It was just that they couldn't prove that any crimes had been committed. Which may stick or may not stick, who knows?
The reason why they should lose bigtime, is that the precident that would be set, that a corporation can compel the identify of anonymous actors, would be a very negative one for general freedom.
Think of a corporation could find out who posted a negative (but truthful) review of a book on Amazon, for example, then they could jump on you with both feet, with a SLAPP like suit.
I could just mod you into oblivion for "In today's society the majority of people are conditioned by the leftist elite to assume no responsibility for their actions, so why should the music industry be different?", but I won't. It's better to educate than obsufucate.
The truth is, that "the leftist elite", more often than not are not the people who are saying that people shouldn't have responsibilty for their actions.
Who is it then?
It's the corporate backers who push the line that profits count more than people, and that anything you do to that end is fine and dandy.
It's the churches that think that bad behaviour can be washed away through faith, instead of..oh you know..being a good person?
That whole idea is just a big lie presented to hide the real culprits.
Romance as a subject for video games, believe it or not, is not a tricky one. It's not as tricky as it makes it seem, at least if the end goal is to be the equivilent of the movie or the book. If you're looking to transcend that level, then it's a lot more difficult.
What makes a good book/movie romance? There are two possibilties. Either you can relate to the relationship, or you desire the relationship. This really is a matter of taste. Unfortunately, very few games actually have enough romantic tension in them to really even have a chance. What do you have?
Ok, you have the Final Fantasy games. That's obvious. (And some of the best, if you ask me). What else is there? One of the problems is that games with a "love interest" usually use the love interest as the motivation..the damsel in distress syndrome, so to speak. If you do this, it takes the tension out of the whole story. Mainly, because it cuts out most of the chance for the dialogue. Why are the FF good games for romance? Because for the most part, the characters are together for most if not all of the game.
About Wright's idea, I think it's a good one, but not for the romance angle. I like the idea of being able to try to balance multiple objectives within a larger game. One of the problmes of this, and the other given idea, is the human problem. Namely, the number of griefers that only try to ruin the game for other people and get a kick out of it. That's the big problem for any game that relies on human interaction.
"Another shortcoming of the Internet is that it lends itself to individual rather than communal activities. It "is about people sitting in front of a terminal, barely interacting," says one Laotian researcher. The Web is less well-suited to fostering political discussion and debate because, unlike radio or even television, it does not generally bring people together in one house or one room."
That's a big Whisky Tango Foxtrot. A huge one.
Where has this guy been? The reason why the internet is so useful is EXACTLY that reason. It doesn't need people in one house, or one room. People can be comparing ideas and improving them from across the street, across the state or across the world.
The world is run by ideas, and only by improving and refining those ideas can any progress be made.
It's open source politics, that's really what it is. And to think that it's not changing things, well..you might as well think that linux isn't changing things.
Check out Eschatron or Daily Kos to get some of the best examples of this principle at work.
Actually, speaking as someone who follows this stuff, you're completly wrong.
The Dean supporters don't see it as a "swindle". They see it as Dean took all the media heat for that amount of time..the first person to hit the beach, and hard. And set the tone for the entire debate in a very positive fasion.
What did they get? A very good chance of not only getting Bush out of office, but starting a conversation to make real change.
Usually what happens is that the retailer marks it up. However, the producer/distribitor specifically has authorized for them to carry the product. When you buy directly, usually they are just cutting out the middle man and giving you what the stores would take as profit/operating costs.
Regarding the first point, you are aware that the exact same argument can be made for piracy, right? That the $0 price tag is just another price level to be competed with.
School textbooks? Frankly, I think companies should be LONG out of that game. I think textbooks should be published by non-profits and advised by leading brains in that particular field.
Back to the first point.
It's a good point, what if something is out of print? Easy. The way I see things, Out of print==Public domain. Copyright law is far too out of hand.
In other words, I REALLY resent having to pay $20 to some company that never had ANY interest in producing the game/software if that's the only way I can get it, and yet continuing to have such insane length of copyright laws where things that are OoP don't fall to public domain.
You're talking about it fromt he PoV of the retailer.
I'm talking about it from the PoV of the producer.
There is a clear line legally..what I'm saying is that if the goal of copyright law is the reward the producers, then there shouldn't be that clear line. Because like it or not, when you buy a used game rather than a new one, the producer really is losing a sale. It's not even just a potential sale, a hypothetical one as you see with normal copying.
In a way, if I was a producer, I'd be crying bloody murder. Seriously.
It's not straight ethically wrong. Both sides have good merit.
On one side, the producers should receive their cut no matter what.
On the other side, consumers have the real power and should have the power to copy/share/etc, and the producers get what they get.
The problem is when you try to have both.
What bothers me, is that at the same time as the media groups are trying to shut down such useful services for consumers as P2P, they're doing absolutly nothing about this other black hole they have in their market. And then they try to shove DRM down our throat in an effort to maintain that.
Legally, they can't do anything about it. But why don't they talk about it? Why don't they put all this stuff in a realistic light?
Maybe so we could actually have a real conversation about IP law and actually have them make some sense.
Basically, for you, you want to try before you buy, no matter how far you want to go.
That's fine. That's a personal choice. What my posts are more about are talking about why nobody talks about the used market in the same light as they do about piracy. It's something that mystifies me, and makes me think that the anti-piracy forces just arn't serious about what they say they are, rewarding the producers, and instead they're just being pricks.
Who cares about the legal definition of piracy or the "bounds of the law"
I'm talking about ethical matters.
As far as I know, copyright and IP law exists to make sure the producers get rewarded for their work, in order to encourage more to be produced. At least that's the commonly acknowledged reason...it's a good reason too.
If 500 people copy a game off a friend's CD, doesn't that cost the producer 500 sales?
If 500 people read a book through the library, doesn't that cost the author 500 sales?
What's the difference?
There isn't any, at least from the POV of the producer. Sure, it's legally protected, but it's very ethically challenged. (The library is pretty safe, as for the most part they are non-profits, but tell me your local used-media shop isn't trying to make money off the backs of others)
People say if piracy was reduced, then producers could afford to lower prices (Yeah right). Well doesn't that go the same that if second-market sales were reduced it would be the same thing?
For my own? I just wish people would make up their minds. Are we just looking for articifial scarcity to maintain high prices or are we looking to reward producers?
I fully support the second. For the first? Well, if that's the case, I don't think anybody deserves any legal protection for ANY IP.
Futures/Markets have been around for 500 so years. An investment/stock market is a relativly new invention.
The reason why the stock market will die is because the money will eventually stop coming in. When you buy a stock, you're buying a piece of paper. Sure, you have partial "ownership", but insane PtD (Price to Divident. The media talks about PtE, but that's a meaningless statistic for investors) ratios make it a horrible investment.) ratios make it a bad investment.
You're buying a stock hoping someone will buy it for more money. Why? Well, then they hope someone will buy it from them for even more money. Except for the occasional takeover/merger, there's not much use to owning stock, at least as a on-the-level investment.
Sorry, I apologize. Ethically wrong was the wrong term to use. I shouldn't presume to judge, especially since I personally don't think there's a clear answer one way or the other.
The real term to use is ethically equivilant.
And yeah. When you buy used books it's akin to piracy, at least from the perspective of the producer. The producer receives no additional benefit for your enjoyment of the work. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but there's absolutly no difference from the perspective of the producer between downloading a PDF or a book and getting it at the library.
Absolutly no difference.
Maybe you somehow feel justified in doing one but not the other, but you have to realize, they are the same.
Yes. I have rather extreme views of this. It's just that any other way of thought to me is hypocritical. They are either both right or both wrong, at least from the view that the reason you buy something is to reward the producer. (if you're against piracy because you're an elitest prick, then you have some other problems.)
What can the game companies do? They can refuse to give stock to the EBs of the world that have pre-owned stock next to new. As well, like I said, they could get well known game designer companies to have information pickits to get the word out to buy new or don't buy at all.
Myself? I think that anti-piracy laws should be strictly focused on commercial avoidance of producer renumeration. In other words, any company or group who makes a profit out of facilitating people avoiding rewarding the producers should be strictly illegal. Non-commercial file-sharing? Harmless in the wide scheme of things.
Although this does make a lot of sense when it comes to business software, and it's very true. Copied software creates more educated users of that product, making business take-up that much easier.
But when it comes to games? Frankly, it's barking up the wrong tree. I don't see how piracy would help the big guy over the small guy. I mean, it's not like there's not millions of keygens floating around for all those small download games..right?
In any case, I don't think it's piracy that hurts creative industries at all. I really don't. People who tend to do that obsessivly (meaning they don't buy anything..there are quite a few like that), wouldn't have a preference over one thing or the other. You're not going to get them to buy anyway.
Not so much for the PC market, but especially for the console market, what is really hurting them is the presence of the used/pre-owned game. The same thing that is really hurting the movie industry. This creates a new sub-market for such goods that the producers don't see a penny out of. Every person that buys, for example, Metroid Prime for $20..
#1. Doesn't have that $20 to spend on another shrinkwrapped budget game..you know, one someone actually gets paid for?
#2. Considering that the shrinkwrapped price is near 20, it actually denies the producers rewards for their production. This is exactly the argument they make against piracy. But they can't do anything about this because it's above the law.
So I think complaining about piracy frankly, is half-assed until they start cracking down on used/pre-owned copies. Of course, legally, they're not on firm ground here. However, a widespread advertising campaign and pickiting campaign may convince people that going into that used-media shop is ethically wrong.
Yes, maturity. I play a lot of Natural Selection, a team-oriented half-life mod. Actually, the team play in that is pretty hard. A lone player (called a rambo) will get killed pretty quick, and be unable to do pretty much anything.
In other words, the little kids who don't want to play as a team get killed, get frustrated than leave.
I can sympathize for you, because I feel the same way. Halo isn't a bad game. It's just not a great game. Sure it adds some pretty graphics and good AI, but the game itself tends to be on the boring side.
Problems with Halo:
#1. You're exactly right. Most of the weapons are on the boring side. The Needler is pretty cool, but rather weak at the same time. A nice pistol, I'm not a big fan of the sniping in that game however. The grenades are fun, but that's another problem..
#2. Because of the weakness of the weapons, the game can become a grenade fest.
#3. The single-player levels, as is, can become boring.
#4. Multi-player is fun, but just tacked on. Like you mentioned, no bots. BIG mistake. Keeps Halo from being a great game. Multi-player Halo is fun, if you're using the tunneling to play 4v4 CTF or something. Good teamwork required. The PC version would be great if it didn't suck technically.
Timesplitters 2, released around the same time by the people who made the original Goldeneye, is a much better game. Why it doesn't get the props it deserves, is beyond me.
What did the PS2/GC/X-Box era provide? At least when it came to new gaming experiences?
DVD-storage made it easier to make games more data-big.
That's a minor thing. The major thing, however..is that they were able to make games even more intense.
Starting with games such as Dynasty Warriors, games were able to put more enemies and more objects onto the screen than ever before. This allowed a lot of new types of game play that we never had before. As well, the processor could handle higher AI priority for this as well.
This legacy then moved on to games such as Ratchet and Clank, and Halo. That's really what the current generation provided.
As well, the processing power now allows the room to add a lot of slight graphical touches and cool things that just make one say wow. I like such cool touches. They just make a game feel so much more fleshed out.
So what will the next generation provice? Not very much. More realistic graphics (not needed, to be honest)...
Possibly the ability for advanced AI, but I'm not sure how much that's a factor of processor strength, and not of programming.
What am I looking forward to? From all the rumors I'm hearing, I'm looking forward to Nintendo's next gen, with the potential for a second 3d display on the controller itself, oh and by the way, it's a touchpad as well. That provides lots of possibilities for second displays/or lots of possible fun for multiplayer gaming.
It's about balls. For your example, Square has them, and they are solid brass.
Seriously. Gamers appriciate when chances are taken, and risks are made. FFX was a huge risk for a lot of reasons. The game was a radical departure from pretty much everything else out there. Instead of a big global world-spanning adventure, they did something that felt much more compact and personal.
And games are much more than graphics. The graphics are merely a tool, something to be used in order to create something special. For me, storyline, character, controls, and something I call "The Viewtiful Factor" (In other words, give me lots of cool shit to do and see...something more and more games have in spades these days), combine to make an enjoyable game.
It's impossible to tell what's gonig to happen for the next generation, because I'm guessing that the next gen console's are going to be more concept-type devices than the predecessors.
It's looking more and more like Sony is going to do the all-in-one type box. Will they be able to maintain their current market share? What about backwards compatibility? (PS2 compatibility is expected). With the launch titles give enough bang for the buck to get a quick launch? (I actually say no. They're going to stall coming out of the gate).
Microsoft looks to be playing it safe, moving from the HD based system to a more unhackable flash-memory type system. What will this do to sales? As well, MS faces the same problem. What about launch games. They had Halo for the X-Box (Without Halo, the X-Box may have been another N-Gage...)
As for Nintendo..well..they're the wild card..arn't they? What the hell are they planning..everything to speak is in riddles and doublespeak.
My best guess, is that the DS technology is some sort of affordable touch-pad. And they'll use that in their next system, in the controllers.
At worst, you'd be able to see additional information, maps without switching screens. As well, doing basic inventory management, things such as that.
At best? If their next system had the horsepower to feed out a 3d signal to the controller. Imagine being able to look down at your controller, playing Zelda for example, and seeing an overhead view of all the action around you? Or checking out what is behind you in a FPS.
Something like that would be revolutionary if it caught on. Personally, I think that if it's affordable, it's a great idea.
BTW, same problem for Nintendo. They had a bad launch for the GC and that hurt them. They need to launch with some big games right out.
Most of the reading people tend to do, tends to be informationless anyway. You might as well be watching TV, it does nothing to enrich the brain.
People do much more reading now than ever before. Just not books. (Which actually is a good thing IMO, as it means they are 'prolly taking in more actual knowlege and less romance/detective/western crap)
Slashdot Mirror
Strange. I didn't find VJ all that difficult except for a few parts. A lot of other people did. I find that kind of odd.
It's a great game 'tho. Best platformer to come out in years. The thing is, production values DO count for soemthing, and VJ had that in spades.
At least it wasn't for the right reasons.
It was just that they couldn't prove that any crimes had been committed. Which may stick or may not stick, who knows?
The reason why they should lose bigtime, is that the precident that would be set, that a corporation can compel the identify of anonymous actors, would be a very negative one for general freedom.
Think of a corporation could find out who posted a negative (but truthful) review of a book on Amazon, for example, then they could jump on you with both feet, with a SLAPP like suit.
Not good.
Second hand games?
You might as well be pirating.
*sigh*
You're not supporting the games and studios you like. Only an originial shrink-wrapped copy does that. Now, you have the right to do that, of course.
However, you really shouldn't be a hypocrite.
It's not the thought that counts. It's the cold hard cash.
Buying used CDs?
Geez..you might as well just download and burn it. The artist will be getting the exact same thing from you.
I could just mod you into oblivion for "In today's society the majority of people are conditioned by the leftist elite to assume no responsibility for their actions, so why should the music industry be different?", but I won't. It's better to educate than obsufucate.
The truth is, that "the leftist elite", more often than not are not the people who are saying that people shouldn't have responsibilty for their actions.
Who is it then?
It's the corporate backers who push the line that profits count more than people, and that anything you do to that end is fine and dandy.
It's the churches that think that bad behaviour can be washed away through faith, instead of..oh you know..being a good person?
That whole idea is just a big lie presented to hide the real culprits.
Romance as a subject for video games, believe it or not, is not a tricky one. It's not as tricky as it makes it seem, at least if the end goal is to be the equivilent of the movie or the book. If you're looking to transcend that level, then it's a lot more difficult.
What makes a good book/movie romance? There are two possibilties. Either you can relate to the relationship, or you desire the relationship. This really is a matter of taste. Unfortunately, very few games actually have enough romantic tension in them to really even have a chance. What do you have?
Ok, you have the Final Fantasy games. That's obvious. (And some of the best, if you ask me). What else is there? One of the problems is that games with a "love interest" usually use the love interest as the motivation..the damsel in distress syndrome, so to speak. If you do this, it takes the tension out of the whole story. Mainly, because it cuts out most of the chance for the dialogue. Why are the FF good games for romance? Because for the most part, the characters are together for most if not all of the game.
About Wright's idea, I think it's a good one, but not for the romance angle. I like the idea of being able to try to balance multiple objectives within a larger game. One of the problmes of this, and the other given idea, is the human problem. Namely, the number of griefers that only try to ruin the game for other people and get a kick out of it. That's the big problem for any game that relies on human interaction.
"Another shortcoming of the Internet is that it lends itself to individual rather than communal activities. It "is about people sitting in front of a terminal, barely interacting," says one Laotian researcher. The Web is less well-suited to fostering political discussion and debate because, unlike radio or even television, it does not generally bring people together in one house or one room."
That's a big Whisky Tango Foxtrot. A huge one.
Where has this guy been? The reason why the internet is so useful is EXACTLY that reason. It doesn't need people in one house, or one room. People can be comparing ideas and improving them from across the street, across the state or across the world.
The world is run by ideas, and only by improving and refining those ideas can any progress be made.
It's open source politics, that's really what it is. And to think that it's not changing things, well..you might as well think that linux isn't changing things.
Check out Eschatron or Daily Kos to get some of the best examples of this principle at work.
Actually, speaking as someone who follows this stuff, you're completly wrong.
The Dean supporters don't see it as a "swindle". They see it as Dean took all the media heat for that amount of time..the first person to hit the beach, and hard. And set the tone for the entire debate in a very positive fasion.
What did they get? A very good chance of not only getting Bush out of office, but starting a conversation to make real change.
Usually what happens is that the retailer marks it up. However, the producer/distribitor specifically has authorized for them to carry the product. When you buy directly, usually they are just cutting out the middle man and giving you what the stores would take as profit/operating costs.
Regarding the first point, you are aware that the exact same argument can be made for piracy, right? That the $0 price tag is just another price level to be competed with.
School textbooks? Frankly, I think companies should be LONG out of that game. I think textbooks should be published by non-profits and advised by leading brains in that particular field.
Back to the first point.
It's a good point, what if something is out of print? Easy. The way I see things, Out of print==Public domain. Copyright law is far too out of hand.
In other words, I REALLY resent having to pay $20 to some company that never had ANY interest in producing the game/software if that's the only way I can get it, and yet continuing to have such insane length of copyright laws where things that are OoP don't fall to public domain.
Think SNES roms, for example. (A good majority)
You're talking about it fromt he PoV of the retailer.
I'm talking about it from the PoV of the producer.
There is a clear line legally..what I'm saying is that if the goal of copyright law is the reward the producers, then there shouldn't be that clear line. Because like it or not, when you buy a used game rather than a new one, the producer really is losing a sale. It's not even just a potential sale, a hypothetical one as you see with normal copying.
In a way, if I was a producer, I'd be crying bloody murder. Seriously.
It's not straight ethically wrong. Both sides have good merit.
On one side, the producers should receive their cut no matter what.
On the other side, consumers have the real power and should have the power to copy/share/etc, and the producers get what they get.
The problem is when you try to have both.
What bothers me, is that at the same time as the media groups are trying to shut down such useful services for consumers as P2P, they're doing absolutly nothing about this other black hole they have in their market. And then they try to shove DRM down our throat in an effort to maintain that.
Legally, they can't do anything about it. But why don't they talk about it? Why don't they put all this stuff in a realistic light?
Maybe so we could actually have a real conversation about IP law and actually have them make some sense.
Basically, for you, you want to try before you buy, no matter how far you want to go.
That's fine. That's a personal choice. What my posts are more about are talking about why nobody talks about the used market in the same light as they do about piracy. It's something that mystifies me, and makes me think that the anti-piracy forces just arn't serious about what they say they are, rewarding the producers, and instead they're just being pricks.
Who cares about the legal definition of piracy or the "bounds of the law"
I'm talking about ethical matters.
As far as I know, copyright and IP law exists to make sure the producers get rewarded for their work, in order to encourage more to be produced. At least that's the commonly acknowledged reason...it's a good reason too.
If 500 people copy a game off a friend's CD, doesn't that cost the producer 500 sales?
If 500 people read a book through the library, doesn't that cost the author 500 sales?
What's the difference?
There isn't any, at least from the POV of the producer. Sure, it's legally protected, but it's very ethically challenged. (The library is pretty safe, as for the most part they are non-profits, but tell me your local used-media shop isn't trying to make money off the backs of others)
People say if piracy was reduced, then producers could afford to lower prices (Yeah right). Well doesn't that go the same that if second-market sales were reduced it would be the same thing?
For my own? I just wish people would make up their minds. Are we just looking for articifial scarcity to maintain high prices or are we looking to reward producers?
I fully support the second. For the first? Well, if that's the case, I don't think anybody deserves any legal protection for ANY IP.
Futures/Markets have been around for 500 so years. An investment/stock market is a relativly new invention.
The reason why the stock market will die is because the money will eventually stop coming in. When you buy a stock, you're buying a piece of paper. Sure, you have partial "ownership", but insane PtD (Price to Divident. The media talks about PtE, but that's a meaningless statistic for investors) ratios make it a horrible investment.) ratios make it a bad investment.
You're buying a stock hoping someone will buy it for more money. Why? Well, then they hope someone will buy it from them for even more money. Except for the occasional takeover/merger, there's not much use to owning stock, at least as a on-the-level investment.
Sorry, I apologize. Ethically wrong was the wrong term to use. I shouldn't presume to judge, especially since I personally don't think there's a clear answer one way or the other.
The real term to use is ethically equivilant.
And yeah. When you buy used books it's akin to piracy, at least from the perspective of the producer. The producer receives no additional benefit for your enjoyment of the work. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but there's absolutly no difference from the perspective of the producer between downloading a PDF or a book and getting it at the library.
Absolutly no difference.
Maybe you somehow feel justified in doing one but not the other, but you have to realize, they are the same.
Yes. I have rather extreme views of this. It's just that any other way of thought to me is hypocritical. They are either both right or both wrong, at least from the view that the reason you buy something is to reward the producer. (if you're against piracy because you're an elitest prick, then you have some other problems.)
What can the game companies do? They can refuse to give stock to the EBs of the world that have pre-owned stock next to new. As well, like I said, they could get well known game designer companies to have information pickits to get the word out to buy new or don't buy at all.
Myself? I think that anti-piracy laws should be strictly focused on commercial avoidance of producer renumeration. In other words, any company or group who makes a profit out of facilitating people avoiding rewarding the producers should be strictly illegal. Non-commercial file-sharing? Harmless in the wide scheme of things.
Although this does make a lot of sense when it comes to business software, and it's very true. Copied software creates more educated users of that product, making business take-up that much easier.
But when it comes to games? Frankly, it's barking up the wrong tree. I don't see how piracy would help the big guy over the small guy. I mean, it's not like there's not millions of keygens floating around for all those small download games..right?
In any case, I don't think it's piracy that hurts creative industries at all. I really don't. People who tend to do that obsessivly (meaning they don't buy anything..there are quite a few like that), wouldn't have a preference over one thing or the other. You're not going to get them to buy anyway.
Not so much for the PC market, but especially for the console market, what is really hurting them is the presence of the used/pre-owned game. The same thing that is really hurting the movie industry. This creates a new sub-market for such goods that the producers don't see a penny out of. Every person that buys, for example, Metroid Prime for $20..
#1. Doesn't have that $20 to spend on another shrinkwrapped budget game..you know, one someone actually gets paid for?
#2. Considering that the shrinkwrapped price is near 20, it actually denies the producers rewards for their production. This is exactly the argument they make against piracy. But they can't do anything about this because it's above the law.
So I think complaining about piracy frankly, is half-assed until they start cracking down on used/pre-owned copies. Of course, legally, they're not on firm ground here. However, a widespread advertising campaign and pickiting campaign may convince people that going into that used-media shop is ethically wrong.
Actually, that type of experience would be more appropiate in a futures market.
In any case, the stock market as it is won't be around in 10 years so it's a waste of time.
Save me Jeebus!!
#1. Twitch skill. Raw reflexes.
#2. Strategy
#3. Teamwork, patience (and hopefully) maturity
Yes, maturity. I play a lot of Natural Selection, a team-oriented half-life mod. Actually, the team play in that is pretty hard. A lone player (called a rambo) will get killed pretty quick, and be unable to do pretty much anything.
In other words, the little kids who don't want to play as a team get killed, get frustrated than leave.
Just my opinion.
Me.
I can sympathize for you, because I feel the same way. Halo isn't a bad game. It's just not a great game. Sure it adds some pretty graphics and good AI, but the game itself tends to be on the boring side.
Problems with Halo:
#1. You're exactly right. Most of the weapons are on the boring side. The Needler is pretty cool, but rather weak at the same time. A nice pistol, I'm not a big fan of the sniping in that game however. The grenades are fun, but that's another problem..
#2. Because of the weakness of the weapons, the game can become a grenade fest.
#3. The single-player levels, as is, can become boring.
#4. Multi-player is fun, but just tacked on. Like you mentioned, no bots. BIG mistake. Keeps Halo from being a great game. Multi-player Halo is fun, if you're using the tunneling to play 4v4 CTF or something. Good teamwork required. The PC version would be great if it didn't suck technically.
Timesplitters 2, released around the same time by the people who made the original Goldeneye, is a much better game. Why it doesn't get the props it deserves, is beyond me.
What did the PS2/GC/X-Box era provide? At least when it came to new gaming experiences?
DVD-storage made it easier to make games more data-big.
That's a minor thing. The major thing, however..is that they were able to make games even more intense.
Starting with games such as Dynasty Warriors, games were able to put more enemies and more objects onto the screen than ever before. This allowed a lot of new types of game play that we never had before. As well, the processor could handle higher AI priority for this as well.
This legacy then moved on to games such as Ratchet and Clank, and Halo. That's really what the current generation provided.
As well, the processing power now allows the room to add a lot of slight graphical touches and cool things that just make one say wow. I like such cool touches. They just make a game feel so much more fleshed out.
So what will the next generation provice? Not very much. More realistic graphics (not needed, to be honest)...
Possibly the ability for advanced AI, but I'm not sure how much that's a factor of processor strength, and not of programming.
What am I looking forward to? From all the rumors I'm hearing, I'm looking forward to Nintendo's next gen, with the potential for a second 3d display on the controller itself, oh and by the way, it's a touchpad as well. That provides lots of possibilities for second displays/or lots of possible fun for multiplayer gaming.
It's about balls. For your example, Square has them, and they are solid brass.
Seriously. Gamers appriciate when chances are taken, and risks are made. FFX was a huge risk for a lot of reasons. The game was a radical departure from pretty much everything else out there. Instead of a big global world-spanning adventure, they did something that felt much more compact and personal.
And games are much more than graphics. The graphics are merely a tool, something to be used in order to create something special. For me, storyline, character, controls, and something I call "The Viewtiful Factor" (In other words, give me lots of cool shit to do and see...something more and more games have in spades these days), combine to make an enjoyable game.
It's impossible to tell what's gonig to happen for the next generation, because I'm guessing that the next gen console's are going to be more concept-type devices than the predecessors.
It's looking more and more like Sony is going to do the all-in-one type box. Will they be able to maintain their current market share? What about backwards compatibility? (PS2 compatibility is expected). With the launch titles give enough bang for the buck to get a quick launch? (I actually say no. They're going to stall coming out of the gate).
Microsoft looks to be playing it safe, moving from the HD based system to a more unhackable flash-memory type system. What will this do to sales? As well, MS faces the same problem. What about launch games. They had Halo for the X-Box (Without Halo, the X-Box may have been another N-Gage...)
As for Nintendo..well..they're the wild card..arn't they? What the hell are they planning..everything to speak is in riddles and doublespeak.
My best guess, is that the DS technology is some sort of affordable touch-pad. And they'll use that in their next system, in the controllers.
At worst, you'd be able to see additional information, maps without switching screens. As well, doing basic inventory management, things such as that.
At best? If their next system had the horsepower to feed out a 3d signal to the controller. Imagine being able to look down at your controller, playing Zelda for example, and seeing an overhead view of all the action around you? Or checking out what is behind you in a FPS.
Something like that would be revolutionary if it caught on. Personally, I think that if it's affordable, it's a great idea.
BTW, same problem for Nintendo. They had a bad launch for the GC and that hurt them. They need to launch with some big games right out.
Most of the reading people tend to do, tends to be informationless anyway. You might as well be watching TV, it does nothing to enrich the brain.
People do much more reading now than ever before. Just not books. (Which actually is a good thing IMO, as it means they are 'prolly taking in more actual knowlege and less romance/detective/western crap)
The ironic thing is that I'd be willing to bet good money that the members of those groups pulled their kids to see "The Passion of the Christ"...
Talk about violence and scars for life...
Agreed..
And to be fair, the Spiderman movie was based upon the retelling of the Peter Parker story..not the original.
And the change makes sense within the context of the character.