Because not every PC game someone might want to play comes out on the XBox 360? Because some people don't like playing FPS's on consoles when they can play them with a mouse and keyboard on their PC? Because some people find XBox live to be overpopulated with whiny 12-year olds, ruining the multiplayer experience? Because you miss out on some of the customizability and modding that you get with PC games (in Oblivion, for example)? Just a thought.....
I agree, I think. Adding some letters to a term that people are already familiar with would generally make them think it is just sort of an "enhanced" version of the existing technology, whereas a completely new term would be more likely to make people think it is something completely "new". I can't help thinking that HD-DVD might be perceived as something more along the lines of Super VHS or something.
Exactly. It's sort of like the whole debate about whether The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess should have been moved to be a Revolution-only title; by making it a GameCube title, they get something that can be sold to existing GC owners and Revolution owners.
It depends on the FPS though. Take Bungie's Marathon trilogy of FPS's; they were undoubtedly FPS's and games, but they also told a very deep and complex story, almost entirely via text in computer terminals. Now, were these games art? They certainly fit the "explore the human condition" that has been laid out, and I would venture to say that if you stripped out the text from the game and printed it as a book, it would unquestionably be considered a work of literature like anything else.
But does the medium that this text was presented in somehow make it less worthy? Why would it be "art" if it was bound in a paperback book, but somehow not art when it is wrapped into a game?
In the FPS genre, System Shock would probably be another obvious challenge.
As another example, take Funcom's Longest Journey (and it's sequel, Dreamfall). Now, these are another genre (Ebert's original point was that no videogame was art, I don't think he limited it to genre.). The story alone would make it a work of art, but you also have beautiful art that makes up the game's visuals, wonderful voice acting and an incredible score. Many of these are the elements that would make a movie art, and I don't think anyone would question it's artistic merits if you took the elements of the Longest Journey and presented them as a movie.... and any of the individual elements (artwork, music, script, voice acting, etc.) would be considered art if taken alone. So why do they cease to be "art" because they are a game?
I think one of the cruxes of Ebert's point in the original column where this came up was that the experience of a game was inherently more interactive, and the fact that the player could experience it in numerous ways meant it was something other than art, because the creator didn't have the same control over their experience that an artist, musician or writer has.
But I don't buy that either. An artist might not have any choice about how viewers end up seeing their work (especially when their work enters the pop culture). And how much control does a writer have over how someone reads their book? The reader can skip to the end if they like, or skip through parts they find boring..... they could decide to read the entire book all in one sitting, or stretch it out over years. How different is this really from a game? And I would argue that the creators of a game know that someone could experience their game in many ways, which only makes it even more interesting as an art form.
Thought it might just be me, but the summary seemed almost incomprehensible to me...... I think I get the gist of it, but the phrasing seemed to be so awkward that it was almost impossible to figure out.
I'm not sure why this would rule out them doing a port of OOT to the DS (like with Super Mario 64). It's actually kind of refreshing though to see them push an entirely new game rather than just a port.
To be fair, it seems like Microsoft is stressing the idea of those kinds of games with the Xbox Live Arcade (and making some more high profile releases like Street Fighter II). Still not sure if it will be quite as big as what Nintendo has planned though.
I've never been clear on this, do the people like you who dislike the iPod and iPod owners so much really believe that line about how the iPod is only popular and successful because it is "cool"? I keep hearing people repeat this so often, they must think it is true, but it seems like a kind of ignorant thing to say. Certainly some people do buy them because they are hip and trendy and cool or whatever, but there are plenty of people who buy them for other reasons, such as preferring the hardware interface, preferring the iTunes software and the user experience that you derive from the combination of the iPod and iTunes. Really, if the only thing the iPod had going for it was that it was "cool", it would have just burnt out as a fad long ago. It has sustained that popularity because a lot of people actually do like how well designed it is and how well it works.
I can only figure that it makes it easier to justify hatred or dislike of the iPod though if you just chalk up it's success to "coolness" while not acknowleding the more practical things it gets right.
I remember a year or two ago there was some news about Disney planning a remake of Tron (rather than a sequel)....... which apparently would have been the same basic idea of Tron, except updated for things like the Internet, etc.
Is this still happening? When I first heard about it, it struck me as a huge mistake, to do a reimagining rather than a sequel (that is, a sequel with Lisberger involved, and hopefully Wendy Carlos music.... something along the lines of the Tron 2.0 video game).
I'd still of course love to see what Pixar might do with the "Tron" style.
Really, I don't expect anything from a game preview other than to get an idea of what an upcoming game is going to be about, what it might look like, what kind of gameplay or innovations it will feature, etc. Granted, some of the hyperbole can be distracting (i.e. "this game is going to REDEFINE FPS's!!!!"), but it's not generally something I read a game preview for. Honestly, the biggest thing I care about is screenshots and online videos (something which is of course handled much better online than in magazines)..... I don't think I'd ever pre-order a game though or even buy it on the first day though (unless I was reasonably confident it would be good) until I read more final reviews, and also read more user reviews and impressions.
As others have said, it is to help drive sales and renew interest in a platform. It's sort of a more subtle version of things like case re-designs, etc. After a platform has been out for a while, sales start to dry up, naturally. By releasing the console in a new color, or in a new case, you can sometimes drive up interest........ both from people who maybe never bought it before but see "new" and think "hey, I'll break down and buy one!". And of course there are the diehards who are willing to buy something in a new form factor or color even if they already own one. Granted, a new form factor is easier to understand (i.e. I traded my original PS2 in for the new slim PStwo because the smaller size appealed to me), but they both help the company squeeze more life out of a product after the initial sales spikes have ended.
I do understand and agree with the sentiment, but realistically, would it be that surprising if they do have the sex appeal aspect in a Star Trek Online game? I mean, it's not exactly like the Star Trek franchise itself has ever really shied away from that (hell, look at those miniskirt uniforms in the original series...... and that's not to mention the more blatant attempts with 7 of 9 in Voyager, or those Hoshi/T'Pol shower scenes in Enterprise. DS9 had some sex appeal even, in Jadzia Dax, and in those Dabo girls or whatever. Heck, even TNG, which I would venture to say probably was the most desexualized of any of the series, still had it's share of this kind of thing).
I think it's kind of inevitable that you'd have that in this game too. Hopefully though there will be more of a choice though, which is probably the most you can ask for.
I'm not sure I understand, what specifically do you think EVE needs to take note of in those items? Like item 3, Travel Should be Easy....... given the scope of how large the EVE universe is, I was struck by how useful and easy the tools were for going through the atlas and setting your autopilot (and even having control over whether it plotted a course for you through dangerous areas or not). And for 2, "details matter"; in my time with EVE I thought that it was very detailed and there seemed to be an incredible amount of depth in how the universe's economy had been set up, etc. And 6, "style should shine through"; how does EVE fail in this area in your mind? I thought the UI and "look" of the game was very stylish.
Regarding 1 and 7; well, I guess that is a matter of opinion. Does everything have to be "fun"? I don't know, I guess in that case, yeah, you could argue that EvE wouldn't fit the bill. I'm just not sure this should be a rule though, some things can be interesting but not necessarily "fun". And regarding item 7, I would guess though that if you did enjoy EVE, you'd probably leave every session "jazzed" about the game.
When I saw the headline, I thought it said "Lessons GM Can Learn from World of Warcraft"........ thought it was going to be about how WoW could help the automotive industry.
Hrmm, I have no doubt that that's what they are doing, but I still question whether "bait and switch" is the term that applies here. Heck, even from the wikipedia definition of the term, they say: "A bait and switch is a form of fraud in which the fraudster lures in customers by advertising a good at an unprofitably low price, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available but that a substitute good is." - I've always understood this to mean a substitute good as actually something different from what was advertised. I don't think a bundle including the original advertised item quite counts. I mean, going back to the laptop analogy, if Best Buy advertised an Acme 1050 laptop for $499, but then told customers when they came in that they could only get the Acme 1050 bundled with AcmeOffice for a total of $799, that would certainly be slimey, but it wouldn't be a bait and switch. Now, if they advertised that Acme 1050 for $499 and then when customers came in they were told they didn't have any, but they could buy an Acme 1040 which is "almost as good" for just $450, that would be more of a classic bait and switch.
Actually, that's not really "bait and switch", as I understand. More like "bait and gouge" or something. "Bait and switch" is generally when they bait people to come into the store for some really great deal (i.e. "$200 laptops"), only to claim they have "sold out", and then try and sell some more expensive item to the customer instead. I'm actually not sure what the legality of this is though. I've noticed that Best Buy makes a point to talk about the minimum number of items like $500 laptops they have in each store.............. it made me think that they could avoid being accused of bait and switch as long as they had at least a certain number of the products to actually sell.
My problem with the in-store Blockbuster would be that they have a paltry selection compared to what you could get from NetFlix or even Blockbuster Online.
I'm sorry, I wasn't actually trying to make a blanket statement about what any terrorists will and won't target. I was merely trying to respond to the parent's assertion that terrorists do not strike civilian targets, and using a few concrete of examples where terrorists have in fact done so. I didn't think that in doing so I was actually lumping together all terrorists together (I certainly don't think I said anything to imply that I thought they were one globally aligned and centrally controlled force). I'm really not sure what there was about my post that warranted the condesending tone of your reply (if you actually knew more about me, you would know that I am actually pretty liberal and am not "scared into being a good little citizen").
Huh? There are plenty of examples of terrorists striking civilian targets; just last year, for example, you had the attack on the Sharm el-Sheik resort in Egypt. In 2002 there were also some notable attacks in Bali and Kenya, also at civilian resorts, etc.
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that, in order for you to make your argument about how ethnocentric and xenophobic Americans are, you have to stoop to broadly stereotyping all Americans as if they all have the same attitudes and ideas? In particularly I'm thinking about your "Would Americans be willing to watch a movie about Asians in an Asian language that doesn't deal with Kung Fu?" question, which you contrast with Chinese people who are "much more open-minded". The reality is, of course, that yes, there are Americans are are willing to watch movies like that......... certainly not all Americans, but also most certainly not no Americans.
So, before you start lecturing people on fixing their "racist culture", why don't you try and not lump all Americans together as if there was one homogenous culture here?
Umm, I'm pretty sure that the regular tower-style Macs can have their video cards upgraded, etc. What we're talking about so far are the all-in-one style iMac and the MacBook laptop, neither of which would really be expected to have upgradeable graphics (I know that upgradeable graphics are starting to make an appearance on some higher-end laptops, but it's still not common). I think it would be safe to say that the tower-style Intel Macs will also have standard PCIe graphics cards that could be replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
Because not every PC game someone might want to play comes out on the XBox 360? Because some people don't like playing FPS's on consoles when they can play them with a mouse and keyboard on their PC? Because some people find XBox live to be overpopulated with whiny 12-year olds, ruining the multiplayer experience? Because you miss out on some of the customizability and modding that you get with PC games (in Oblivion, for example)? Just a thought.....
I agree, I think. Adding some letters to a term that people are already familiar with would generally make them think it is just sort of an "enhanced" version of the existing technology, whereas a completely new term would be more likely to make people think it is something completely "new". I can't help thinking that HD-DVD might be perceived as something more along the lines of Super VHS or something.
Exactly. It's sort of like the whole debate about whether The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess should have been moved to be a Revolution-only title; by making it a GameCube title, they get something that can be sold to existing GC owners and Revolution owners.
But does the medium that this text was presented in somehow make it less worthy? Why would it be "art" if it was bound in a paperback book, but somehow not art when it is wrapped into a game?
In the FPS genre, System Shock would probably be another obvious challenge.
As another example, take Funcom's Longest Journey (and it's sequel, Dreamfall). Now, these are another genre (Ebert's original point was that no videogame was art, I don't think he limited it to genre.). The story alone would make it a work of art, but you also have beautiful art that makes up the game's visuals, wonderful voice acting and an incredible score. Many of these are the elements that would make a movie art, and I don't think anyone would question it's artistic merits if you took the elements of the Longest Journey and presented them as a movie.... and any of the individual elements (artwork, music, script, voice acting, etc.) would be considered art if taken alone. So why do they cease to be "art" because they are a game?
I think one of the cruxes of Ebert's point in the original column where this came up was that the experience of a game was inherently more interactive, and the fact that the player could experience it in numerous ways meant it was something other than art, because the creator didn't have the same control over their experience that an artist, musician or writer has.
But I don't buy that either. An artist might not have any choice about how viewers end up seeing their work (especially when their work enters the pop culture). And how much control does a writer have over how someone reads their book? The reader can skip to the end if they like, or skip through parts they find boring..... they could decide to read the entire book all in one sitting, or stretch it out over years. How different is this really from a game? And I would argue that the creators of a game know that someone could experience their game in many ways, which only makes it even more interesting as an art form.
Thought it might just be me, but the summary seemed almost incomprehensible to me...... I think I get the gist of it, but the phrasing seemed to be so awkward that it was almost impossible to figure out.
I'm not sure why this would rule out them doing a port of OOT to the DS (like with Super Mario 64). It's actually kind of refreshing though to see them push an entirely new game rather than just a port.
To be fair, it seems like Microsoft is stressing the idea of those kinds of games with the Xbox Live Arcade (and making some more high profile releases like Street Fighter II). Still not sure if it will be quite as big as what Nintendo has planned though.
I can only figure that it makes it easier to justify hatred or dislike of the iPod though if you just chalk up it's success to "coolness" while not acknowleding the more practical things it gets right.
Is this still happening? When I first heard about it, it struck me as a huge mistake, to do a reimagining rather than a sequel (that is, a sequel with Lisberger involved, and hopefully Wendy Carlos music.... something along the lines of the Tron 2.0 video game).
I'd still of course love to see what Pixar might do with the "Tron" style.
Really, I don't expect anything from a game preview other than to get an idea of what an upcoming game is going to be about, what it might look like, what kind of gameplay or innovations it will feature, etc. Granted, some of the hyperbole can be distracting (i.e. "this game is going to REDEFINE FPS's!!!!"), but it's not generally something I read a game preview for. Honestly, the biggest thing I care about is screenshots and online videos (something which is of course handled much better online than in magazines)..... I don't think I'd ever pre-order a game though or even buy it on the first day though (unless I was reasonably confident it would be good) until I read more final reviews, and also read more user reviews and impressions.
Innovation like DEFCON, a game of global thermonuclear war? Come on, that is so 80's... How about a nice game of chess?
As others have said, it is to help drive sales and renew interest in a platform. It's sort of a more subtle version of things like case re-designs, etc. After a platform has been out for a while, sales start to dry up, naturally. By releasing the console in a new color, or in a new case, you can sometimes drive up interest........ both from people who maybe never bought it before but see "new" and think "hey, I'll break down and buy one!". And of course there are the diehards who are willing to buy something in a new form factor or color even if they already own one. Granted, a new form factor is easier to understand (i.e. I traded my original PS2 in for the new slim PStwo because the smaller size appealed to me), but they both help the company squeeze more life out of a product after the initial sales spikes have ended.
At least VAIO is vaguely pronounceable. WA!PS just seems like it's asking for trouble.
I think it's kind of inevitable that you'd have that in this game too. Hopefully though there will be more of a choice though, which is probably the most you can ask for.
I'm not sure I understand, what specifically do you think EVE needs to take note of in those items? Like item 3, Travel Should be Easy....... given the scope of how large the EVE universe is, I was struck by how useful and easy the tools were for going through the atlas and setting your autopilot (and even having control over whether it plotted a course for you through dangerous areas or not). And for 2, "details matter"; in my time with EVE I thought that it was very detailed and there seemed to be an incredible amount of depth in how the universe's economy had been set up, etc. And 6, "style should shine through"; how does EVE fail in this area in your mind? I thought the UI and "look" of the game was very stylish. Regarding 1 and 7; well, I guess that is a matter of opinion. Does everything have to be "fun"? I don't know, I guess in that case, yeah, you could argue that EvE wouldn't fit the bill. I'm just not sure this should be a rule though, some things can be interesting but not necessarily "fun". And regarding item 7, I would guess though that if you did enjoy EVE, you'd probably leave every session "jazzed" about the game.
When I saw the headline, I thought it said "Lessons GM Can Learn from World of Warcraft"........ thought it was going to be about how WoW could help the automotive industry.
Worth noting that the movie of "A Scanner Darkly" is coming out soon. I'm holding out hope that it will be good.
Hrmm, I have no doubt that that's what they are doing, but I still question whether "bait and switch" is the term that applies here. Heck, even from the wikipedia definition of the term, they say: "A bait and switch is a form of fraud in which the fraudster lures in customers by advertising a good at an unprofitably low price, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available but that a substitute good is." - I've always understood this to mean a substitute good as actually something different from what was advertised. I don't think a bundle including the original advertised item quite counts. I mean, going back to the laptop analogy, if Best Buy advertised an Acme 1050 laptop for $499, but then told customers when they came in that they could only get the Acme 1050 bundled with AcmeOffice for a total of $799, that would certainly be slimey, but it wouldn't be a bait and switch. Now, if they advertised that Acme 1050 for $499 and then when customers came in they were told they didn't have any, but they could buy an Acme 1040 which is "almost as good" for just $450, that would be more of a classic bait and switch.
Actually, that's not really "bait and switch", as I understand. More like "bait and gouge" or something. "Bait and switch" is generally when they bait people to come into the store for some really great deal (i.e. "$200 laptops"), only to claim they have "sold out", and then try and sell some more expensive item to the customer instead. I'm actually not sure what the legality of this is though. I've noticed that Best Buy makes a point to talk about the minimum number of items like $500 laptops they have in each store.............. it made me think that they could avoid being accused of bait and switch as long as they had at least a certain number of the products to actually sell.
My problem with the in-store Blockbuster would be that they have a paltry selection compared to what you could get from NetFlix or even Blockbuster Online.
In Communist China, Yahoo searches you!!!!
I'm sorry, I wasn't actually trying to make a blanket statement about what any terrorists will and won't target. I was merely trying to respond to the parent's assertion that terrorists do not strike civilian targets, and using a few concrete of examples where terrorists have in fact done so. I didn't think that in doing so I was actually lumping together all terrorists together (I certainly don't think I said anything to imply that I thought they were one globally aligned and centrally controlled force). I'm really not sure what there was about my post that warranted the condesending tone of your reply (if you actually knew more about me, you would know that I am actually pretty liberal and am not "scared into being a good little citizen").
Huh? There are plenty of examples of terrorists striking civilian targets; just last year, for example, you had the attack on the Sharm el-Sheik resort in Egypt. In 2002 there were also some notable attacks in Bali and Kenya, also at civilian resorts, etc.
So, before you start lecturing people on fixing their "racist culture", why don't you try and not lump all Americans together as if there was one homogenous culture here?
Umm, I'm pretty sure that the regular tower-style Macs can have their video cards upgraded, etc. What we're talking about so far are the all-in-one style iMac and the MacBook laptop, neither of which would really be expected to have upgradeable graphics (I know that upgradeable graphics are starting to make an appearance on some higher-end laptops, but it's still not common). I think it would be safe to say that the tower-style Intel Macs will also have standard PCIe graphics cards that could be replaced.