Personnally, I don't see TV as entertaining enough to pay someone $50 a month to get more channels, and another $20 to skip commercials. With seven broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, WB, UPN, and PBS), there's usually something on worth watching in the evening.
With those channels, I'm not surprised that you think there's nothing worth paying to see on TV.
If not, there's the Internet and books, or, dare I say it, interacting with other human beings. Someone willing to spend $70 every month on TV isn't living a very balanced life.
Personally, my cable bill runs $100/month, but ~$40 of that is for the modem service. $12 for 6 channels of HBO, on which I'll watch an occasional movie but generally just watch their series (Carnivale, 6 feet under, Sopranos, etc). So the other ~$48 is the combination of standard and digital cable plus the rental for the digital cable box and extended cable for the rooms that don't have the digital cable.
Is it worth it? Probably not, but the majority of the cost is the standard cable and the modem service. After that it's nickel & dime stuff where giving up any one thing wouldn't be any significant savings, and would result in me feeling like I should cancel completely. Most of the channels I watch are on extended or digital cable, and HBO.
That being said, I tend to read or play GBA games during commercials, and my time spent watching TV doesn't even come close to the time I spend playing games, reading books, or even (gasp) interacting with my girlfriend. One thing I have cut down on in the last 18 months or so is the amount of time I spend doing almost nothing on the internet from home. I log into my computer to check my email, maybe play a game, and check a couple of sites, and then I leave the room and don't go back in there until the next day, usually. Then again, I am considering a notebook because there would be a lot of things that I would like to do that I simply will not do because the computer's in the other room. I'll be adding wireless access in my apartment soon, anyway, so it's just a small step from there to watch TV with my girlfriend and pull up information on just where I've seen that girl in that Buffy episode before without her complaining that I'm leaving her for my computer again.
Yeah, they could adapt just like the RIAA adapted... by buying laws to make whatever threatens their ancient business model illegal.
They already have, with things like broadcast flags for HDTV that will make it impossible for you to record some shows, or to skip the commercials on shows you've recorded, without hacking your TiVo, which may be illegal under the DMCA.
Come on, whenever I want to hack an alien race's navigation, command, & control systems I use the same Mac that I used to hack a Gibson from a pay phone.
Terminator (and others like it): leather jackets and other things 80's.
Gargoyle sunglasses. Also changed to another brand of sunglasses in one (or both) of the sequels.
The Matrix - leather catsuits, trenchcoats, sunglasses, technology appeal, etc.
cell phones and (stretching it) minidiscs
James Bond - cars, watches, pens, cologne, beer, soda, women (woot!), sex, etc.
It could go on and on, but I stopped watching the Bond movies after I saw 2 in a row that felt more like BMW ads than Bond movies.
Fast and the Furious (I and II): cars, performance parts, soda, clothing, sex
A more subtle item in the first one was the PS2/GT3, which was what most of them were doing when they weren't racing/fixing cars.
Wayne's World I and II: Pepsi, Doritos, etc. (done ingeniously, I might add)
Don't forget the guitar;)
even LotR: trinkets from the movies, books, soundtracks
And the $50+ collector's set when the special extended edition is $20. $30 for a statue and a book + DVD about the making of Golum. At least in the previous collector's set they included a movie ticket to see the Two Towers. They didn't even bother this year, figuring either that so few of the tickets were cashed in last year that most people would buy it without them, or that the tickets cost them too much money for the sales they made.
The sad part is that the first thing I thought of when I saw those ads was 'Carls Jr would never run an ad like that', because Carl's Jr. burgers have been been great as long as I can remember. Then I remembered that every ad I saw for Hardees when I moved out here, except for ones specifically advertising fried chicken, were Carl's Jr. ads anyway.
At the same time, with the lack of western bacon cheeseburgers and the completely pitiful service I've gotten at every Hardees I've been to, I stopped going there about 6 months ago (but would still go to a Carl's Jr. if I had the chance).
In the last couple of years, though, Hardees (and Carl's) have added some of the best burgers available in fast food to their menu, like the Six Dollar burger and the double chili cheeseburger. It's pretty much just their service that sucks. It shouldn't take 15 minutes to get 'fast food'.
and I heard that people were fighting over $30 DVD players this weekend at WalMart, so I doubt that 'plays DVDs' is worth $80 more to many people, especially when you consider that those $30 DVD players are probably better than the PS2's DVD player.
The reason the PS2 plays DVDs is because Sony makes movies. The reason the PS1 (and PS2) plays CDs is because Sony makes music CDs.
The reason the XBox plays DVDs and CDs is because the PS2 does, and a DVD drive is a low-cost standard piece of PC hardware (in fact, they use a full-size drive in the XBox iirc).
The reason the Cube doesn't play DVDs and CDs is because it's a game system.
Really, if Sony wanted an unkillable monster they should have done more to prevent it. Invulnerability would be the best choice, since giving people any chance means they'll take it. Failing that, a obscene hp regeneration rate coupled with pornographic hp and insta-death to anyone within theoretical attack range might work. Given the ingenuity people display when trying to circumvent the rules, however, I suspect that anything less than complete invulnerability would be overcome eventually.
According to the links posted here (since I never got to a high level in EQ before quitting), the thing had an obscene regeneration rate, pornographic hp, and insta-death to a target within it's current zone (every 30-45 seconds).
Of course, obscene and pornographic being based on the game as it was when the creature was created, and based on the idea that the creature only appears once on each server, walks a path, and is never seen again. The players only get so many chances, and as shown by this, it takes a very high level of cooperation between very large numbers of players to actually kill it.
Personally, I think it's great that it could actually be done, and that it finally has been done. it gives players something to do that should actually be very satisfying to them, without a need for a great deal of planning on the part of the developers. Of course, now that it's been done once, it's probably much more likely that players will attempt it on other servers where the Sleeper has not already been awakened.
Since I stopped gaming on my PC, the only upgrades are done about 1 to 1.5 years after the things come out, so they're very budget priced.
I didn't even stop gaming, I just slowed the upgrade process. Ever since nVidia released their MX line of products (which is actually just coincidence, but has something to do with the level of the current technology both at the time and now), it hasn't really been necessary to upgrade as often. C&C Generals probably pushes my system harder than anything else I have, and the performance on my hardware is perfectly acceptable, despite no upgrades in 18 months other than a video card, and the upgrades 18 months ago being caused by hardware failure rather than a need to upgrade. It's even conceivable that my old computer, with a processor rated at half the MHz and an FSB rated at 1/2 to 1/4th the FSB of the current CPU/motherboard combination (and you can now buy CPUs about 1.5 times the MHz of the CPU I have) could have played the game just as well with the newer video card. I even managed to skip the entire GeForce3 line of cards, as well as the GeForce2 upgrades (the closest I ever came to skipping a generation of video cards before that was when I skipped the DDR and upgraded versions of the GeForce line and went straight to the 64MB GeForce 2 GTS).
In the last year I've spent $0 on PC hardware, and haven't had any problems playing a game that would actually work out of the box (note that BF1942 and UT2k3 didn't work until a couple of patches had been released, with the latter having a beta demo that worked perfectly fine). Even with Doom 3 and HL2 on the horizon, I'm in no hurry to upgrade, and will probably wait until I actually see the performance on my current hardware before looking at what video cards are available (actually, I'm slightly hoping that nVidia will get their act together and put out some new DirectX9 cards that stomp the shit out of ATI, but that's just my aversion to ATI from doing tech support speaking). I may not get 300fps on Quake 3, but then I don't even play Quake 3 any more;)
I think the conservative talk heads are starting to get to you.
Right, it couldn't be CNN or the local news, it must be the guys trying to defend the judge fighting against the removal of his monument to the 10 Commandments.
Where the hell did I wrote that? That's you speaking, not me. What I wrote was that it's true that when people spend the whole day playing a videogame, it takes some time (minutes, hours or a couple of days) to readapt to the more common reality. I know this because, as a hardcore gamer, I have personally experienced this, and know of many people who have experienced what I described as well. Obviously, the person I quoted is a more extreme example of what I'm saying, but that was only to exalt my point.
My problem is with the use of a poor example. The link shown in the example is only casual, he doesn't even state that he played the game even the same day that he committed the act, nor is the act even uncommon amongst all people, let alone those that don't play video games at all. If I'm in a particularly bad mood I might do the same thing, but it isn't because I spent a lot of time playing GTA3/VC when they came out, or GT3 when I bought that particular game, or F-Zero or Mario Kart DD more recently, it's because when I'm in a bad mood my impulse control is reduced to some degree. If I'm in a good mood, I'll sit my happy ass behind the guy braking in the fast lane until he gets out of the way or the other lane is clear.
You say that as if the treatment worked at a conscious level. Naturally, the person knows that what it sees on the screen is not real, just as you know that the words you're reading aren't really there, but the body doesn't. That is why it's so effective, as I wrote in my post, it is an interactive audiovisual experience that can be used to manipulate one's senses in order to achieve alternative mind states.
All treatments that don't involve direct physiological interaction are greatly dependant on the person's conscious and unconscious susceptability to the treatment. Some people can stop smoking with a patch or gum, both of which are attempts at treating the physical side of the addiction, while others just have to stop, which is a matter of breaking the mental (conscious and subconscious) portion of the addiction and riding out the physical effects. Phobias are definitely unconscious for most people, but the conscious mind is the gateway through which treatments must pass unless combined with treatments to counter the physical reaction caused by the phobia. Using games alone is just not going to work for some people because their conscious mind won't accept what's on the screen as real and the unconscious mind won't kick in with the fear response, yet a very real example of what they're afraid of will still produce a very real response. Treating phobias (and addictions for that matter) is still a very theoretical field, and any treatment is not going to work for everyone for many different reasons, the biggest of which is a lack of complete understanding of the affliction.
Exactly, and what I said was that videogames temporarily weaken our capacity to evaluate what we should or shouldn't do.
Yet the example does not point to a temporarily weakened capacity, rather a permanently weakened capacity which was corrected by becoming a more attentive driver after realizing there was a problem. There was nothing in the example to show that it was a temporary thing.
However, I disagree with "[people] will often blame anything for their lack of impulse control," at least in this case, due to the reasons I already stated. Anyways, since the effect is only temporary, it's hardly going to become an international epidemic of catastrophic consequences, so it's really no big deal, but it would be nice if people admitted that it's true.
I would admit things more along the lines of 'immediately after I spend a lot of time playing a game that involves a lot of driving, my mind has a
Point taken, though you probably remember the bargain bin PC games and budget titles at $5-15. Unless a console borks or if you buy used, it's unlikely that you can get games for it in that price range. Sure, the games are often poor or simply old-tech, but they are cheap and some are quite good if not brand-spankin' new.
After a while, and if the game sells enough copies, each console's Greatest Hits series repackages the games and they sell for $20 new. It's the biggest bargain bin you would ever want to see, and most of the titles are the best of their genre. Plus, with the number of titles released each month the older titles go down in price fairly quickly now. Most of the games I've bought for my GameCube have been in the $15-30 range, with probably an even split between new and used (and frankly, there's almost no used game market for PCs anyway, and used console games come with better return policies than new ones).
Are the games in the $19-25 region for a console any good? (I don't know; last console I had was an Atari!)
The Greatest Hits games at $20 are generally the best games from their time, which could be 6 months ago or 5 years ago, depending on the game. Occasionally you find games like Eternal Darkness, which for one reason or another is $15 or less new almost everywhere. Most games that have a sequel available can be found in that price range, even if the sequel came out fairly soon after the original. If you haven't owned a console since an Atari, there are even more games to be had in the price range anyway, since you don't necessarily need to buy new games right away.
One benifit for consoles is that the titles released are controlled; not just anyone can whip up a CD and a box and start selling. PC game companies though can attempt to sell even if they do a horrid job, plus you have the trend of direct-to-customer sales over the net.
PC titles don't get shelf space and press coverage, though, unless they come out of big developers or publishers, or are bargain-priced titles at Wal-Mart and other stores that really don't market towards gamers in the first place. Even direct-to-customer sales still aren't coming it at the rates of say The Sims or Half-Life (and no one's getting near Super Mario Bros).
Of course, before DirectX 3 you didn't need Windows support of your card for games anyway, because very few games used it, and DirectX games didn't really become the norm in all genres until DirectX 5.
My parents had a 5-year-old video card in their system when DirectX 3 came out, and it worked fine with DirectX 3 games (as long as you didn't want to try playing above 1024x768, because it just didn't have the RAM for it).
Now, you can buy a $50 DirectX 8 compatible video card and it'll play most games at least passably, and older games very well.
Personally, console gaming has just made it easier for me to stop spending money on my PC that no longer really needs to be spent to play the latest games. I don't need a new video card to play any current games, and if I upgrade for Doom 3 and HL2 (not that I'll really have to according to the developers of those games, but if I really want all of the features...), it'll be the first video card upgrade in my system in over a year, and the card I have now wasn't the latest greatest card when I bought it. Instead of spending $300 on my PC every 6 months, I bought a console every 6 months. Now I won't have to buy any more consoles until the next generation, so I can just spend that money on games and/or the PC hardware upgrades when I really need them.
3. Decline of PC-centric genres: If you're over 20, you probably remember when everyone used to play military sims on their PCs. You know, Falcon 3.0 and M1 Tank Platoon and such. Lots of Microprose stuff. Well that genre is all but dead now (ironically, now when we have the technology to do it justice).
Interesting enough, the genre was basically killed by the ability to do it justice. The cost of producing the games quickly outpaced the return because it became such a niche market. It probably also didn't help that EA dominated the market near it's end with the Jane's series, and that EA is almost notoriously bad at managing anything but the most blatant mass market (ie EA Sports).
Real Time Strategy games are getting hopelessly vanilla - we need another game on the order of Total Annihilation to kickstart the genre.
Personally, I found C&C Generals to have the best skirmish mode in an RTS since Total Annihilation. Unfortunately, I've had absolutely no interest in any other portion of the game. The expansion (Zero Hour) is also a very solid addition to the game, although it can, at first, seem a bit shallow, the addition of the 3 generals for each side truly makes the game so much better. Other than that, I would agree, as I haven't had much interest in WC3, and though there have been some interesting attempts, most of the newer entries into the genre have been of minor interest at best. Homeworld is another strong RTS game, but for some people requires a pretty deep commitment before really feeling comfortable with it.
The point-and-click adventure genre, much like the military sim genre, has been relegated to a small niche audience, despite recent gems like The Longest Journey and Syberia (and even Grim Fandango a few years ago, which got lots of critical attention but did not garner the kind of sales it needed). Probably the only real PC-centric genre that still stands strong is the first person shooter. And even there, the Halos and SOCOMs of the console world are helping to close that gap (though the fragheads will always, of course, desire the fast-twitch gameplay of a mouse-driven FPS).
The major FPS games people have been waiting for, though, have all slipped into next year at the least. It's very rare for someone to come through with a new FPS game that is truly successful and brings something new to the table, so people simply wait for the sequels.
4. Cost: Competition is driving hardware prices down, down, down. New game prices have stayed put for years now (not even adjusting for inflation), and in fact have gotten cheaper in many cases (not only the Greatest Hits/Platinum/Player's Choice serieses, but games aren't ever hitting the $70 price point that I paid for Street Fighter II and Chrono Trigger back in the SNES days. Also, even non-discounted games get marked down very often these days, after being on the shelves for 3 months or so). PC games have gotten cheaper too, although often in a forced, "this damn thing isn't selling" kind of way. And while gaming PCs can be had cheaper than before, it still falls well short of the inexpensive nature of consoles.
Something else I've noticed: with all of the games coming out for consoles for the XMas season, games are dropping $10-20 in price that are only 3-5 weeks old, simply because the stores need to make room on the shelves (and in their stock rooms).
Not to mention that a nice Harley is almost a status symbol in most parts of the US. Would shops like West Coast Choppers and Orange County Choppers have their own TV shows on cable networks 20 years ago?
The biker clubs do a lot of rides for charity around here, and although they aren't well publicised or covered by the media, the bikers are generally much better accepted than, for instance, the import car scene.
So, you're taking an example of someone that acted on impulse, doing something I see people do every day, and saying that people may have justification for their fear of game players? The fact that someone could get to the age at which they are behind the wheel of a vehicle and not have impulse control should be what they fear.
Otherwise, how could videogame technology be used to cure people suffering from acute phobias by showing them a computer simulation of their fears, or to help train pilots and military personnel?
Phobias can be treated in many ways, and with people that have a good sense of distinction between reality and non-reality, video games won't work as treatment, because the phobia won't be as strong (if it exists at all) with the game as it is in real life.
Pilots often state that games can help them with parts of what they need to learn to become pilots, such as learning to fly by the guages, or analyzing situations that would be extremely dangerous in real life. They also state that games still don't replace actual training and time in the seat, especially because even the best controls available for games don't feel like the real thing.
The military uses games both for situation analysis and to teach people how to work in a cohesive group in a combat situation. It's much cheaper than full war games (going out with real equipment and simulating a battle), but doesn't replace either that or any of the numerous other methods they use to bring troops together. In the end, it's about making soldiers work on instinct, with as many different tools as are available. The games don't train the soldiers to shoot, or even to be efficient soldiers, they simply help reinforce their training in situations that may be expensive, dangerous, or impossible to reproduce outside of video games or actual war-time situations.
Overall, your primary example proves one thing: people need impulse control and those without it will often blame anything for their lack of impulse control. If I followed every impulse I ever had, I would've been in jail long before video games got more complicated or realistic than the first Super Mario Bros.
I was just referring to the discussion about who came up with the actual name first, and who should own the tag 'Bullet-Time' as intellectual property.
Realistically, given the track-record of 3DRealms and intellectual property (let's co-opt Evil Dead catch-phrases in Duke Nukem and then trademark them), I wouldn't be surprised if the term was made up by someone involved with the Matrix. That being said, I never heard the term outside of Max Payne press releases until very recently.
I'd heard MP was really short, and honestly that's the only reason i got past the first half-hour. I kept thinking there had to be something redeeming in there if everyone suffered through the beginning. After the third hour I said 'it can't be worth it.' Honestly you seem to be about the only other person online who agrees with that. People I meet in real life admit it was a well polished linear game with some problems, but online it has this rabid fan-base that refuses to admit the issues. i'm just happy that i only spent $5 to rent it. Even at that I felt kinda jipped, but it's a heck of a lot better than $50. I always figured console games would strive to be long enough that you couldn't finish them just during a rental weekend. These new games more and more are proving me wrong.
I would also note two things: 1) It was built for the PC first, where rental is much less common, hence the length isn't an issue in terms of profit
2) The PS2 version was exceptionally bad for both it's controls and the visual presentation, especially after playing either the PC or XBox version
EtM was pretty fun. which is why i didn't go too deep into its problems. it has good parts, it has bad parts. the worst part is what you hit squarely on the head: when i pulled it out after a few hours to play some halo with my brother, there was absolutely no desire on my part to put it back in and play more.
I've been considering trying to find some codes so I can just blast through to watch the movie clips, but since that's the only thing really drawing me to the game any more, I just don't care.
that damn GTA doublepack though.... damn you rockstar games -- you're devouring my free time!
I've really been considering turning in my PS2 versions to get the XBox double pack, but since the PS2 double pack is already $10 less than the XBox pack, I don't know if I'll get enough money out of it to justify the cost to myself;-/
i've got about a dozen games on my 'to play' list, and i keep comin back to this silly little action romp. though i stand by my earlier opinions though -- GTA1 and GTA2 were crap. i haven't even played the retooled GTA3, cuz i've been too damn busy taking over Vice City.
I liked GTA1, but it eventually lost it's appeal for me. I never even played 2 in part because of that. I played 3 at a friend's house before deciding to get it.
FF Tactics is part of an almost completely different genre. You may as well bring up FF Tactics Advance, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Front Mission, and all of the rest of the games of the same type.
Most PC RPGs, including the one you mentioned (Fallout) don't use the type of random encounters that the main FF and DW series do, although Fallout itself uses random encounters from the world map (which is actually the place FF uses them most often, too, you just spend far more time in the world map in FF than in Fallout).
The only thing large ammounts of random battles represent is tedium. Eliminating or severely reducing these provides games with a higher percentage composition of both plot and challenging gameplay. If tedium was eliminated from RPGs, wouldn't this improve the genre?
There are plenty of RPGs that don't have this element, and if you find it tedious, you should avoid the ones that do. They wouldn't make them if people didn't play them. What random battles produce for players that like them is a chance to decide what level your characters will be and what equipment they will have when you get to plot encounter X. FF games in particular have actually significantly reduced the random encounters over time by simply increasing the linearity of the story line and the amount of time you have to spend in areas trying to find the items/characters that advance the story. Removing some aspect that some people don't like doesn't always improve the genre, or even the series.
Personally, I enjoy the battle Screens. But something that could load in faster would be nice. Like making it part of the "Dungeon" engine, not a seperate one.
At the very least, the current "Battle background" and basic bits, bobs, and animations could be stored in memory. So that it could immediately trigger, and the opening animations/speeches could play whilst the battle engine loads, rather than adding more time after.
At the very least, if you have a fairly predictable method for determining 'random' encounters (at least predictable for the developers), then you should be able to pre-cache the backgrounds that would be used as well as determine which types of monsters would be encountered. I think the problem with this, though, is that RAM is still very limited in most consoles, especially the PS2, which has, by far, the most RPGs of the current consoles.
Plus displaying "spoils of war", and XP and stuff over the Victory poses instead of after them would be a lot better.
Personally, I would prefer skipping the victory poses altogether and possibly relegating any 'spoils of war' to background information (possibly displayed along the bottom of whatever screen you're returned to), unless there's something that specifically needs your attention, such as a full inventory or a character needing points allocated for a new level. I like the way Diablo 2 handles the latter case, just letting you know that you have stat and skill points to allocate and letting you do it whenever you please (even after gaining many levels).
Plus some sort of High Level Parties intimidate Low Level Monsters factor that would reduce the random encounters when you're re-visiting "Single Hit Bunnies" territory.
This could be useful, but should be relegated to fairly large differences in the levels. Then again, most games that have random encounters do have methods for avoiding random encounters at later levels, many of which have been mentioned a few times elsewhere in this thread. The last thing most people would want is for enemies to stop appearing when you're 1-5 levels above them (depending on how many levels are available in the game).
I was being inconsistent. I didn't actually mean that Everquest actually had this style of randomness, just that it would be ideal in an Everquest-style game that is independant of individual users. True randomness in that environment would try to simulate real creatures doing real things rather than having specific locations where a known monster is going to spawn. That causes enough problems.
I don't actually know of a game offhand that uses this.
Diablo is probably the most random series I could think of, though it's still not random beyond a certain point. You have a pretty good idea of what kinds of monsters you'll find in certain areas, and, after a while, know what layouts are going to be there and aproximately how many monsters will be there.
UO tried to simulate a more realistic scenario where creatures had a decent simulation of their populations and even reproduction, but the simple fact is that the players whiped them out, so the system had to be revamped.
My point was that, contrasting what the previous poster had said, an RPG does not mean it has to have random battles. Yes, the PC RPGs are signficantly different in nature than console ones, but that doesn't mean you can't take bits from them and try it on the console.
This is why, I believe, we've seen quite a few PC RPG developers doing console titles lately. Traditionally, PC RPGs have been done by American developers, while console RPGs have been done by Japanese developers. This is also a part of why there's so much difference between console and PC RPGs. Now that PC/console ports have become more common, you see things like BG: Dark Alliance (which could actually be argued as more of an Action RPG) and KOTOR, developed by PC developers for consoles (though KOTOR was of course released on the XBox first). There are a handful of Japanese developers that use different systems, and many of the RPGs never even get to the US, so it's sometimes impossible to see what they've been doing without importing. It's simply a matter of what's most popular that drives them not only to release the same types of games, but to only release certain types of games to the US. Perhaps with the popularity of KOTOR we'll see games with more of the PC RPG elements coming from Japan, but I think that really depends on a PC RPG breaking through in Japan.
I like the story elements to RPGs, I like the idea of having a world I can explore at my own pace, but I hate the inability to take more than a few steps without running into a random battle. There's plenty of newer games that come out without the tradition of previous games to tie them down, would it hurt them to try something different?
I'm sure if you look through a few game descriptions or FAQs you can probably find some used console RPGs that don't use the system. They don't come out with as much fanfare because they're not FF or DW games, but there are a lot of them out there, and some of them are good games. Even Square takes a lot of risks in their other game series, and I've even had a theory going that they use the SaGa series (for an example) to try out risky ideas before moving the best of those ideas to the FF games. SaGa Frontier 2 didn't have random encounters, iirc, though it's been a while since I played it, so I could be wrong.
Now, moving on to Fallout. Yes, there were random encounters, yes the escaping was part of the battle system, but I'd argue your point that most of the battles were random. The only random battles were the ones on the world map, the majority of the ones I fought were in caves, sewers, mines, buildings, etc., where there was a set number of enemies, who were already visible, and once you killed them you could waltz through the area without anymore fights.
All of those areas, though, rarely let you out of the battle system, so it almost lies in an in-between area, because every battle is laid out the same way (randomly generated iirc), the game uses a distinctive battle system though it removes the turn-based system when you're out of immediate danger, and uses the battle system for almost everything but the overview map used for long distance travel. On the overview map, though, there are definitely random encounters, even though they aren't very frequent (and the overview map allows for much greater distances of travel as the smallest possible increment).
Yes, the 'no fights at all' option was incredibly hard to do, but it was an option. Imagine my surprise when, the very first time I reached the "boss" in Fallout, I managed to convince him to end his scheme without drawing a weapon.
I think this tends to point to something missing in most of the FF (and many other console RPGs) series: any real conversational system with multiple correct options and significant effects on the game. I think this is probably a result of the somewhat severe linearity of many of these games. Before you can convince a boss not to fight, you have to be able to choose a path through a
I'm going to say you're either trolling or ignorant, as random encounters do not make a game an RPG.
This is correct, but they're a valid part of particular games' mechanics. Removing this for the sake of the people that don't like it simply makes it a different game, and there's not much point to that since there have always been games that do it the other way.
They're a legacy item, why they were chosen, I don't know. My guess is that they were originally due to the technical constraints of older systems that made non-random encounters unfeasible.
Rethink your guess. For every random encounter game there is, more than likely, an equal number (if not more) that did not have random encounters, on the same systems. Zelda 2 and Ultima 3's NES port had monsters on the map which then spawned a battle screen, but on the same system DW and FF had no visible monsters on the map. IIRC the Ultima games on the PC always had them visible. If they can be displayed at all then it is feasible. It was simply a choice of game mechanics.
Now I'd say it's just the fact that they're so ingrained in our conception of a console RPG (Yes, console RPG. Many computer RPGs try different methods of creating encounters, it's largely consoles that are stuck with the random encounter system.) and the fact that they're quite simply the easy way out.
It's simply the fact that the most popular console RPGs use these systems, and probably always will. There are many console RPGs that don't use this system, they just haven't been as popular. There's nothing inherently harder about putting the monsters on the map, except that if you make them completely static you have to playtest more to make sure people can level up enough to get through your game.
"So, Bob, how will we do the battle system?" "Well, we could place the enemies on the map and have them wondering around so that the player can see them, if you want we could have them chase the player when they spot him. We could even make it so that the player can avoid them if they want to." "What would that require?" "Well, to do it properly we'd need to make extra animations for the enemies, we'd need extensive play testing to figure out where they should go and how many there should be based on the boss stats, and... You know what, that's a lot of work, let's just add an algorithm to randomly send the player to a battle screen every so many steps."
Sure thing, because the enemies on the screen have historically been very bright in RPGs, umm right. I know, we could use spawn points that spew out a random monster every 8.523 seconds, that'll do it. Or we'll randomly generate the monsters every time they enter the area. Or we can make the whole game static and they'll never want to play it again because they know where everything is, it'll be just like a Zelda game with more stats.
There are a fair number of RPGs that don't have random encounters, some are good (I don't care what he says, Chrono Trigger was good and Chrono Cross just plain sucked.), others aren't.
Yes, and Chrono Trigger was a console RPG, too. There are more console RPGs out there than just DW and FF, there are even console RPGs that aren't made by SquareEnix.
Case in point: Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest. Ok, so it had other things against it, but it had no random battles. All the battles were represented by sprites on the screen. Oh, did I mention that these sprites never moved? If you ever want to see how not to make static encounters, then I'd suggest taking a look at that game. (Note: The author of this post does not actually recommend playing Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest for any reason other than perhaps convincing yourself that the latest Final Fantasy is not the 'worst ever')
And that was the only FF game made specifically for the US with no original plans to release it in Japan. Makes you wonder where they form their opinion of what the US market wants. Maybe people were bitching back
I take it that you do not realise how many RPG's there are WITHOUT random encounters?
Which is exactly the point, those people that don't like random encounters should play the RPGs that don't have them.
It is perfectly valid to critisise them as they are a left-over legacy from times when technical constraints forced the developers to use these random encounters.
If that is what makes the criticism valid, than it is not, because technical constraints have nothing to do with random encounters in console RPGs. There were plenty of games with fewer and more RPG elements (and RPGs themselves) that did not have random encounters, even before FF and DQ/DW. Even PC RPGs have almost always been both ways.
a lot of games do this right, the problem with jrpg's(with map and a lot of random encounters) is that there usually isn't anything else to do than go from place to place and kill kill kill kill kill.
fallouts, kotor(best game of this year) and even morrowind offer alternative ways to level up(and thus advance) besides just killing random monsters in the desert for hours and hours.
Fallout, Morrowind, and even KOTOR are all at their hearts PC RPGs (KOTOR and Morrowind are available on the XBox, but Morrowind was developed for the PC and KOTOR was built on the Baldur's Gate engine). What you describe as jrpgs are simply very specific series of console RPGs. In the end, many people prefer one over the other, and frankly, I think that those people should just realize this preference and stick to it. Just because they both are called RPGs doesn't mean they're the same type of game, nor should they be.
No, that's what a particular type of console RPG is about. If you play and RPG for, say PC, you'll find that many of them have some different form of dealing with the battles. Besides, what does RPG stand for? Role-Playing Game, not Random (Some word begining with P that I can't think up) Game.
If you play an RPG for, say, the PC, you'll be playing something on the Baldur's Gate engine, or you'll be playing something old. PC RPGs have generally been a completely different game than console RPGs.
What's happened is that a few games had success, such as Final Fantasy and the Dragon Quest/Warrior series. They had random encounters due to what were likely technical limitations of the platform they were built on.
It certainly wasn't a technical limitation unless they would've had to shrink the map sizes to display the monsters at the same time. Other games on the NES (the system both series started on) had the monsters on-screen. I don't remember for certain which system the Ultima 3 port used, but for some reason I'm fairly sure they were on-screen.
Other game developers have looked at that and decided that they want a piece of that market, so they release a game and they're careful not to tamper with the characteristics too much. (Case in point: Final Fantasy VII. Think of how huge it was, now think of how many half-assed RPGs came out immediately after it that seemed to be little more than a thinly veiled rip-off. It's a more modern example, but it's still an example.)
I don't remember it that way, though, as the only thing FF7 really seemed to do is encourage more Japanese developers to port RPGs for the US market. Maybe I just managed to ignore or avoid the rip-offs.
I personally always point to the Fallout series as a an excellent way of how to make RPGs that aren't dependent on the leveling treadmill, while at the same time not becoming a movie that you sometimes play. I'll give a brief description in case you haven't played it before:
And again, this is a PC RPG. I love the Fallout series, but really it's a different type of game. I just wish they'd make another Fallout RPG instead of using the name to push different types of games while the core of the series gets left behind.
- For starters, it's possible to make it through the first one without ever getting in a fight. (Not sure on the second one, I've heard it is, but never to the same degree as I did with number 1) You could gain experience by solving problems in ways other than slaughtering everything that opposed you, and it was possible (although quite difficult) to sneak past enemies rather than fight them. Which brings me to point number 2.
That's nice, but I've never known anyone that actually did that unless they had already played the game and decided to replay it in this manner. It's more than just a bit difficult to avoid getting attacked, especially early in either game.
- Battles. All battles took place in the normal view, no fancy battle system, meaning that you saw the enemies before they attacked you. If you were travelling on the world map and hit an enemy you'd move into a screen with the enemies present, but, and this is something that I find is missing from current console RPGs, it was always easy to escape if you didn't feel like fighting.
Ah, but you're missing the same thing everyone else that brings up Fallout is missing: most of the encounters were random in Fallout, you're just on a negotiable battle screen that allows you to escape and/or avoid enemies. The battle system was so completely different, and took up so much of the gameplay in Fallout, that people make the mistake of thinking that's the way the game actually played. Click on grid, end turn, click on enemy to attack, maybe choose to use some skill and try for a headshot, end turn. Click, click, click, click. You're not avoiding an encounter by running away, you're just cutting the encounter short.
Does it matter? 'Bullet Time' is so overused that the word itself makes most people retch, and 'Focus' makes more sense in the fiction of the Matrix anyway.
Does it matter? Not really. But the thing that most people seem to miss is that the innovation in the Matrix' effect for this had more to do with the ability to pan around the scene than with the ability to slow down the shot and display projectiles (which were computer generated anyway). Obviously, when it comes to video games, moving the camera around hasn't been a problem since the first 3d games came around. In fact, keeping the camera in a good spot seems to be the biggest problem facing 3D games.
Both games could have used some serious pruning and editing.
They both struck me the same way. Tons of potential, decent atmosphere, solid action systems... lackluster execution. Max Payne had a decent story, i just couldn't get into it after the third hour of: room, room, kill enemies, load, room, room, kill enemies who didn't hear me kill their friends, load, room, kill, load, etc.
You were half way through the game, then;) I had more problems with the fact that it was an 8 hour linear game with little replay value than anything else. Then again, I may not have trudged through some of the game if I hadn't known that it was almost over. My favorite part of the game was going through the garage area, and the next would be the last area, invading the office building. Much of the beginning and middle portions got repetetive at times.
I didn't bother with MP2. seriously, the technology to remove load times exists. particularly on the xbox and pc. and it's not like there's enough going on in the few rooms that load at a time to keep me busy. literally it's a 10 second load every minute or two of gameplay, and that's just crap. if it really has around 12 hours of gameplay in it, at least 20% of that is due to load time.
I didn't bother with MP2, either, though I only spent $20 on the first one, so it's hard to say I really bothered with it so much as took it off someone's hands.
as for EtM... yeah... it doesn't have the load problems, but its environments seem to be hugely misproportioned because even the developers know their combat system controls fall apart in confined spaces. Running up a wall is cool, but christ, make me press a button to do it. sometimes i'm going to want to keep my feet on the damn ground -- particularly if the game doesn't allow me to jump where i want while running up that wall.
the holes in the story and gameplay were pretty secondary to that glaring shortcoming. They really should have made the whole game lay out more like Vice City. Particularly if they're going to shoehorn me into a dozen different gameplay types on the fly (action, stealth, driving, shooting gallery, etc). Nothing like taking your first shot at their driving controls in a mission that offers no room for error on a section of map you -should- have had knowledge of, familiarity with, and a chance to explore.
No really, I [sarcasm]love[/sarcasm] the design paradigm of gameplay surprise! die. reload. new surprise! die. reload. lather. rinse. repeat.
And what's with these lame ass map layouts? For chrissakes people, turning every building into a maze, just to have the chance to throw more small encounters at me is getting a little old. Whatever happened to office buildings that looked and played like office buildings? where i don't have to snake through back hallways to get past a simple 'locked' door, even though i have the firepower and physical strength to launch a security guard through a brick wall?
EtM had too many shortcomings to name. On the other hand, I didn't particularly mind it for the few hours I played it, I just didn't feel any urge to go back and play it again.
If that's all he's there for, why not ask for a FF-StreetFighter game and be done with it? Then we can get back to using skills and intelligence in RPGs.
Why not just have everyone that doesn't like random encounters stop playing games that have them? Go play a different game, get a different company to develop a game that fits what you're looking for.
FF games have been the same way for roughly 15 years, it's one of the few things that hasn't changed about the series. Someone should've figured this out 10 games ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Personnally, I don't see TV as entertaining enough to pay someone $50 a month to get more channels, and another $20 to skip commercials. With seven broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, WB, UPN, and PBS), there's usually something on worth watching in the evening.
With those channels, I'm not surprised that you think there's nothing worth paying to see on TV.
If not, there's the Internet and books, or, dare I say it, interacting with other human beings. Someone willing to spend $70 every month on TV isn't living a very balanced life.
Personally, my cable bill runs $100/month, but ~$40 of that is for the modem service. $12 for 6 channels of HBO, on which I'll watch an occasional movie but generally just watch their series (Carnivale, 6 feet under, Sopranos, etc). So the other ~$48 is the combination of standard and digital cable plus the rental for the digital cable box and extended cable for the rooms that don't have the digital cable.
Is it worth it? Probably not, but the majority of the cost is the standard cable and the modem service. After that it's nickel & dime stuff where giving up any one thing wouldn't be any significant savings, and would result in me feeling like I should cancel completely. Most of the channels I watch are on extended or digital cable, and HBO.
That being said, I tend to read or play GBA games during commercials, and my time spent watching TV doesn't even come close to the time I spend playing games, reading books, or even (gasp) interacting with my girlfriend. One thing I have cut down on in the last 18 months or so is the amount of time I spend doing almost nothing on the internet from home. I log into my computer to check my email, maybe play a game, and check a couple of sites, and then I leave the room and don't go back in there until the next day, usually. Then again, I am considering a notebook because there would be a lot of things that I would like to do that I simply will not do because the computer's in the other room. I'll be adding wireless access in my apartment soon, anyway, so it's just a small step from there to watch TV with my girlfriend and pull up information on just where I've seen that girl in that Buffy episode before without her complaining that I'm leaving her for my computer again.
Yeah, they could adapt just like the RIAA adapted... by buying laws to make whatever threatens their ancient business model illegal.
They already have, with things like broadcast flags for HDTV that will make it impossible for you to record some shows, or to skip the commercials on shows you've recorded, without hacking your TiVo, which may be illegal under the DMCA.
Come on, whenever I want to hack an alien race's navigation, command, & control systems I use the same Mac that I used to hack a Gibson from a pay phone.
Terminator (and others like it): leather jackets and other things 80's.
;)
Gargoyle sunglasses. Also changed to another brand of sunglasses in one (or both) of the sequels.
The Matrix - leather catsuits, trenchcoats, sunglasses, technology appeal, etc.
cell phones and (stretching it) minidiscs
James Bond - cars, watches, pens, cologne, beer, soda, women (woot!), sex, etc.
It could go on and on, but I stopped watching the Bond movies after I saw 2 in a row that felt more like BMW ads than Bond movies.
Fast and the Furious (I and II): cars, performance parts, soda, clothing, sex
A more subtle item in the first one was the PS2/GT3, which was what most of them were doing when they weren't racing/fixing cars.
Wayne's World I and II: Pepsi, Doritos, etc. (done ingeniously, I might add)
Don't forget the guitar
even LotR: trinkets from the movies, books, soundtracks
And the $50+ collector's set when the special extended edition is $20. $30 for a statue and a book + DVD about the making of Golum. At least in the previous collector's set they included a movie ticket to see the Two Towers. They didn't even bother this year, figuring either that so few of the tickets were cashed in last year that most people would buy it without them, or that the tickets cost them too much money for the sales they made.
The sad part is that the first thing I thought of when I saw those ads was 'Carls Jr would never run an ad like that', because Carl's Jr. burgers have been been great as long as I can remember. Then I remembered that every ad I saw for Hardees when I moved out here, except for ones specifically advertising fried chicken, were Carl's Jr. ads anyway.
At the same time, with the lack of western bacon cheeseburgers and the completely pitiful service I've gotten at every Hardees I've been to, I stopped going there about 6 months ago (but would still go to a Carl's Jr. if I had the chance).
In the last couple of years, though, Hardees (and Carl's) have added some of the best burgers available in fast food to their menu, like the Six Dollar burger and the double chili cheeseburger. It's pretty much just their service that sucks. It shouldn't take 15 minutes to get 'fast food'.
and I heard that people were fighting over $30 DVD players this weekend at WalMart, so I doubt that 'plays DVDs' is worth $80 more to many people, especially when you consider that those $30 DVD players are probably better than the PS2's DVD player.
The reason the PS2 plays DVDs is because Sony makes movies. The reason the PS1 (and PS2) plays CDs is because Sony makes music CDs.
The reason the XBox plays DVDs and CDs is because the PS2 does, and a DVD drive is a low-cost standard piece of PC hardware (in fact, they use a full-size drive in the XBox iirc).
The reason the Cube doesn't play DVDs and CDs is because it's a game system.
Really, if Sony wanted an unkillable monster they should have done more to prevent it. Invulnerability would be the best choice, since giving people any chance means they'll take it. Failing that, a obscene hp regeneration rate coupled with pornographic hp and insta-death to anyone within theoretical attack range might work. Given the ingenuity people display when trying to circumvent the rules, however, I suspect that anything less than complete invulnerability would be overcome eventually.
According to the links posted here (since I never got to a high level in EQ before quitting), the thing had an obscene regeneration rate, pornographic hp, and insta-death to a target within it's current zone (every 30-45 seconds).
Of course, obscene and pornographic being based on the game as it was when the creature was created, and based on the idea that the creature only appears once on each server, walks a path, and is never seen again. The players only get so many chances, and as shown by this, it takes a very high level of cooperation between very large numbers of players to actually kill it.
Personally, I think it's great that it could actually be done, and that it finally has been done. it gives players something to do that should actually be very satisfying to them, without a need for a great deal of planning on the part of the developers. Of course, now that it's been done once, it's probably much more likely that players will attempt it on other servers where the Sleeper has not already been awakened.
Since I stopped gaming on my PC, the only upgrades are done about 1 to 1.5 years after the things come out, so they're very budget priced.
;)
I didn't even stop gaming, I just slowed the upgrade process. Ever since nVidia released their MX line of products (which is actually just coincidence, but has something to do with the level of the current technology both at the time and now), it hasn't really been necessary to upgrade as often. C&C Generals probably pushes my system harder than anything else I have, and the performance on my hardware is perfectly acceptable, despite no upgrades in 18 months other than a video card, and the upgrades 18 months ago being caused by hardware failure rather than a need to upgrade. It's even conceivable that my old computer, with a processor rated at half the MHz and an FSB rated at 1/2 to 1/4th the FSB of the current CPU/motherboard combination (and you can now buy CPUs about 1.5 times the MHz of the CPU I have) could have played the game just as well with the newer video card. I even managed to skip the entire GeForce3 line of cards, as well as the GeForce2 upgrades (the closest I ever came to skipping a generation of video cards before that was when I skipped the DDR and upgraded versions of the GeForce line and went straight to the 64MB GeForce 2 GTS).
In the last year I've spent $0 on PC hardware, and haven't had any problems playing a game that would actually work out of the box (note that BF1942 and UT2k3 didn't work until a couple of patches had been released, with the latter having a beta demo that worked perfectly fine). Even with Doom 3 and HL2 on the horizon, I'm in no hurry to upgrade, and will probably wait until I actually see the performance on my current hardware before looking at what video cards are available (actually, I'm slightly hoping that nVidia will get their act together and put out some new DirectX9 cards that stomp the shit out of ATI, but that's just my aversion to ATI from doing tech support speaking). I may not get 300fps on Quake 3, but then I don't even play Quake 3 any more
I think the conservative talk heads are starting to get to you.
Right, it couldn't be CNN or the local news, it must be the guys trying to defend the judge fighting against the removal of his monument to the 10 Commandments.
Where the hell did I wrote that? That's you speaking, not me. What I wrote was that it's true that when people spend the whole day playing a videogame, it takes some time (minutes, hours or a couple of days) to readapt to the more common reality. I know this because, as a hardcore gamer, I have personally experienced this, and know of many people who have experienced what I described as well. Obviously, the person I quoted is a more extreme example of what I'm saying, but that was only to exalt my point.
My problem is with the use of a poor example. The link shown in the example is only casual, he doesn't even state that he played the game even the same day that he committed the act, nor is the act even uncommon amongst all people, let alone those that don't play video games at all. If I'm in a particularly bad mood I might do the same thing, but it isn't because I spent a lot of time playing GTA3/VC when they came out, or GT3 when I bought that particular game, or F-Zero or Mario Kart DD more recently, it's because when I'm in a bad mood my impulse control is reduced to some degree. If I'm in a good mood, I'll sit my happy ass behind the guy braking in the fast lane until he gets out of the way or the other lane is clear.
You say that as if the treatment worked at a conscious level. Naturally, the person knows that what it sees on the screen is not real, just as you know that the words you're reading aren't really there, but the body doesn't. That is why it's so effective, as I wrote in my post, it is an interactive audiovisual experience that can be used to manipulate one's senses in order to achieve alternative mind states.
All treatments that don't involve direct physiological interaction are greatly dependant on the person's conscious and unconscious susceptability to the treatment. Some people can stop smoking with a patch or gum, both of which are attempts at treating the physical side of the addiction, while others just have to stop, which is a matter of breaking the mental (conscious and subconscious) portion of the addiction and riding out the physical effects. Phobias are definitely unconscious for most people, but the conscious mind is the gateway through which treatments must pass unless combined with treatments to counter the physical reaction caused by the phobia. Using games alone is just not going to work for some people because their conscious mind won't accept what's on the screen as real and the unconscious mind won't kick in with the fear response, yet a very real example of what they're afraid of will still produce a very real response. Treating phobias (and addictions for that matter) is still a very theoretical field, and any treatment is not going to work for everyone for many different reasons, the biggest of which is a lack of complete understanding of the affliction.
Exactly, and what I said was that videogames temporarily weaken our capacity to evaluate what we should or shouldn't do.
Yet the example does not point to a temporarily weakened capacity, rather a permanently weakened capacity which was corrected by becoming a more attentive driver after realizing there was a problem. There was nothing in the example to show that it was a temporary thing.
However, I disagree with "[people] will often blame anything for their lack of impulse control," at least in this case, due to the reasons I already stated. Anyways, since the effect is only temporary, it's hardly going to become an international epidemic of catastrophic consequences, so it's really no big deal, but it would be nice if people admitted that it's true.
I would admit things more along the lines of 'immediately after I spend a lot of time playing a game that involves a lot of driving, my mind has a
Point taken, though you probably remember the bargain bin PC games and budget titles at $5-15. Unless a console borks or if you buy used, it's unlikely that you can get games for it in that price range. Sure, the games are often poor or simply old-tech, but they are cheap and some are quite good if not brand-spankin' new.
After a while, and if the game sells enough copies, each console's Greatest Hits series repackages the games and they sell for $20 new. It's the biggest bargain bin you would ever want to see, and most of the titles are the best of their genre. Plus, with the number of titles released each month the older titles go down in price fairly quickly now. Most of the games I've bought for my GameCube have been in the $15-30 range, with probably an even split between new and used (and frankly, there's almost no used game market for PCs anyway, and used console games come with better return policies than new ones).
Are the games in the $19-25 region for a console any good? (I don't know; last console I had was an Atari!)
The Greatest Hits games at $20 are generally the best games from their time, which could be 6 months ago or 5 years ago, depending on the game. Occasionally you find games like Eternal Darkness, which for one reason or another is $15 or less new almost everywhere. Most games that have a sequel available can be found in that price range, even if the sequel came out fairly soon after the original. If you haven't owned a console since an Atari, there are even more games to be had in the price range anyway, since you don't necessarily need to buy new games right away.
One benifit for consoles is that the titles released are controlled; not just anyone can whip up a CD and a box and start selling. PC game companies though can attempt to sell even if they do a horrid job, plus you have the trend of direct-to-customer sales over the net.
PC titles don't get shelf space and press coverage, though, unless they come out of big developers or publishers, or are bargain-priced titles at Wal-Mart and other stores that really don't market towards gamers in the first place. Even direct-to-customer sales still aren't coming it at the rates of say The Sims or Half-Life (and no one's getting near Super Mario Bros).
Of course, before DirectX 3 you didn't need Windows support of your card for games anyway, because very few games used it, and DirectX games didn't really become the norm in all genres until DirectX 5.
My parents had a 5-year-old video card in their system when DirectX 3 came out, and it worked fine with DirectX 3 games (as long as you didn't want to try playing above 1024x768, because it just didn't have the RAM for it).
Now, you can buy a $50 DirectX 8 compatible video card and it'll play most games at least passably, and older games very well.
Personally, console gaming has just made it easier for me to stop spending money on my PC that no longer really needs to be spent to play the latest games. I don't need a new video card to play any current games, and if I upgrade for Doom 3 and HL2 (not that I'll really have to according to the developers of those games, but if I really want all of the features...), it'll be the first video card upgrade in my system in over a year, and the card I have now wasn't the latest greatest card when I bought it. Instead of spending $300 on my PC every 6 months, I bought a console every 6 months. Now I won't have to buy any more consoles until the next generation, so I can just spend that money on games and/or the PC hardware upgrades when I really need them.
3. Decline of PC-centric genres: If you're over 20, you probably remember when everyone used to play military sims on their PCs. You know, Falcon 3.0 and M1 Tank Platoon and such. Lots of Microprose stuff. Well that genre is all but dead now (ironically, now when we have the technology to do it justice).
Interesting enough, the genre was basically killed by the ability to do it justice. The cost of producing the games quickly outpaced the return because it became such a niche market. It probably also didn't help that EA dominated the market near it's end with the Jane's series, and that EA is almost notoriously bad at managing anything but the most blatant mass market (ie EA Sports).
Real Time Strategy games are getting hopelessly vanilla - we need another game on the order of Total Annihilation to kickstart the genre.
Personally, I found C&C Generals to have the best skirmish mode in an RTS since Total Annihilation. Unfortunately, I've had absolutely no interest in any other portion of the game. The expansion (Zero Hour) is also a very solid addition to the game, although it can, at first, seem a bit shallow, the addition of the 3 generals for each side truly makes the game so much better. Other than that, I would agree, as I haven't had much interest in WC3, and though there have been some interesting attempts, most of the newer entries into the genre have been of minor interest at best. Homeworld is another strong RTS game, but for some people requires a pretty deep commitment before really feeling comfortable with it.
The point-and-click adventure genre, much like the military sim genre, has been relegated to a small niche audience, despite recent gems like The Longest Journey and Syberia (and even Grim Fandango a few years ago, which got lots of critical attention but did not garner the kind of sales it needed). Probably the only real PC-centric genre that still stands strong is the first person shooter. And even there, the Halos and SOCOMs of the console world are helping to close that gap (though the fragheads will always, of course, desire the fast-twitch gameplay of a mouse-driven FPS).
The major FPS games people have been waiting for, though, have all slipped into next year at the least. It's very rare for someone to come through with a new FPS game that is truly successful and brings something new to the table, so people simply wait for the sequels.
4. Cost: Competition is driving hardware prices down, down, down. New game prices have stayed put for years now (not even adjusting for inflation), and in fact have gotten cheaper in many cases (not only the Greatest Hits/Platinum/Player's Choice serieses, but games aren't ever hitting the $70 price point that I paid for Street Fighter II and Chrono Trigger back in the SNES days. Also, even non-discounted games get marked down very often these days, after being on the shelves for 3 months or so). PC games have gotten cheaper too, although often in a forced, "this damn thing isn't selling" kind of way. And while gaming PCs can be had cheaper than before, it still falls well short of the inexpensive nature of consoles.
Something else I've noticed: with all of the games coming out for consoles for the XMas season, games are dropping $10-20 in price that are only 3-5 weeks old, simply because the stores need to make room on the shelves (and in their stock rooms).
Not to mention that a nice Harley is almost a status symbol in most parts of the US. Would shops like West Coast Choppers and Orange County Choppers have their own TV shows on cable networks 20 years ago?
The biker clubs do a lot of rides for charity around here, and although they aren't well publicised or covered by the media, the bikers are generally much better accepted than, for instance, the import car scene.
So, you're taking an example of someone that acted on impulse, doing something I see people do every day, and saying that people may have justification for their fear of game players? The fact that someone could get to the age at which they are behind the wheel of a vehicle and not have impulse control should be what they fear.
Otherwise, how could videogame technology be used to cure people suffering from acute phobias by showing them a computer simulation of their fears, or to help train pilots and military personnel?
Phobias can be treated in many ways, and with people that have a good sense of distinction between reality and non-reality, video games won't work as treatment, because the phobia won't be as strong (if it exists at all) with the game as it is in real life.
Pilots often state that games can help them with parts of what they need to learn to become pilots, such as learning to fly by the guages, or analyzing situations that would be extremely dangerous in real life. They also state that games still don't replace actual training and time in the seat, especially because even the best controls available for games don't feel like the real thing.
The military uses games both for situation analysis and to teach people how to work in a cohesive group in a combat situation. It's much cheaper than full war games (going out with real equipment and simulating a battle), but doesn't replace either that or any of the numerous other methods they use to bring troops together. In the end, it's about making soldiers work on instinct, with as many different tools as are available. The games don't train the soldiers to shoot, or even to be efficient soldiers, they simply help reinforce their training in situations that may be expensive, dangerous, or impossible to reproduce outside of video games or actual war-time situations.
Overall, your primary example proves one thing: people need impulse control and those without it will often blame anything for their lack of impulse control. If I followed every impulse I ever had, I would've been in jail long before video games got more complicated or realistic than the first Super Mario Bros.
I was just referring to the discussion about who came up with the actual name first, and who should own the tag 'Bullet-Time' as intellectual property.
;-/
Realistically, given the track-record of 3DRealms and intellectual property (let's co-opt Evil Dead catch-phrases in Duke Nukem and then trademark them), I wouldn't be surprised if the term was made up by someone involved with the Matrix. That being said, I never heard the term outside of Max Payne press releases until very recently.
I'd heard MP was really short, and honestly that's the only reason i got past the first half-hour. I kept thinking there had to be something redeeming in there if everyone suffered through the beginning. After the third hour I said 'it can't be worth it.' Honestly you seem to be about the only other person online who agrees with that. People I meet in real life admit it was a well polished linear game with some problems, but online it has this rabid fan-base that refuses to admit the issues. i'm just happy that i only spent $5 to rent it. Even at that I felt kinda jipped, but it's a heck of a lot better than $50. I always figured console games would strive to be long enough that you couldn't finish them just during a rental weekend. These new games more and more are proving me wrong.
I would also note two things:
1) It was built for the PC first, where rental is much less common, hence the length isn't an issue in terms of profit
2) The PS2 version was exceptionally bad for both it's controls and the visual presentation, especially after playing either the PC or XBox version
EtM was pretty fun. which is why i didn't go too deep into its problems. it has good parts, it has bad parts. the worst part is what you hit squarely on the head: when i pulled it out after a few hours to play some halo with my brother, there was absolutely no desire on my part to put it back in and play more.
I've been considering trying to find some codes so I can just blast through to watch the movie clips, but since that's the only thing really drawing me to the game any more, I just don't care.
that damn GTA doublepack though.... damn you rockstar games -- you're devouring my free time!
I've really been considering turning in my PS2 versions to get the XBox double pack, but since the PS2 double pack is already $10 less than the XBox pack, I don't know if I'll get enough money out of it to justify the cost to myself
i've got about a dozen games on my 'to play' list, and i keep comin back to this silly little action romp. though i stand by my earlier opinions though -- GTA1 and GTA2 were crap. i haven't even played the retooled GTA3, cuz i've been too damn busy taking over Vice City.
I liked GTA1, but it eventually lost it's appeal for me. I never even played 2 in part because of that. I played 3 at a friend's house before deciding to get it.
The other good example is Final Fantasy Tactics.
FF Tactics is part of an almost completely different genre. You may as well bring up FF Tactics Advance, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Front Mission, and all of the rest of the games of the same type.
Most PC RPGs, including the one you mentioned (Fallout) don't use the type of random encounters that the main FF and DW series do, although Fallout itself uses random encounters from the world map (which is actually the place FF uses them most often, too, you just spend far more time in the world map in FF than in Fallout).
The only thing large ammounts of random battles represent is tedium. Eliminating or severely reducing these provides games with a higher percentage composition of both plot and challenging gameplay. If tedium was eliminated from RPGs, wouldn't this improve the genre?
There are plenty of RPGs that don't have this element, and if you find it tedious, you should avoid the ones that do. They wouldn't make them if people didn't play them. What random battles produce for players that like them is a chance to decide what level your characters will be and what equipment they will have when you get to plot encounter X. FF games in particular have actually significantly reduced the random encounters over time by simply increasing the linearity of the story line and the amount of time you have to spend in areas trying to find the items/characters that advance the story. Removing some aspect that some people don't like doesn't always improve the genre, or even the series.
Personally, I enjoy the battle Screens. But something that could load in faster would be nice. Like making it part of the "Dungeon" engine, not a seperate one.
At the very least, the current "Battle background" and basic bits, bobs, and animations could be stored in memory. So that it could immediately trigger, and the opening animations/speeches could play whilst the battle engine loads, rather than adding more time after.
At the very least, if you have a fairly predictable method for determining 'random' encounters (at least predictable for the developers), then you should be able to pre-cache the backgrounds that would be used as well as determine which types of monsters would be encountered. I think the problem with this, though, is that RAM is still very limited in most consoles, especially the PS2, which has, by far, the most RPGs of the current consoles.
Plus displaying "spoils of war", and XP and stuff over the Victory poses instead of after them would be a lot better.
Personally, I would prefer skipping the victory poses altogether and possibly relegating any 'spoils of war' to background information (possibly displayed along the bottom of whatever screen you're returned to), unless there's something that specifically needs your attention, such as a full inventory or a character needing points allocated for a new level. I like the way Diablo 2 handles the latter case, just letting you know that you have stat and skill points to allocate and letting you do it whenever you please (even after gaining many levels).
Plus some sort of High Level Parties intimidate Low Level Monsters factor that would reduce the random encounters when you're re-visiting "Single Hit Bunnies" territory.
This could be useful, but should be relegated to fairly large differences in the levels. Then again, most games that have random encounters do have methods for avoiding random encounters at later levels, many of which have been mentioned a few times elsewhere in this thread. The last thing most people would want is for enemies to stop appearing when you're 1-5 levels above them (depending on how many levels are available in the game).
I was being inconsistent. I didn't actually mean that Everquest actually had this style of randomness, just that it would be ideal in an Everquest-style game that is independant of individual users. True randomness in that environment would try to simulate real creatures doing real things rather than having specific locations where a known monster is going to spawn. That causes enough problems.
I don't actually know of a game offhand that uses this.
Diablo is probably the most random series I could think of, though it's still not random beyond a certain point. You have a pretty good idea of what kinds of monsters you'll find in certain areas, and, after a while, know what layouts are going to be there and aproximately how many monsters will be there.
UO tried to simulate a more realistic scenario where creatures had a decent simulation of their populations and even reproduction, but the simple fact is that the players whiped them out, so the system had to be revamped.
My point was that, contrasting what the previous poster had said, an RPG does not mean it has to have random battles. Yes, the PC RPGs are signficantly different in nature than console ones, but that doesn't mean you can't take bits from them and try it on the console.
This is why, I believe, we've seen quite a few PC RPG developers doing console titles lately. Traditionally, PC RPGs have been done by American developers, while console RPGs have been done by Japanese developers. This is also a part of why there's so much difference between console and PC RPGs. Now that PC/console ports have become more common, you see things like BG: Dark Alliance (which could actually be argued as more of an Action RPG) and KOTOR, developed by PC developers for consoles (though KOTOR was of course released on the XBox first). There are a handful of Japanese developers that use different systems, and many of the RPGs never even get to the US, so it's sometimes impossible to see what they've been doing without importing. It's simply a matter of what's most popular that drives them not only to release the same types of games, but to only release certain types of games to the US. Perhaps with the popularity of KOTOR we'll see games with more of the PC RPG elements coming from Japan, but I think that really depends on a PC RPG breaking through in Japan.
I like the story elements to RPGs, I like the idea of having a world I can explore at my own pace, but I hate the inability to take more than a few steps without running into a random battle. There's plenty of newer games that come out without the tradition of previous games to tie them down, would it hurt them to try something different?
I'm sure if you look through a few game descriptions or FAQs you can probably find some used console RPGs that don't use the system. They don't come out with as much fanfare because they're not FF or DW games, but there are a lot of them out there, and some of them are good games. Even Square takes a lot of risks in their other game series, and I've even had a theory going that they use the SaGa series (for an example) to try out risky ideas before moving the best of those ideas to the FF games. SaGa Frontier 2 didn't have random encounters, iirc, though it's been a while since I played it, so I could be wrong.
Now, moving on to Fallout. Yes, there were random encounters, yes the escaping was part of the battle system, but I'd argue your point that most of the battles were random. The only random battles were the ones on the world map, the majority of the ones I fought were in caves, sewers, mines, buildings, etc., where there was a set number of enemies, who were already visible, and once you killed them you could waltz through the area without anymore fights.
All of those areas, though, rarely let you out of the battle system, so it almost lies in an in-between area, because every battle is laid out the same way (randomly generated iirc), the game uses a distinctive battle system though it removes the turn-based system when you're out of immediate danger, and uses the battle system for almost everything but the overview map used for long distance travel. On the overview map, though, there are definitely random encounters, even though they aren't very frequent (and the overview map allows for much greater distances of travel as the smallest possible increment).
Yes, the 'no fights at all' option was incredibly hard to do, but it was an option. Imagine my surprise when, the very first time I reached the "boss" in Fallout, I managed to convince him to end his scheme without drawing a weapon.
I think this tends to point to something missing in most of the FF (and many other console RPGs) series: any real conversational system with multiple correct options and significant effects on the game. I think this is probably a result of the somewhat severe linearity of many of these games. Before you can convince a boss not to fight, you have to be able to choose a path through a
I'm going to say you're either trolling or ignorant, as random encounters do not make a game an RPG.
This is correct, but they're a valid part of particular games' mechanics. Removing this for the sake of the people that don't like it simply makes it a different game, and there's not much point to that since there have always been games that do it the other way.
They're a legacy item, why they were chosen, I don't know. My guess is that they were originally due to the technical constraints of older systems that made non-random encounters unfeasible.
Rethink your guess. For every random encounter game there is, more than likely, an equal number (if not more) that did not have random encounters, on the same systems. Zelda 2 and Ultima 3's NES port had monsters on the map which then spawned a battle screen, but on the same system DW and FF had no visible monsters on the map. IIRC the Ultima games on the PC always had them visible. If they can be displayed at all then it is feasible. It was simply a choice of game mechanics.
Now I'd say it's just the fact that they're so ingrained in our conception of a console RPG (Yes, console RPG. Many computer RPGs try different methods of creating encounters, it's largely consoles that are stuck with the random encounter system.) and the fact that they're quite simply the easy way out.
It's simply the fact that the most popular console RPGs use these systems, and probably always will. There are many console RPGs that don't use this system, they just haven't been as popular. There's nothing inherently harder about putting the monsters on the map, except that if you make them completely static you have to playtest more to make sure people can level up enough to get through your game.
"So, Bob, how will we do the battle system?"
"Well, we could place the enemies on the map and have them wondering around so that the player can see them, if you want we could have them chase the player when they spot him. We could even make it so that the player can avoid them if they want to."
"What would that require?"
"Well, to do it properly we'd need to make extra animations for the enemies, we'd need extensive play testing to figure out where they should go and how many there should be based on the boss stats, and... You know what, that's a lot of work, let's just add an algorithm to randomly send the player to a battle screen every so many steps."
Sure thing, because the enemies on the screen have historically been very bright in RPGs, umm right. I know, we could use spawn points that spew out a random monster every 8.523 seconds, that'll do it. Or we'll randomly generate the monsters every time they enter the area. Or we can make the whole game static and they'll never want to play it again because they know where everything is, it'll be just like a Zelda game with more stats.
There are a fair number of RPGs that don't have random encounters, some are good (I don't care what he says, Chrono Trigger was good and Chrono Cross just plain sucked.), others aren't.
Yes, and Chrono Trigger was a console RPG, too. There are more console RPGs out there than just DW and FF, there are even console RPGs that aren't made by SquareEnix.
Case in point: Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest. Ok, so it had other things against it, but it had no random battles. All the battles were represented by sprites on the screen. Oh, did I mention that these sprites never moved? If you ever want to see how not to make static encounters, then I'd suggest taking a look at that game. (Note: The author of this post does not actually recommend playing Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest for any reason other than perhaps convincing yourself that the latest Final Fantasy is not the 'worst ever')
And that was the only FF game made specifically for the US with no original plans to release it in Japan. Makes you wonder where they form their opinion of what the US market wants. Maybe people were bitching back
I take it that you do not realise how many RPG's there are WITHOUT random encounters?
Which is exactly the point, those people that don't like random encounters should play the RPGs that don't have them.
It is perfectly valid to critisise them as they are a left-over legacy from times when technical constraints forced the developers to use these random encounters.
If that is what makes the criticism valid, than it is not, because technical constraints have nothing to do with random encounters in console RPGs. There were plenty of games with fewer and more RPG elements (and RPGs themselves) that did not have random encounters, even before FF and DQ/DW. Even PC RPGs have almost always been both ways.
a lot of games do this right, the problem with jrpg's(with map and a lot of random encounters) is that there usually isn't anything else to do than go from place to place and kill kill kill kill kill.
fallouts, kotor(best game of this year) and even morrowind offer alternative ways to level up(and thus advance) besides just killing random monsters in the desert for hours and hours.
Fallout, Morrowind, and even KOTOR are all at their hearts PC RPGs (KOTOR and Morrowind are available on the XBox, but Morrowind was developed for the PC and KOTOR was built on the Baldur's Gate engine). What you describe as jrpgs are simply very specific series of console RPGs. In the end, many people prefer one over the other, and frankly, I think that those people should just realize this preference and stick to it. Just because they both are called RPGs doesn't mean they're the same type of game, nor should they be.
No, that's what a particular type of console RPG is about. If you play and RPG for, say PC, you'll find that many of them have some different form of dealing with the battles. Besides, what does RPG stand for? Role-Playing Game, not Random (Some word begining with P that I can't think up) Game.
If you play an RPG for, say, the PC, you'll be playing something on the Baldur's Gate engine, or you'll be playing something old. PC RPGs have generally been a completely different game than console RPGs.
What's happened is that a few games had success, such as Final Fantasy and the Dragon Quest/Warrior series. They had random encounters due to what were likely technical limitations of the platform they were built on.
It certainly wasn't a technical limitation unless they would've had to shrink the map sizes to display the monsters at the same time. Other games on the NES (the system both series started on) had the monsters on-screen. I don't remember for certain which system the Ultima 3 port used, but for some reason I'm fairly sure they were on-screen.
Other game developers have looked at that and decided that they want a piece of that market, so they release a game and they're careful not to tamper with the characteristics too much. (Case in point: Final Fantasy VII. Think of how huge it was, now think of how many half-assed RPGs came out immediately after it that seemed to be little more than a thinly veiled rip-off. It's a more modern example, but it's still an example.)
I don't remember it that way, though, as the only thing FF7 really seemed to do is encourage more Japanese developers to port RPGs for the US market. Maybe I just managed to ignore or avoid the rip-offs.
I personally always point to the Fallout series as a an excellent way of how to make RPGs that aren't dependent on the leveling treadmill, while at the same time not becoming a movie that you sometimes play. I'll give a brief description in case you haven't played it before:
And again, this is a PC RPG. I love the Fallout series, but really it's a different type of game. I just wish they'd make another Fallout RPG instead of using the name to push different types of games while the core of the series gets left behind.
- For starters, it's possible to make it through the first one without ever getting in a fight. (Not sure on the second one, I've heard it is, but never to the same degree as I did with number 1) You could gain experience by solving problems in ways other than slaughtering everything that opposed you, and it was possible (although quite difficult) to sneak past enemies rather than fight them. Which brings me to point number 2.
That's nice, but I've never known anyone that actually did that unless they had already played the game and decided to replay it in this manner. It's more than just a bit difficult to avoid getting attacked, especially early in either game.
- Battles. All battles took place in the normal view, no fancy battle system, meaning that you saw the enemies before they attacked you. If you were travelling on the world map and hit an enemy you'd move into a screen with the enemies present, but, and this is something that I find is missing from current console RPGs, it was always easy to escape if you didn't feel like fighting.
Ah, but you're missing the same thing everyone else that brings up Fallout is missing: most of the encounters were random in Fallout, you're just on a negotiable battle screen that allows you to escape and/or avoid enemies. The battle system was so completely different, and took up so much of the gameplay in Fallout, that people make the mistake of thinking that's the way the game actually played. Click on grid, end turn, click on enemy to attack, maybe choose to use some skill and try for a headshot, end turn. Click, click, click, click. You're not avoiding an encounter by running away, you're just cutting the encounter short.
- Finally, point 3, the plot,
Does it matter? 'Bullet Time' is so overused that the word itself makes most people retch, and 'Focus' makes more sense in the fiction of the Matrix anyway.
... lackluster execution. Max Payne had a decent story, i just couldn't get into it after the third hour of: room, room, kill enemies, load, room, room, kill enemies who didn't hear me kill their friends, load, room, kill, load, etc.
;) I had more problems with the fact that it was an 8 hour linear game with little replay value than anything else. Then again, I may not have trudged through some of the game if I hadn't known that it was almost over. My favorite part of the game was going through the garage area, and the next would be the last area, invading the office building. Much of the beginning and middle portions got repetetive at times.
Does it matter? Not really. But the thing that most people seem to miss is that the innovation in the Matrix' effect for this had more to do with the ability to pan around the scene than with the ability to slow down the shot and display projectiles (which were computer generated anyway). Obviously, when it comes to video games, moving the camera around hasn't been a problem since the first 3d games came around. In fact, keeping the camera in a good spot seems to be the biggest problem facing 3D games.
Both games could have used some serious pruning and editing.
They both struck me the same way. Tons of potential, decent atmosphere, solid action systems
You were half way through the game, then
I didn't bother with MP2. seriously, the technology to remove load times exists. particularly on the xbox and pc. and it's not like there's enough going on in the few rooms that load at a time to keep me busy. literally it's a 10 second load every minute or two of gameplay, and that's just crap. if it really has around 12 hours of gameplay in it, at least 20% of that is due to load time.
I didn't bother with MP2, either, though I only spent $20 on the first one, so it's hard to say I really bothered with it so much as took it off someone's hands.
as for EtM... yeah... it doesn't have the load problems, but its environments seem to be hugely misproportioned because even the developers know their combat system controls fall apart in confined spaces. Running up a wall is cool, but christ, make me press a button to do it. sometimes i'm going to want to keep my feet on the damn ground -- particularly if the game doesn't allow me to jump where i want while running up that wall.
the holes in the story and gameplay were pretty secondary to that glaring shortcoming. They really should have made the whole game lay out more like Vice City. Particularly if they're going to shoehorn me into a dozen different gameplay types on the fly (action, stealth, driving, shooting gallery, etc). Nothing like taking your first shot at their driving controls in a mission that offers no room for error on a section of map you -should- have had knowledge of, familiarity with, and a chance to explore.
No really, I [sarcasm]love[/sarcasm] the design paradigm of gameplay surprise! die. reload. new surprise! die. reload. lather. rinse. repeat.
And what's with these lame ass map layouts? For chrissakes people, turning every building into a maze, just to have the chance to throw more small encounters at me is getting a little old. Whatever happened to office buildings that looked and played like office buildings? where i don't have to snake through back hallways to get past a simple 'locked' door, even though i have the firepower and physical strength to launch a security guard through a brick wall?
EtM had too many shortcomings to name. On the other hand, I didn't particularly mind it for the few hours I played it, I just didn't feel any urge to go back and play it again.
If that's all he's there for, why not ask for a FF-StreetFighter game and be done with it? Then we can get back to using skills and intelligence in RPGs.
Why not just have everyone that doesn't like random encounters stop playing games that have them? Go play a different game, get a different company to develop a game that fits what you're looking for.
FF games have been the same way for roughly 15 years, it's one of the few things that hasn't changed about the series. Someone should've figured this out 10 games ago.