all.
Two suggestions I'll throw out are Eternal Darkness and Viewtiful Joe. Fantastic, unique games that you won't find on any other system.
Eternal Darkness is one of my 'current-gen' favourites so far, but it certainly isn't unique.
care to explain it then, slowly and in detail, so that I might understand?
When Nintendo said that they had doubled their market share after the price drop, that meant that they were suddenly selling twice as many consoles and no extra PS2's or Xbox's were being sold.
Example:
Pre-price drop, the percentage of consoles being sold was 50% PS2, 30% Xbox and 20% GC.
Post price drop, the percentage of consoles being sold was 40% PS2, 20% Xbox and 40% GC.
Note that this doesn't mean that sales for the PS2 and Xbox dropped, it just means that sales for the GC rose.
Nintendo most certainly have not doubled their installed userbase in such a short time - that would mean selling a few million consoles in less than a month and totally outselling the PS2 as well.
You don't own a Cube, do you? How about you leave the comments about the system to those who know what we're talking about, instead of playing the ignorant hater position?
Yawn. Please, can we stop this "You are a hater!" business please as it is very boring.
As someone who owns a Cube and a PS2, let me say this: I've bought 5-6 times as many games for my Cube than for my PS2 in the past few weeks (and I typically buy a lot of games - I don't rent).
Sorry, what is this supposed to prove other than your own personal gaming tastes?
As a GC, Xbox and PS2 owner there are only two GC games that I consider worth owning - Eternal Darkness and Monkey Ball. I got F-Zero GX but that is going back to be swapped for Viewtiful Joe. I prefer Wipeout 3SE to be honest.
Still are?
Did you miss the news that they doubled their market share already?
the xbox is now in third place.
You are confusing 'market share' with 'user base'.
Seriously though, the difference is that it's a helluva lot cheaper to just have the computer and not buy the console.
Erm, no it isn't. I can buy a Gamecube for 79, whereas I would need more than that just for a decent graphics card.
Perhaps the fact that they can play commercial games without having to pay for them is a big reason.
I am also quite proficient with the Japanese language. By the tone of your question, it seems that you assume that distinguishing between good and bad voice acting in another language is difficult, which seems incredibly naive to me. Have you never played any Japanese-language games, or watched any foreign-language films or television?
I don't see how you could tell good and bad voice acting in another language, because how they pronounce their words will be vastly different to how we do it, especially Japanese.
To me, a Japanese person may sound angry when in fact they are not.
With ~1% of the Xbox owners beeing subscribed to Live I don't see "much desire". Nintendo will start offering online play when they can expect to get money out of it.
Someone could have said that they couldn't see much desire for another console after the Atari 2600 finally bombed out in spectacular style, but look where the NES took Nintendo.
I am guessing that you are one to moan at developers and publishers not taking risks with their games, but here you are quite happy to say that Nintendo shouldn't take their games online because it is much safer.
(1) Them attempting to have Xbox games in every genre is *driving away* 3rd party publishers. There's no incentive to develop a type of game for that platform if Microsoft already has it covered. A competent game development team would probably be able to make a better *game* than a Microsoft internal team (who are a bunch a monkeys, I tell ya) - but they have no hopes in competing based on the *marketing* and money that MS likes to throw at their own titles. 3rd parties can't even compete on the branding: for example, Microsoft's "Xbox Sports Network" titles. At least Sony had the decency to separate theirs ("989 Studios").
You are talking out of your arse. Making games in all the genres wouldn't drive anyone away at all. The PS2 has a game in every genre, and that has the biggest 3rd party support out of all them.
And your marketting comment is stupid, as it is the same for ALL the console makers.
2) Microsoft's Xbox team repeatedly and consistently ignored 3rd party developer input when they were designing the Xbox. Witness - the Xbox controller. Nobody outside of Microsoft liked it. Microsoft asked developers repeatedly, developers repeatedly told Microsoft that it sucked. And they were completely ignored - probably because some high up egomaniac like Ed Fries greenlighted it and their underlings were all "yes" men and didn't want to say that it sucked.
That's probably why they developed the Controller S.
(3) Xbox Live. You have no option of ignoring Microsoft's "Live" system if you want to make an online game. Everything *must* go through Microsoft, and gamers must pay Microsoft $5 a month for the ability to play online. Which immediately makes trying to develop or sell an online game far, far worse for a developer. Doubly so for a persistent online game or MMORPG because MS scalps $5 a month before you get a chance to ask customers to pay for access to your game. And Xbox games aren't allowed to talk to other systems. Which means no cross-platform Xbox and PS2/Gamecube/PC games to boost online population.
The reason is MUST got through Microsofts system is so everything works together. The Friends List is universal and so is your Gamertag. The XBL fee doesn't make it worse for a developer to sell a game, because the games have significant offline content to them. If anything, they will sell more because those with XBL tend to buy most of the XBL games.
The chances of compatible cross-platform online titles are extremely remote anyway. And your comment about the people online pretty much proves you haven't even got XBL.
(4) Voice acting. In multiplayer games there should be no voice, other players is all you should hear talking. In single player - fine, whatever. I don't hate it, but don't care for it either. I don't care what language it's in (with subtitles), so long as it's not *bad* acting and I can have them shut the hell up when I'm tired at the end of the day and just want to kill something.
Erm, and what online games have this voice acting you are going on about? The only one I know of is Ghost Recon where the soldiers might quietly say "Got him!" when they shoot someone.
Nintendo is not 'right'. They are clearly able to get some decent voice actors to do the work, but they just don't want to.
If you would actually read the interview, you would see he is not taking a pot-shot at Nintendo.
I always hear this being said, but how do you actually know that the Japanese voices were well acted?
You're complaining about Zelda, and then you defend Morrowind? In Zelda, you just push the A button a bunch of times and they shut up. Maybe B shuts them up immediately, I dunno, but in any event I do not remember ever being annoyed by the conversation system of any Zelda game. (Sailing around empty oceans in wind waker or building experience in zelda 2--okay that sucks.)
Morrowind, on the other hand, was a nightmare. They had that terrible "question" system, so that you could ask every single person about every single stupid thing your avatar had ever heard in the entire universe, but 99% of the time every character would say the exact same text that every other character in the universe would say.
As I said, in the likes of Morrowind, BG2 and NWN I can skim read the text and exit it all by clicking the 'Cancel' button. In something like Zelda I cannot - they have to finish their little speech first, and even then that requires me to keep pressing the A button to scroll it two lines at a time.
In fact, Morrowind, and Neverwinter Nights actually vindicate the stance of Miyamoto et. al.. I own both of those games, but I've played very little of them, because I was completely put off by all the meaningless text, cookie cutter plots, and general busy-work philosophy of gaming and narrative design that went into making them. (I also own BG2, and never finished it, but the dialogue in that game actually seemed interesting)
It doesn't vindicate anything, it just means you do not like more open and non-linear RPG's.
For me, the sheer size and non-linear aspects of Morrowind/BG2/NWN is superb and has put me off many Japanese RPGs because they are so linear.
This whole discussion shows me why Microsoft is dependent on second and third party developers to make good software for it (which is no big deal, Sony is too.) Microsoft has a typical business mentality that it can just throw money into a process and expect better quality products to result. But Art and Games are differnt from Operating Systems. The more money and investment you throw into a project, the higher the risk involved with making it, and therefore you become less willing to allow your staff to be creative and take the risks necessary to produce a truly ground-breaking game. Nintendo has been around the block a few times, and wisely understands the tradeoff between willingness to take risks and an emphasis on shiny graphics technology and voices. Your last sentence emphasises why MS has to rely on 3rd party so much - because they are just starting out. Nintendo certainly didn't have such a pool of development talent when they started out.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say with your comment on shiny graphics technology and voices, though.
And that was my point - aside from the way in which this particular bit of trash talk is utterly illogical, I don't understand why they're going after Nintendo with such vigor - it's far from their major competitor
Did you actually READ the interview? Fries was asked about the voice thing, and he gave his answer. There is nothing illogical about it all, and he isn't going after Nintendo with any vigor at all - in the very next sentence he says his most played game is Pokemon.
I suggest that you try not to look at every single bit of critisism to Nintendo as being Ninty Bashing. It is getting very boring.
Almost every interview with XBox people that makes it onto /. contains a few lines in which they make comments about how Nintendo is hopelessly behind the times, doomed, unworthy, etc.
This is a pattern with them - they trash talk Nintendo. They do it professionally, but it's still clearly trash talk.
Well, that seems pretty normal to me - after all, they ARE a competitor.
OK, this is a new one. I mean, I've read more anti-Nintendo stuff than anyone sane should have to read, but I've never heard Nintendo criticized for their lack of voice acting before.
He is not bashing Nintendo, he is just disagreeing with their attitude towards voice acting.
On top of that, I have trouble thinking of a game that anyone ever said "Yeah, the voice acting on that game was great! Buy the game for the voice acting!" Kingdom Hearts is the closest to that I can come up with.
And your point is what...?
And why is Microsoft doing the criticism? DO they really think they have more to gain by attacking Nintendo than by going after Sony? Sony is at least pursuing the same market they are - Nintendo is not. If they manage to get Nintendo out of the business, it will probably not substantively increase their sales.
This isn't MS attacking Nintendo at all, and you seem to be reading far too much into it. He just disgrees with their attitude towards voice acting.
Some days, I think small niche products offend Microsoft more than actual large competition. I wonder why that is.
And some days I think that people get far too het up about such small things.
I pretty much agree with the speech issue.
If a game has a lot of people saying things, then I want either of two things - 1) Have everything spoken like in KoToR, Baldurs Gate 2 and Shenmue or 2) Have no speech, but make it so I can skim read and skip ahead as I want like in Baldurs Gate 2, Morrowind or Neverwinter Nights.
In something like Zelda, you can only read a couple of lines at a time and it is far too slow to try and skip ahead with what they are saying, especially if you didn't mean to talk to that person again.
MS Apologist. Where has Microsoft let you go today?
I am not an 'MS Apologist', I am a realist. This stuff happens all the time.
Fact #1: Bungie started as a Mac-only developer.
Yes, and...? Developers changing platforms is hardly new.
Fact #2: Halo 2 was developed as a multi-platform game (Mac & PC, console ports to follow inevitably).
Who says that the console ports would inevitably follow...?
And again, this is not a new occurence. GTA3 was going to be multiplatform, but ended up being a PS2 exclusive for ages when Sony threw some cash at the developers. Halo is now out for the PC, and there may well be a Mac conversion at some point - so what is your problem?
Fact #3: Bungie founders made public announcements that Microsoft would have little influence over the availability of their titles.
Again, so what? Things change in the world of business, and the console business is BIG.
Fact #4: Halo, Bungie's sole product since the sellout, is now a Microsoft exclusive.
Erm, and since when is something like this a new occurence? Do you actually follow the games industry at all...?
Your comparisons to Super Monkey Ball and Gran Turismo are misleading and irrelevant, since the above sequence of events does not apply to either game series.
That is a totally and utterly irrelevant point. The point is that consoles are sold based on what games are available for them, and exclusive games are as old as the industry itself.
And if you can't see why people have reason to be angered over the Bungie sellout, surely your thinking is tainted by bias (as would mine be, from the opposite - and correct, mind you - standpoint)
Biased?!? How the hell am I biased if I see this 'sell out' as no different to what has been going on for years...?!?
Fact #5: Microsoft is still evil.
Oh please. Name me one multi national company that isn't 'evil'.
Fact #6: I will never purchase a Microsoft product.
Heh, how pathetic. You are like the people who still hold a grudge against Sony for killing the Dreamcast.
Fact #7: I'm not pissed off about Halo, I'm pissed off that more people aren't pissed off about Halo, and that some people don't know why others could possibly be pissed off about Halo.
The only reason anyone would be pissed off about Halo is because they are blinded by their own delusions and ignorance. If you refuse to play Halo because it is an MS product then that is your fault and your fault alone. You cannot pin the blame on MS unless you are a petulant child.
I have to say I agree. Having looked at Halo, I don't see why anyone who has ever played a decent FPS would be so amazed by it. Was it solely the fact of it being a good FPS for a console?
No, it is because Halo is a good FPS regardless of platform.
I have played all the major PC FPS games, but I was still amazed by Halo because it is pure quality.
I have played Halo over and over again, which is more than can be said for any PC single player FPS game. To me, Halo is the best single player FPS currently available.
So, are you an X-Box player or PC? Did you play the game two years ago or last month? More importantly, have you played Deus Ex or Max Payne?
I am both a console gamer and a PC gamer, and I think that Halo is fantastic stuff. I will admit that at first I didn't see what the fuss was about, but by the time I first came out in the open on Attack on the Control Room to be confronted by a huge battle going on, I was hooked.
At the same time, I think that Max Payne 2 and Deus Ex are great. You can add the likes of System Shock 2, Medal of Honor, Unreal Tourny, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Return to Wolfy to the list as well.
As far as the PC goes, BF1942 did vehicles first and better. A souped up Humvee, a hovercraft and a tank don't make the game better.
I am pretty sure that Tribes did the vehicles before BF1942, but that is besides the point. I think the vehicles in Halo are great, and the same goes for BF1942. I would not say that one does it 'better', because the two games do it very differently.
As for "classic sci-fi" -- the reason that such works are called "classic" is because their plots were unique and groundbreaking. Perhaps you meant to say "overwrought and overdone"?
Well, Deus Ex is hardly original in that respect.
I hate to keep harping on the point, but Deus Ex does everything Halo does (minus the vehicles) better and with more class. RPG elements, fantastic story, RPG-like upgrades, more than two weapons at a time (with an RPG-like inventory), and aliens that freaked the hell out of me (and still do). System Shock 2 is another example of an FPS done right. And no, the muppets in Halo didn't count.
Deus Ex doesn't do anything better than Halo, because they are two totally different games. I find it incredible that you even make the comparison.
Well... how about fans who don't wat to support Microsoft by buying an Xbox?
Then, um, you don't get to play the game. It's that simple, and if you are going to let some sad little principle get in the way of playing a game that you really like then that is your problem.
If you want to play Monkey Ball, you buy a GC. If you want to play GT3, you buy a PS2. If you want to play Halo, you buy an Xbox.
Trust me, the Mac community is not overjoyed by the loss of the company that was once their best game developer.
Oh please. Are we supposed to be sympathetic about this?
The consoles makers get developers and games to be exclusive on their platforms all the time.