No big projects forth coming? Nintendo can be notoriously tight lipped at times, look at the Gameboy advanced SP, no info on it even leaked much earlier than a month before launch. They could be hiding a couple aces, and its not like MS or Sony have killer aps slated for this year either.
I don't think the SP is a good measure of how Nintendo might hold information back on a new product. If news of the SP came out too early, it would've impacted sales of the previous GBA, which would not have been good for the company. On the other hand, a title coming down the pipeline that could sell consoles generally is known about well ahead of time (ie FF:CC). Plans for a new portable would probably be kept tight-lipped to keep sales of the SP up, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on it, but almost anything that will sell more GameCubes is something we're likely to hear about.
I'd like to see Nintendo get more 3rd party titles, but at the moment it doesn't really matter to me too much, because in the last couple of months the GameCube is the system I've played the most and bought the most games for, even though I have all 3 consoles. I'll be buying Soul Calibur 2 and KOTOR for the XBox, and maybe FFX-2 for the PS2, but the GC lineup coming up looks to have more games than those two systems combined that I am looking forward to. Not to mention that my girlfriend pretty much only plays GameBoy games, so she's constantly on the GBA-SP (I dont think she's quite comfortable with the GB Player yet, nor does she usually care about playing them on the TV, which is fine with me since I can use the Player or the Cube while she's playing Pokemon).
If he doesn't already have a 2nd DVD player, he can always pick one up for $60 and still enjoy the Gamecube's lineup of 1st party and exclusive games. Oh, and he won't have to worry about the kids wearing out the PS2 watching some Disney movie 20 million times in a row.
Ill buy a second GC either when the price comes down or when I can find an importer that carries one of the 'special edition' Japanese GCs that I might want. I may also buy a PSOne to save my PS2 from an early death, due to the number of PS1 titles I play, and eventually if the PSX price comes well below their currently estimated retail price I may buy one of those to replace my PS2 (or move the PS2 to another room).
That being said, the only real reason I want another GC is because I'd like to have a GC/GB Player in the other room, rather than using my GBA-SP when someone's watching something on TV I don't really care about. I don't play PS2 or XBox games enough to really want another one, though if they were significantly lower in price it wouldn't be a big deal to get another one.
The stats are kind of interesting, but as soon as Blizzard released a patch, it's game over for the stats being useful. Now, with Frozen Throne out, the build times and costs have changed, which means most of the guide is now useless.
One thing I've noticed with Blizzard, lately, is that (especially with the new games, notably WC3 and Diablo 2) they have tons of information on their site. Most of the statistics you could ever need are on there, and are updated with each patch.
From that point, it's just a matter of a few special cases (ie cube formulas and rune words in Diablo 2) or strategies (whether they're strategies for WC3 or character-development strategies for Diablo 2) that would lead to GameFAQs being the better resource. I got both of the Diablo 2 manuals (they were basically free), and barely found any use for them at all besides the stats lists, which, of course, were out of date after one patch. For the most part, I stick to console games when it comes to buying the guides, and when it comes to Blizzard's games I just check their site to find the battle.net site for that game, and then check GameFAQs for any additional information I need.
I usually print them out and 3-hole punch them, then stick them in a binder. If I can find any decent pictures of the cover art or the title I'll print that out as well for the binder's cover and edge.
I like having the books for most of my console RPGs, but when it comes down to it, many of them never had guides or the guides are hard to find (hell, I paid almost as much for one of the FF guides as I did for the game).
Something to add to this: Most of the information in the FF9 book that you bought is also on PlayOnline, with the information you went to the site to find inserted in the proper places. Basically, the entire book is free on the site plus additional content, all you have to do is register.
I printed the thing out and it came out at about 2-3x as many pages as the book I spent $2 on (yes, two dollars, so not too much complaining, but then again, I was hoping to get all of the information, since I get guides around that price somewhat frequently).
GameSpot buys GameFAQs, GameSpot runs article asking if published game guides are dying... including the obligatory link to their own, somewhat newly acquired, fairly well know, GameFAQs.com (then again, maybe some of GameSpot's normal audience doesn't know GameFAQs.com too well).
Yeah, well, right now I'm in a bit of a monetary crunch so I've been downloading FAQs and printing them out, because I can get paper for about $10 for 2500 pages, vs. a guide for $10-20, but, for the most part, when the guide is easy to find, I'm perfectly willing to pick one up. That being said, there are many game types for which I'd never pick up a guide, yet I see plenty of them in print. RTS games? Anything useful the guide has to say I can pick up on my own after a couple times through the skirmish mode. FPS games? umm yeah right. Platformers, doubtful.
It all comes down to RPGs and fighting games, and many of the fighting games have the essentials (the moves list) online in a much more concise, valuable format.
Oh, and the FF9 guide really killed itself by telling you to go to the PlayOnline website to get more information on just about everything in the book, and basically having the entire book + the extra information available online to anyone that bothered to sign up (and it's all still there if anyone wants it), including most of the artwork from the book.
Tournament figher: Street Fighter. Brawler: Final Fight (or more recently, The Bouncer). You probably did know the difference but the latter category didn't occur to you... brawlers aren't extremely common these days, and most people just call tournament fighters "fighting games".
OK, I get it now, it's probably more that I haven't really played a brawler since the Genesis days than anything else, unless you include the extra mode in a couple of the Tekken console games. For some reason I was thinking that there might be some kind of genre distinction between Virtua Fighter and Tekken (and there might be in Japan, where the fighting games are taken a little more seriously it seems).
I can't, but I think the main reason for that is precisely the existence of these two significantly different categories of games which are both referred to as RPGs.:-)
There's a lot of blending of categories on both sides, too, and a lot of games that incorporate 'RPG elements', such as Deus Ex and the handful of card games out there (Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, etc). Then there's the argument over whether or not Diablo is an RPG, and the games that came out using a similar style.
The way I'd probably do it is to give a list of characteristics, and the more a game has, the more RPG-like it is:
* Strong story - the story drives the action rather than vice versa
* Battles where you give commands to your characters rather than controlling their actions in realtime (there are a few borderline games like Secret of Mana, but even that has menus)
This is really highly dependant on the battle system used in the game..hack has menus for spells and skills, but at the basic level you move around and attack with your weapon by just doing it. Diablo is almost entirely directly controlled (and I believe this is part of why so many people have problems with it being called an RPG, although the fact that there are so many enemies you can wear out your mouse playing it also causes a lot of it).
* Experience points you earn by defeating monsters, or some equivalent system (such as FFX's Sphere Grid)
Or FF2 and some of the SaGa games using increasing skills based on use rather than just experience points with skill point rewards. I have a hard time thinking of any game that throws out experience entirely without trying to replace it with some kind of reward system for sinking time, though.
* Fantasy setting, or sci-fi but with magic (this is incidental, but seems to be very strongly associated with RPGs anyway)
I personally have a strong dislike of the fact that RPGs are so heavily linked with fantasy and magic. I would love to see more sci-fi, horror, etc. RPGs, but so many developers seem to be stuck in the fantasy rut (even the newer FFs that try to add some sci-fi elements don't really get out of the rut). Fallout was great both for it's system and for it's setting (and the way it incorporated the setting so well).
* You control more than one character at once
Which you don't do in the later Ultima games, not to mention many, many other computer RPGs, and a handful of console RPGs. Console RPGs have also gone more towards having most of the characters in a party change out quite a bit, to the point where you really only control one character through the game, but at any time you may control N number of characters.
* Stats-based gameplay in general
* Long playtime before beating the game
and, as mentioned before, the computer RPGs usually have the long playtimes in excess of most others. Some computer RPGs have even gone far overboard in the number of stats they display for the player, even if the player can have no control over those stats.
There are almost certainly more characteristics, but I don't feel like trying to think of all of them at the moment.
Assembling an orchestra and learning about how different timbres from different instruments color the overall sound might be neat in a computer game.
Additionally, it would probably be easier to do (once the program is written) than actually assembling an orchestra simply for the purpose of teaching a theory class.
Other things I could think of that may help for teaching would be the ability to hear changes made to a piece of music, which may help some students to associate the notes on the page to the notes they hear (this was one of my problems when I took theory, mostly because the majority of my experience was through self-teaching a particular instrument, and especially because tablature is so common with guitar/bass music).
Or you could teach some theory with basic puzzles. Of course, I've always felt that a lot of music theory is like trying to find organization in chaos. There are some strict rules that some things can follow, but you can usually find examples that throw all the rules out the window. This tends to lead the development of games for teaching purposes to have either a very limited application, or to be almost too broad to really be categorized as games.
ok the place i remembered it was from some book, can't say really if it was one of zahns books, though iirc it was the mini-novel that came with tie fighter(pc game) in which some tie fighter burns upon entering it (haven't read it since we bought it though).
Anything can burn up on entry into an atmosphere, though. The ability to operate in the atmosphere has nothing to do with it, so much as the way you transition into it. It's like saying an amphibious vehicle can't operate on land because they weren't able to get it on-shore in an area where the beach isn't sloped at an angle the vehicle couldn't handle (though, admittedly, the example isn't quite right, because the vehicle controls whether or not it can handle re-entry for the most part, and many of the Star Wars ships were likely not supposed to be assembled in the atmosphere to begin with).
JRPGS: Mostly console only which results in: -You put the damm disc into the machine and it magically works! (though lately console games are begining to crop bad bugs) -Graphics: Typically jrpgs are visually more pleasing than wrpgs, even though wrpgs run on much better hardware
This is just a matter of what pleases your eye. WRPGs tend towards more 'realistic' graphics, whereas JRPGs tend towards anime-like graphics. One is easier to pull off than the other (though I'd note that certain new technologies (like cell shading) are harder to actually do but look better for anime-style, and the game that's used this best so far in JRPGs is routinely panned as a bad game).
-Extremely linear storyline: some people like it and some people don't, I think this stems from most consoles not having a harddrive and also from Asian culture in general... Being Asian myself and having experienced both Western and Eastern cultures all my life, what I found is people in the East typically like following the group line more than being a bit more individualistic. That being said most gamers in Asia care more about aestetics and a linear engaging storyline than more freedom to do what you want in a game. This might change since the advent of MMORPGs, Capcom's translation of GTA, and maybe even a J - KOTOR port... inspiring change in jrpg game design
I think another thing that influences the way in which the games play has to do with the roots of the genre in the two areas. FF and DQ were wildly popular in Japan and, as far as most western gamers know, are basically the roots of a great deal of what we call JRPGs. These games set the tone of much of the games that are played today. On the other hand, the western design owes a lot to the Ultima series, which was strongly based on moral choices effecting the game in one way or another. Over time people have tried to extend this by allowing more endings to games and having the overall look of the game change with your moral choices.
-replayabilty: really really limited, unless you have a lot of time on your hands (or are too poor buy a new game and too conscientious to pirate one) to unlock secrets (of which are important to some and not important to most people) or replay the same exact game experience over and over over again. Game times are also typically also around 20-30 hours.
This is also why there are a lot more time-sink type of side-quests in JRPGs. You could spend hours and hours doing things totally unrelated to the plot in later FF games and Shenmue, but ultimately you have to go back to the story to finish the game. On the other hand, in the western games sometimes the side-quests have little to differentiate them from the main quests, or can influence what happens in the main quests of the game.
WRPGS: Mostly PC only which results in: -Bugs galor! Patches and Driver downloads are very common.
This depends highly on the developers of the game in question, and the system on which you play it. Many of those bugs can be hardware specific, which means some portion of the player base never sees them in the first place. Also, RPGs, until very recently, have tended to be somewhat far behind the curve in terms of graphics, so they've escaped many of the bugs that FPS players are used to. OTOH, RPG players don't always keep up with the hardware side the way FPS players would, so they may still be having problems that an FPS player would not (because of newer, more capable hardware).
-Graphics: Graphics in game are now almost par (The exception is Morrowind) but still not as good as JRPGs. Cinematic movies typically suck or are nonexistent (if you consider Diablo an rpg then that's the exception) compared to JRPGs.
But many would say that cinematic sequences are a primary drawback of JRPGs in the first place, as they take you out of character and remove some of your influence over the story. Similarly, the graphics are just as good in most western RPGs as thos
I think it's more to the point that FF is the most well-known of the JRPG series. Even most of the stuff mentioned in the previous post was at least published by Enix, which is part of Square now.
Personally, I like the SaGa series (at least, what I've played of it, which admittedly isn't much), but it's very definitely a different style of game. Still, the games are very much story-driven, just as the FF games are, even if you get to choose the order in which the parts of the story are told.
Are you trying to say that UT is a completely different game from Q3 when playing 1v1? UT was built to feel like Quake by design. Q3 was evolved from Quake through Q2 (and many people complained about the changes in Q2, though most of them stayed in Q3). Someone that played Quake and never touched Q2 or Q3 (though admittedly the chances of that are near 0, despite the fact that Quake's multiplayer outlived Q2 quite well) would feel right at home in UT, except that they'd have to get used to the appearance and the weapons. The core skills of 1v1 are easily translatable to any game, as long as you play 1v1. Once you move to all out DM or team-DM, you require additional skills to really succeed, although a strong 1v1 player should remain a strong DMer, and can be a very solid team-DMer.
Again, this isn't so. Really, team games only add team play to the 1v1 experience. Accuracy, stategy, planning, foresight, attitude, they are all there.
Perhaps I simply haven't seen enough LAN play to have seen attitudes in 1v1 that are even compatible with team play, let alone helpful. As for strategy, planning, and foresight, all of those things are required in both situations, but the applications are different (and hence not as translatable without significant time). Many team-based players will play 1v1 specifically to enhance the portions of their game that can be helped (specifically the ability to remove an enemy quickly and to control an area). The style of 1v1 player would also effect what roles they would even be good at in the first place, because a heavily confrontational player would be best at defense or support roles on offense, while a stealthy player would be best at the more traditional offensive roles (ie flag runners). Still, the 1v1 atmosphere doesn't prepare people for interaction with their team, and is more highly oriented to the kill than the majority of roles in a team-based game (ie forward defense is there to weaken enemies and warn rear defense, supporting offense is there to punch holes and secure areas for the rest of offense, the rest of offense would normally only have a single objective completely unrelated to killing, and would even have to ignore enemy defense in many cases).
Or, perhaps, you are so out of synch with the pro FPS world and have entirely missed out on what's happening at the upper levels. Sure, there might be some great and fun games online, but the real money and the real games are, and will be, at LAN tournaments.
While this could be the case, and I don't deny that the money is (and at least for the forseeable future will be) at LAN tournaments, I haven't seen LAN tournaments putting out the money for team-based games, regardless of the fact that there are far more players playing the team-based games. There are enough people playing 1v1 and the money required is small enough to continue being the main draw of LAN tournaments for a while, but the 1v1 population has been dwindling for quite some time now, and will continue to do so.
There are so many reasons for this, I can't believe you can't see it. Well, no problem, there has to diversity and a fringe to every field.
The main thing is you've obviously found your religion, and it's providing you with all the comforts that beliefs can do. Play on dood.
Obviously, my religion is Nintendo, but that's a different story. Then again, the numbers show that the fringe is in DM and 1v1, but I guess some people don't care as long as you can fill in a huge number of slots on a tournament ladder with 1% of the player base, just because it takes fewer people to fill a slot.
I've noted the lack of good terms for these two types of game before. It's kind of annoying, because they're really separate genres, or at least subgenres, that have about as much in common as go-kart racing and a realistic car simulation, or tournament fighters and brawlers, but people who don't really know anything about either one tend to assume they're the same since they have the same name. "Oh, that's an RPG, you'd like that."
I agree, and even though I like fighting games I don't really know the difference between say a brawler or a tournament fighter (though if I knew, it might explain some of my likes/dislikes in those cases). Personally, I tend to like both console- and computer- RPGs, but like them for different reasons (and part of that is probably because I grew up with both systems and approached them both without expectations either way). Console-RPGs and Computer-RPGs don't share a lot in common other than say various stats for the characters, but then RPG tends to be a fairly watered-down term with any electronic game, anyway (try defining what makes a game an RPG when it comes to computer or console-based games).
I think the most accurate term for what I generally end up calling console-style RPGs is "story-driven RPGs" (or "plot-driven RPGs" if you won't accept that... some computer-style RPGs might be considered story-driven, but very few if any even have a plot).
I usually use story-driven for the typical FF-type games. It still fits with say SaGa or Legend of Mana, but doesn't seem to apply as much, so I try to let people know that those games are a bit different, and most people don't like SaGa for one reason or another;)
This leaves me without a good term for computer-style RPGs, though... tactical RPGs?
This one I usually leave at computer-style. Most people understand if they've played computer RPGs before, or I will associate it with one of the previous computer RPGs that is similar, such as Ultima or BG (which have decidedly different styles, too), or even Diablo, which is more of a hack-n-slash style.
That implies that console-style RPGs aren't tactical, though, which isn't always the case (FFX's battles seem pretty tactical) and the first thing it makes me think of is FF Tactics anyway.
Exactly, tactical RPGs tends to be used more for FFTactics, Tactics:Ogre, Front Mission 3, etc. Those games are very heavily tactical and a lot less on the RPG side anyway. I don't take it as meaning that other styles of RPG aren't really tactical, but rather than these emphasize tactics over anything else (and FF games really emphasize story, I'd guess computer games really emphasize character-building, but some people disagree, perhaps because they aren't really role-playing as much in these games as others).
Non-linear RPGs? That makes me think of Saga Frontier and Legend of Mana, even though I never played either of them. Freeform RPGs? I think that's the best I can come up with.
Both simply bring to mind the same thing, to me, and fits with some games in both computer-style and console-style RPGs. Computer games will often have a less linear style, while still being fairly linear (ie a side-quest may not be as obviously a side-quest in a computer-RPG, because the story may not be as clear-cut), SaGa Frontier and the like still tend to focus on the story, but let you play it out from a number of angles and in differing orders (ie you can start one story then switch to a different character if you get bored or feel that it's getting a little too challenging, or just feel like seeing another part of the story in the same time period).
Of course, to enable non-players to differentiate between them, they shouldn't have the "RPG" part in common, in which case I'd probably use RPG for computer-style RPGs (which I don't like, but to be fair, they involve a lot more "role-playing" than console-style RPGs do) and "plot game" for console-style RPGs. This would probabl
and then all of a sudden the whole thing goes away to pop up an IM window.
Why do Windows folk put up with this?
We don't, because we do one of two things: -Shut off IM when playing games -Set the IM not to popup the damned message windows
Most IM systems have other ways to notify you of an incoming message than to just put it in your face, such as changing the icon in the notification/status area, or playing a sound (I shut off all sounds in IM clients, though). Games are notoriously bad at handling multitasking except in very simple or turn-based windowed games, so gamers don't usually deal with the bs that a lot of windows applications like to pull on you (and this isn't a Windows-user thing, either, because it's just as easy to program a *nix app to do the same types of things, and many of them do).
I'd just like to add that playing Quake (and Half-life as well), eventually led to an increase in my accuracy both with the mouse and the keyboard, not only in hitting targets (regardless of whether it's Quake, the desktop, or any other GUI-based application), but also in typing in general, especially once I moved towards TF/TFC (which requires a slightly larger set of keys to use efficiently, and a much larger set of keys if you can't handle scripting very well).
When my dad sets up a new computer for someone that's never really owned a computer or spent much time on one, the first thing he does is set them down with Solitaire to learn how to use the mouse. I'd say that once they get to this point Quake could be an addition to improve simultaneous mouse/keyboard use as well as typing skills (believe me, once you start using the WASD setup for direction controls, that home row thing makes a lot more sense and you have a much greater ability to hit at least half the keys on the keyboard with good accuracy).
Of course, especially if you get out of 1v1, you also add in the need to track multiple targets, on-screen and off, through visual and audible cues. You could also add prioritization, through the trade-offs of various weapons as well as the trade-offs of going for various weapons (anyone that played enough Quake DM knows that the rocket launcher on one particular level was excessively easy to camp, but the rewards for cleaning up that room were high in terms of # of frags, too).
I often see asian guys putting their cellphones on the table everywhere they go.
I see guys that are very definitely not asian that do this with all sorts of crap that should be in their pockets (ie wallet, keys, etc) and wonder how they get through a week without having it stolen (and, interestingly enough, they're usually the guys that can't find their stuff when they need to go home a few hours later). I'm not sure what it is, maybe some kind of phobia related to pockets, but it has nothing to do with race, and rarely has anything to do with needing to show off all of the crap in their pockets.
The most I'll put on a table that I'm not using right at the moment is a pack of cigarettes and a lighter, and even then that's only in places where I can smoke without going outside.
Video games have had a bad rap recently but that's purely because of infamously violent video games stealing the attention from the innumerable other nonviolent and nonsexual computer games which are simply a lot less noticed by either the pro or anti video game camps.
As the article pointed out, though, it's not violence or controversial storylines that make a game inappropriate. Another game they made (other than the one they mention in the/. story) was using the NWN engine and allowed you to choose a side in the American Revolution, and is supposed to give fairly realistic consequences to your actions, not to mention that a game about a war that doesn't include violence is simply masking the truth of the matter.
The point is to get people to learn and, at the same time, to see the consequences of bad choices without having to suffer the real-life consequences. It enhances the experience over simply telling people (or having them read out of a book) what happens if this is done, or what happened in the past. Additionally, they mention that the games are used as an enhancement of a more 'normal' education, not in place of normal student-teacher interaction (in other words, there would still be normal lessons to make sure, for instance, that if someone actually manages to win the American Revolution as the British in a simulation, that they understand where their actions deviated from those of the British to allow them to win).
I think the reason they use the terms "Western" and "Eastern" is that they identified the games based on their place of origin, and the reason you (and I) use "computer RPG" and "console RPG" is because we identify them based on their platform. Now, consoles are a lot more popular in Japan than PCs, and perhaps vice versa in the US (although certainly not by as much). However, I think you're reading too much into this. There's absolutely no reason you can't write a {Western,console-style} RPG for the PC, and little reason it can't go the other way, although computer-style RPGs do tend to use features of the PC such as hard disks and network access that until recently haven't been available on consoles, and still aren't standard equipment.
I think the terms Console-RPG and Computer-RPG are used as much as Eastern-/Western- or American-/Japanese-, and all related to the primary origin of the style rather than any limitations. I've played some really bad ports of Console-RPGs, and I've played some Console-RPGs that were released only on the PC. Similarly, I've played some Computer-RPGs that were released only on a console (although most of these blend the elements of each style). You could probably also argue that Planescape:Torment had a lot of elements of a Console-RPG, despite being based on the BG engine and being a PC-only release.
It has nothing to do with the requirements of the games, simply with the origins of the games, as well as the platform on which they are dominant (ie the FF series is very strong on consoles, the Baldur's Gate series is very strong on PCs, but you also see a very large number of games similar to FF on consoles, and a large number of games similar to BG on the PC (not just because Square makes a lot of console RPGs and a lot of PC-RPGs use the BG engine).
It's not that the two platforms limit the games this way (although they may have in the past), it's that it's the traditional style of play on those platforms which leads to the genres being named this way. The FF games date back to the NES and span at least 4 major consoles (soon to be 5). The Ultima games date back to PCs most people probably couldn't even find today, and span most of the major Intel processors.
Well, if Fatal1ty can take three months to learn UT and then win a top tournament against guys who've played it since day one, you must realize that not only must he be skilled but he must have sufficent time to train.
Like I said the first time you pointed that out, UT's physics are very similar to Quake 1's physics, so it's just the weapons and maps at that point. That, and the fact that UT's community is smaller than Quake3's, iirc. Of course it takes time to get the differences down, but at the core it's still the same game. It's not like trying to move to something completely different, such as CS or TFC.
My point is, has been, and remains that 1v1 pro comps are the place to see the best. Sure, Fatal1ty would be an awesome team member, and I've seen serious top level team games, but it's never as intense as it gets when it's one on one.
1v1 skills don't necessarily translate to team-level games, there's a lot more that needs to be learned moving over. Of course, a 1v1 player can be utilized by a team if they can teach that player to stay in a particular area and put defensive priorities first, but most of the skills that are important for 1v1 are much less important for a team.
I guess it's like sex in the sense that a group would never be as intimate as an individual. I believe the best games happen when it gets "personal".
I guess it all comes down to personal preference. I still don't feel the best teams are the ones playing in LAN games, so the best team matches are still happening online.
heh, I changed my redundant modifier in my preferences because: a) one of my posts got modded redundant when it clearly wasn't and b) a lot of the posts I see in metamoderation that are marked redundant clearly are not
Maybe people just don't know what redundant means (maybe like the word ironic, they think they know what it means...).
Now, if you posted it three times, 2 of those would be redundant. Oh, and this post is probably redundant as well. Everything below my previous post is, obviously, off-topic. Since my karma hasn't moved in almost a year, I can't say I really give a shit if my posts are marked off-topic, either (as long as they actually are off-topic).
Those stats are pretty meaningless in this discussion. Half-Life already has lots of great mods, and everyone already knows it's the most popular online game today. The question is, is it the most popular because it has lots of great mods, or does it have lots of great mods because it's the most popular? Those stats don't answer any questions.
There's not much of a question there, because those stats are multiplayer only, and everyone knows that the stats also show the default HL dm is played by very few players. It's most popular because it has the most popular mods, plain and simple (and actually, you could probably say most popular mod and still be right, but there might be one or two mods that are doing better than a few other games as a whole).
As to the question of how this came to be, it may be more simple than people think. For one, the single player game was extremely popular, as you stated later in your post, so pretty much everyone had the game for ~6 months before a single mod came out anyway. Secondly, the HL SDK came out close to 8 months before the Quake 3 retail release, although Q3 betas and tools were released close to the same time as the HL SDK. Q3 also changed some things in regards to how mods are built and how they interface with the game engine, whereas HL mods are not very different from Q2 mods in terms of coding (and a lot of the mod developers from Q2's community came over to HL, giving us CS and many other mods).
Personally, I think it's a mix of both. HL is a great single player game, everyone who cared about PC gaming bought it. But it wouldn't have lasted without the mods.
Something else to note is that Valve hyped their support of the mod community long before releasing a single tool, and even before the game came out. They did this by bringing in Team Fortress Software and stating that TF2 would be an expansion pack for Half-life, or possibly included in the retail box. Most of us know where it went from there, but a large number of TF players bought Half-Life because they believed they would need it for TF2 (yeah, it's not a great idea to do that if TF2 hasn't been released yet, but it's the sort of thing that happens and the sort of thing that companies like Valve know will happen). I'm not going to complain about purchasing HL, because it gave me more than enough hours of play (through TFC) to justify the money, but the single player experience, for some of us, did not live up to the hype that seemingly everyone puts on it.
Dood this is the net, they broadcast them last year via GTV [geeteevee.com] just so you don't have to physical go. As well, that's why they demo the games, so they can be enjoyed later, wherever. Really, you should check it out, it's intense.
Actually, watching people play FPS games makes me physically ill. It's the only form of motion sickness I've ever had problems with in my life. 20 minutes is the longest I've ever managed without having to lie down, and that was watching my own demos to make sure I had gotten everything I needed (instructional demos regarding conc-jumps for cz2 in TFC).
As for community, you won't see me disagreeing here. Being part of a community is essential to development. We live in a social web whose strands are teachings. However, community does not imply team game play nor disfranchise single players game styles. Furthermore, the best of the best ultimately comes down to individuals. The edge can cut, but the tip is sharpest.
From a strictly teamplay standpoint, though, when playing team games only, and individual will perform best when working with a team that he has spent a good amount of time getting used to. Two players with a similar style on the same team can work together very well, or they can trip over each other's feet, and it's a matter of knowing the other player's habits and working with each other that determines whether the team comes off as strong or weak. 4 defenders that have worked together for a long time will know exactly what communication needs to be in place, and where excess kicks in, and it will benefit them a great deal, but a new person replacing one of those 4 can be the greatest player in the world and can take down the whole team by overrunning the others' comms or not communicating enough. Similarly, when working on defense, a player has to know how much he must roam vs. how how much roaming is too much, and interferes with the other defenders (or leaves his assumed spot open).
This is why I think team-based multiplayer has not done as well, or shown skill levels as well, in LAN atmospheres. The teams tend to be people that haven't worked together often, and they end up with a rather rushed plan. In 1v1 you don't worry about stepping on others' toes or moving too far out of place, or over-/under- communicating. In a team, all of these are factors, and are only improved with time together, as a group. Of course, in theory, a team can be built with several offense and defense groups that work in similar ways in terms of general behavior and offense-to-defense (and vice-versa) communication and you can interchange your O and D groups with little trouble, but you'll always have a certain level of efficiency with the players that work together most as an offense or a defense.
Now, as for how team-based players end up in 1v1, the skillsets have some moderate crossover, but the player will always need some amount of work to do well in whichever environment they have not played in for a while. Players don't even do well bouncing back and forth between different team games in most cases, so there's little chance that someone can go straight from playing TFC to owning an entire LAN full of 1v1 players. It is possible, however, that someone that decided to do their best in 1v1 could take some time away from more serious team-play for a while and focus on 1v1 until the actual LAN occurs, and do at least fairly well for themselves.
They kept repeating that Vice City would not be GTA 4, yet people keep making that mistake since they didn't call it something like GTA3-2:Vice City. The game evolved from GTA3, but it wasn't THAT much of a change in terms of the game engine.
Slashdot Mirror
No big projects forth coming? Nintendo can be notoriously tight lipped at times, look at the Gameboy advanced SP, no info on it even leaked much earlier than a month before launch. They could be hiding a couple aces, and its not like MS or Sony have killer aps slated for this year either.
I don't think the SP is a good measure of how Nintendo might hold information back on a new product. If news of the SP came out too early, it would've impacted sales of the previous GBA, which would not have been good for the company. On the other hand, a title coming down the pipeline that could sell consoles generally is known about well ahead of time (ie FF:CC). Plans for a new portable would probably be kept tight-lipped to keep sales of the SP up, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on it, but almost anything that will sell more GameCubes is something we're likely to hear about.
I'd like to see Nintendo get more 3rd party titles, but at the moment it doesn't really matter to me too much, because in the last couple of months the GameCube is the system I've played the most and bought the most games for, even though I have all 3 consoles. I'll be buying Soul Calibur 2 and KOTOR for the XBox, and maybe FFX-2 for the PS2, but the GC lineup coming up looks to have more games than those two systems combined that I am looking forward to. Not to mention that my girlfriend pretty much only plays GameBoy games, so she's constantly on the GBA-SP (I dont think she's quite comfortable with the GB Player yet, nor does she usually care about playing them on the TV, which is fine with me since I can use the Player or the Cube while she's playing Pokemon).
If he doesn't already have a 2nd DVD player, he can always pick one up for $60 and still enjoy the Gamecube's lineup of 1st party and exclusive games. Oh, and he won't have to worry about the kids wearing out the PS2 watching some Disney movie 20 million times in a row.
Ill buy a second GC either when the price comes down or when I can find an importer that carries one of the 'special edition' Japanese GCs that I might want. I may also buy a PSOne to save my PS2 from an early death, due to the number of PS1 titles I play, and eventually if the PSX price comes well below their currently estimated retail price I may buy one of those to replace my PS2 (or move the PS2 to another room).
That being said, the only real reason I want another GC is because I'd like to have a GC/GB Player in the other room, rather than using my GBA-SP when someone's watching something on TV I don't really care about. I don't play PS2 or XBox games enough to really want another one, though if they were significantly lower in price it wouldn't be a big deal to get another one.
The stats are kind of interesting, but as soon as Blizzard released a patch, it's game over for the stats being useful. Now, with Frozen Throne out, the build times and costs have changed, which means most of the guide is now useless.
One thing I've noticed with Blizzard, lately, is that (especially with the new games, notably WC3 and Diablo 2) they have tons of information on their site. Most of the statistics you could ever need are on there, and are updated with each patch.
From that point, it's just a matter of a few special cases (ie cube formulas and rune words in Diablo 2) or strategies (whether they're strategies for WC3 or character-development strategies for Diablo 2) that would lead to GameFAQs being the better resource. I got both of the Diablo 2 manuals (they were basically free), and barely found any use for them at all besides the stats lists, which, of course, were out of date after one patch. For the most part, I stick to console games when it comes to buying the guides, and when it comes to Blizzard's games I just check their site to find the battle.net site for that game, and then check GameFAQs for any additional information I need.
I usually print them out and 3-hole punch them, then stick them in a binder. If I can find any decent pictures of the cover art or the title I'll print that out as well for the binder's cover and edge.
I like having the books for most of my console RPGs, but when it comes down to it, many of them never had guides or the guides are hard to find (hell, I paid almost as much for one of the FF guides as I did for the game).
Something to add to this:
Most of the information in the FF9 book that you bought is also on PlayOnline, with the information you went to the site to find inserted in the proper places. Basically, the entire book is free on the site plus additional content, all you have to do is register.
I printed the thing out and it came out at about 2-3x as many pages as the book I spent $2 on (yes, two dollars, so not too much complaining, but then again, I was hoping to get all of the information, since I get guides around that price somewhat frequently).
GameSpot buys GameFAQs, GameSpot runs article asking if published game guides are dying... including the obligatory link to their own, somewhat newly acquired, fairly well know, GameFAQs.com (then again, maybe some of GameSpot's normal audience doesn't know GameFAQs.com too well).
Yeah, well, right now I'm in a bit of a monetary crunch so I've been downloading FAQs and printing them out, because I can get paper for about $10 for 2500 pages, vs. a guide for $10-20, but, for the most part, when the guide is easy to find, I'm perfectly willing to pick one up. That being said, there are many game types for which I'd never pick up a guide, yet I see plenty of them in print. RTS games? Anything useful the guide has to say I can pick up on my own after a couple times through the skirmish mode. FPS games? umm yeah right. Platformers, doubtful.
It all comes down to RPGs and fighting games, and many of the fighting games have the essentials (the moves list) online in a much more concise, valuable format.
Oh, and the FF9 guide really killed itself by telling you to go to the PlayOnline website to get more information on just about everything in the book, and basically having the entire book + the extra information available online to anyone that bothered to sign up (and it's all still there if anyone wants it), including most of the artwork from the book.
Tournament figher: Street Fighter. Brawler: Final Fight (or more recently, The Bouncer). You probably did know the difference but the latter category didn't occur to you... brawlers aren't extremely common these days, and most people just call tournament fighters "fighting games".
:-)
.hack has menus for spells and skills, but at the basic level you move around and attack with your weapon by just doing it. Diablo is almost entirely directly controlled (and I believe this is part of why so many people have problems with it being called an RPG, although the fact that there are so many enemies you can wear out your mouse playing it also causes a lot of it).
OK, I get it now, it's probably more that I haven't really played a brawler since the Genesis days than anything else, unless you include the extra mode in a couple of the Tekken console games. For some reason I was thinking that there might be some kind of genre distinction between Virtua Fighter and Tekken (and there might be in Japan, where the fighting games are taken a little more seriously it seems).
I can't, but I think the main reason for that is precisely the existence of these two significantly different categories of games which are both referred to as RPGs.
There's a lot of blending of categories on both sides, too, and a lot of games that incorporate 'RPG elements', such as Deus Ex and the handful of card games out there (Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, etc). Then there's the argument over whether or not Diablo is an RPG, and the games that came out using a similar style.
The way I'd probably do it is to give a list of characteristics, and the more a game has, the more RPG-like it is:
* Strong story - the story drives the action rather than vice versa
* Battles where you give commands to your characters rather than controlling their actions in realtime (there are a few borderline games like Secret of Mana, but even that has menus)
This is really highly dependant on the battle system used in the game.
* Experience points you earn by defeating monsters, or some equivalent system (such as FFX's Sphere Grid)
Or FF2 and some of the SaGa games using increasing skills based on use rather than just experience points with skill point rewards. I have a hard time thinking of any game that throws out experience entirely without trying to replace it with some kind of reward system for sinking time, though.
* Fantasy setting, or sci-fi but with magic (this is incidental, but seems to be very strongly associated with RPGs anyway)
I personally have a strong dislike of the fact that RPGs are so heavily linked with fantasy and magic. I would love to see more sci-fi, horror, etc. RPGs, but so many developers seem to be stuck in the fantasy rut (even the newer FFs that try to add some sci-fi elements don't really get out of the rut). Fallout was great both for it's system and for it's setting (and the way it incorporated the setting so well).
* You control more than one character at once
Which you don't do in the later Ultima games, not to mention many, many other computer RPGs, and a handful of console RPGs. Console RPGs have also gone more towards having most of the characters in a party change out quite a bit, to the point where you really only control one character through the game, but at any time you may control N number of characters.
* Stats-based gameplay in general
* Long playtime before beating the game
and, as mentioned before, the computer RPGs usually have the long playtimes in excess of most others. Some computer RPGs have even gone far overboard in the number of stats they display for the player, even if the player can have no control over those stats.
There are almost certainly more characteristics, but I don't feel like trying to think of all of them at the moment.
But of course, the main thing is that mo
Assembling an orchestra and learning about how different timbres from different instruments color the overall sound might be neat in a computer game.
Additionally, it would probably be easier to do (once the program is written) than actually assembling an orchestra simply for the purpose of teaching a theory class.
Other things I could think of that may help for teaching would be the ability to hear changes made to a piece of music, which may help some students to associate the notes on the page to the notes they hear (this was one of my problems when I took theory, mostly because the majority of my experience was through self-teaching a particular instrument, and especially because tablature is so common with guitar/bass music).
Or you could teach some theory with basic puzzles. Of course, I've always felt that a lot of music theory is like trying to find organization in chaos. There are some strict rules that some things can follow, but you can usually find examples that throw all the rules out the window. This tends to lead the development of games for teaching purposes to have either a very limited application, or to be almost too broad to really be categorized as games.
ok the place i remembered it was from some book, can't say really if it was one of zahns books, though iirc it was the mini-novel that came with tie fighter(pc game) in which some tie fighter burns upon entering it (haven't read it since we bought it though).
Anything can burn up on entry into an atmosphere, though. The ability to operate in the atmosphere has nothing to do with it, so much as the way you transition into it. It's like saying an amphibious vehicle can't operate on land because they weren't able to get it on-shore in an area where the beach isn't sloped at an angle the vehicle couldn't handle (though, admittedly, the example isn't quite right, because the vehicle controls whether or not it can handle re-entry for the most part, and many of the Star Wars ships were likely not supposed to be assembled in the atmosphere to begin with).
JRPGS:
Mostly console only which results in:
-You put the damm disc into the machine and it magically works! (though lately console games are begining to crop bad bugs)
-Graphics: Typically jrpgs are visually more pleasing than wrpgs, even though wrpgs run on much better hardware
This is just a matter of what pleases your eye. WRPGs tend towards more 'realistic' graphics, whereas JRPGs tend towards anime-like graphics. One is easier to pull off than the other (though I'd note that certain new technologies (like cell shading) are harder to actually do but look better for anime-style, and the game that's used this best so far in JRPGs is routinely panned as a bad game).
-Extremely linear storyline: some people like it and some people don't, I think this stems from most consoles not having a harddrive and also from Asian culture in general...
Being Asian myself and having experienced both Western and Eastern cultures all my life, what I found is people in the East typically like following the group line more than being a bit more individualistic. That being said most gamers in Asia care more about aestetics and a linear engaging storyline than more freedom to do what you want in a game. This might change since the advent of MMORPGs, Capcom's translation of GTA, and maybe even a J - KOTOR port... inspiring change in jrpg game design
I think another thing that influences the way in which the games play has to do with the roots of the genre in the two areas. FF and DQ were wildly popular in Japan and, as far as most western gamers know, are basically the roots of a great deal of what we call JRPGs. These games set the tone of much of the games that are played today. On the other hand, the western design owes a lot to the Ultima series, which was strongly based on moral choices effecting the game in one way or another. Over time people have tried to extend this by allowing more endings to games and having the overall look of the game change with your moral choices.
-replayabilty: really really limited, unless you have a lot of time on your hands (or are too poor buy a new game and too conscientious to pirate one) to unlock secrets (of which are important to some and not important to most people) or replay the same exact game experience over and over over again. Game times are also typically also around 20-30 hours.
This is also why there are a lot more time-sink type of side-quests in JRPGs. You could spend hours and hours doing things totally unrelated to the plot in later FF games and Shenmue, but ultimately you have to go back to the story to finish the game. On the other hand, in the western games sometimes the side-quests have little to differentiate them from the main quests, or can influence what happens in the main quests of the game.
WRPGS:
Mostly PC only which results in:
-Bugs galor! Patches and Driver downloads are very common.
This depends highly on the developers of the game in question, and the system on which you play it. Many of those bugs can be hardware specific, which means some portion of the player base never sees them in the first place. Also, RPGs, until very recently, have tended to be somewhat far behind the curve in terms of graphics, so they've escaped many of the bugs that FPS players are used to. OTOH, RPG players don't always keep up with the hardware side the way FPS players would, so they may still be having problems that an FPS player would not (because of newer, more capable hardware).
-Graphics: Graphics in game are now almost par (The exception is Morrowind) but still not as good as JRPGs. Cinematic movies typically suck or are nonexistent (if you consider Diablo an rpg then that's the exception) compared to JRPGs.
But many would say that cinematic sequences are a primary drawback of JRPGs in the first place, as they take you out of character and remove some of your influence over the story. Similarly, the graphics are just as good in most western RPGs as thos
I think it's more to the point that FF is the most well-known of the JRPG series. Even most of the stuff mentioned in the previous post was at least published by Enix, which is part of Square now.
Personally, I like the SaGa series (at least, what I've played of it, which admittedly isn't much), but it's very definitely a different style of game. Still, the games are very much story-driven, just as the FF games are, even if you get to choose the order in which the parts of the story are told.
Hardly! Dood, they aren't even close.
Are you trying to say that UT is a completely different game from Q3 when playing 1v1? UT was built to feel like Quake by design. Q3 was evolved from Quake through Q2 (and many people complained about the changes in Q2, though most of them stayed in Q3). Someone that played Quake and never touched Q2 or Q3 (though admittedly the chances of that are near 0, despite the fact that Quake's multiplayer outlived Q2 quite well) would feel right at home in UT, except that they'd have to get used to the appearance and the weapons. The core skills of 1v1 are easily translatable to any game, as long as you play 1v1. Once you move to all out DM or team-DM, you require additional skills to really succeed, although a strong 1v1 player should remain a strong DMer, and can be a very solid team-DMer.
Again, this isn't so. Really, team games only add team play to the 1v1 experience. Accuracy, stategy, planning, foresight, attitude, they are all there.
Perhaps I simply haven't seen enough LAN play to have seen attitudes in 1v1 that are even compatible with team play, let alone helpful. As for strategy, planning, and foresight, all of those things are required in both situations, but the applications are different (and hence not as translatable without significant time). Many team-based players will play 1v1 specifically to enhance the portions of their game that can be helped (specifically the ability to remove an enemy quickly and to control an area). The style of 1v1 player would also effect what roles they would even be good at in the first place, because a heavily confrontational player would be best at defense or support roles on offense, while a stealthy player would be best at the more traditional offensive roles (ie flag runners). Still, the 1v1 atmosphere doesn't prepare people for interaction with their team, and is more highly oriented to the kill than the majority of roles in a team-based game (ie forward defense is there to weaken enemies and warn rear defense, supporting offense is there to punch holes and secure areas for the rest of offense, the rest of offense would normally only have a single objective completely unrelated to killing, and would even have to ignore enemy defense in many cases).
Or, perhaps, you are so out of synch with the pro FPS world and have entirely missed out on what's happening at the upper levels. Sure, there might be some great and fun games online, but the real money and the real games are, and will be, at LAN tournaments.
While this could be the case, and I don't deny that the money is (and at least for the forseeable future will be) at LAN tournaments, I haven't seen LAN tournaments putting out the money for team-based games, regardless of the fact that there are far more players playing the team-based games. There are enough people playing 1v1 and the money required is small enough to continue being the main draw of LAN tournaments for a while, but the 1v1 population has been dwindling for quite some time now, and will continue to do so.
There are so many reasons for this, I can't believe you can't see it. Well, no problem, there has to diversity and a fringe to every field.
The main thing is you've obviously found your religion, and it's providing you with all the comforts that beliefs can do. Play on dood.
Obviously, my religion is Nintendo, but that's a different story. Then again, the numbers show that the fringe is in DM and 1v1, but I guess some people don't care as long as you can fill in a huge number of slots on a tournament ladder with 1% of the player base, just because it takes fewer people to fill a slot.
I've noted the lack of good terms for these two types of game before. It's kind of annoying, because they're really separate genres, or at least subgenres, that have about as much in common as go-kart racing and a realistic car simulation, or tournament fighters and brawlers, but people who don't really know anything about either one tend to assume they're the same since they have the same name. "Oh, that's an RPG, you'd like that."
;)
I agree, and even though I like fighting games I don't really know the difference between say a brawler or a tournament fighter (though if I knew, it might explain some of my likes/dislikes in those cases). Personally, I tend to like both console- and computer- RPGs, but like them for different reasons (and part of that is probably because I grew up with both systems and approached them both without expectations either way). Console-RPGs and Computer-RPGs don't share a lot in common other than say various stats for the characters, but then RPG tends to be a fairly watered-down term with any electronic game, anyway (try defining what makes a game an RPG when it comes to computer or console-based games).
I think the most accurate term for what I generally end up calling console-style RPGs is "story-driven RPGs" (or "plot-driven RPGs" if you won't accept that... some computer-style RPGs might be considered story-driven, but very few if any even have a plot).
I usually use story-driven for the typical FF-type games. It still fits with say SaGa or Legend of Mana, but doesn't seem to apply as much, so I try to let people know that those games are a bit different, and most people don't like SaGa for one reason or another
This leaves me without a good term for computer-style RPGs, though... tactical RPGs?
This one I usually leave at computer-style. Most people understand if they've played computer RPGs before, or I will associate it with one of the previous computer RPGs that is similar, such as Ultima or BG (which have decidedly different styles, too), or even Diablo, which is more of a hack-n-slash style.
That implies that console-style RPGs aren't tactical, though, which isn't always the case (FFX's battles seem pretty tactical) and the first thing it makes me think of is FF Tactics anyway.
Exactly, tactical RPGs tends to be used more for FFTactics, Tactics:Ogre, Front Mission 3, etc. Those games are very heavily tactical and a lot less on the RPG side anyway. I don't take it as meaning that other styles of RPG aren't really tactical, but rather than these emphasize tactics over anything else (and FF games really emphasize story, I'd guess computer games really emphasize character-building, but some people disagree, perhaps because they aren't really role-playing as much in these games as others).
Non-linear RPGs? That makes me think of Saga Frontier and Legend of Mana, even though I never played either of them. Freeform RPGs? I think that's the best I can come up with.
Both simply bring to mind the same thing, to me, and fits with some games in both computer-style and console-style RPGs. Computer games will often have a less linear style, while still being fairly linear (ie a side-quest may not be as obviously a side-quest in a computer-RPG, because the story may not be as clear-cut), SaGa Frontier and the like still tend to focus on the story, but let you play it out from a number of angles and in differing orders (ie you can start one story then switch to a different character if you get bored or feel that it's getting a little too challenging, or just feel like seeing another part of the story in the same time period).
Of course, to enable non-players to differentiate between them, they shouldn't have the "RPG" part in common, in which case I'd probably use RPG for computer-style RPGs (which I don't like, but to be fair, they involve a lot more "role-playing" than console-style RPGs do) and "plot game" for console-style RPGs. This would probabl
and then all of a sudden the whole thing goes away to pop up an IM window.
Why do Windows folk put up with this?
We don't, because we do one of two things:
-Shut off IM when playing games
-Set the IM not to popup the damned message windows
Most IM systems have other ways to notify you of an incoming message than to just put it in your face, such as changing the icon in the notification/status area, or playing a sound (I shut off all sounds in IM clients, though). Games are notoriously bad at handling multitasking except in very simple or turn-based windowed games, so gamers don't usually deal with the bs that a lot of windows applications like to pull on you (and this isn't a Windows-user thing, either, because it's just as easy to program a *nix app to do the same types of things, and many of them do).
I'd just like to add that playing Quake (and Half-life as well), eventually led to an increase in my accuracy both with the mouse and the keyboard, not only in hitting targets (regardless of whether it's Quake, the desktop, or any other GUI-based application), but also in typing in general, especially once I moved towards TF/TFC (which requires a slightly larger set of keys to use efficiently, and a much larger set of keys if you can't handle scripting very well).
When my dad sets up a new computer for someone that's never really owned a computer or spent much time on one, the first thing he does is set them down with Solitaire to learn how to use the mouse. I'd say that once they get to this point Quake could be an addition to improve simultaneous mouse/keyboard use as well as typing skills (believe me, once you start using the WASD setup for direction controls, that home row thing makes a lot more sense and you have a much greater ability to hit at least half the keys on the keyboard with good accuracy).
Of course, especially if you get out of 1v1, you also add in the need to track multiple targets, on-screen and off, through visual and audible cues. You could also add prioritization, through the trade-offs of various weapons as well as the trade-offs of going for various weapons (anyone that played enough Quake DM knows that the rocket launcher on one particular level was excessively easy to camp, but the rewards for cleaning up that room were high in terms of # of frags, too).
I often see asian guys putting their cellphones on the table everywhere they go.
I see guys that are very definitely not asian that do this with all sorts of crap that should be in their pockets (ie wallet, keys, etc) and wonder how they get through a week without having it stolen (and, interestingly enough, they're usually the guys that can't find their stuff when they need to go home a few hours later). I'm not sure what it is, maybe some kind of phobia related to pockets, but it has nothing to do with race, and rarely has anything to do with needing to show off all of the crap in their pockets.
The most I'll put on a table that I'm not using right at the moment is a pack of cigarettes and a lighter, and even then that's only in places where I can smoke without going outside.
Video games have had a bad rap recently but that's purely because of infamously violent video games stealing the attention from the innumerable other nonviolent and nonsexual computer games which are simply a lot less noticed by either the pro or anti video game camps.
/. story) was using the NWN engine and allowed you to choose a side in the American Revolution, and is supposed to give fairly realistic consequences to your actions, not to mention that a game about a war that doesn't include violence is simply masking the truth of the matter.
As the article pointed out, though, it's not violence or controversial storylines that make a game inappropriate. Another game they made (other than the one they mention in the
The point is to get people to learn and, at the same time, to see the consequences of bad choices without having to suffer the real-life consequences. It enhances the experience over simply telling people (or having them read out of a book) what happens if this is done, or what happened in the past. Additionally, they mention that the games are used as an enhancement of a more 'normal' education, not in place of normal student-teacher interaction (in other words, there would still be normal lessons to make sure, for instance, that if someone actually manages to win the American Revolution as the British in a simulation, that they understand where their actions deviated from those of the British to allow them to win).
I think the reason they use the terms "Western" and "Eastern" is that they identified the games based on their place of origin, and the reason you (and I) use "computer RPG" and "console RPG" is because we identify them based on their platform. Now, consoles are a lot more popular in Japan than PCs, and perhaps vice versa in the US (although certainly not by as much). However, I think you're reading too much into this. There's absolutely no reason you can't write a {Western,console-style} RPG for the PC, and little reason it can't go the other way, although computer-style RPGs do tend to use features of the PC such as hard disks and network access that until recently haven't been available on consoles, and still aren't standard equipment.
I think the terms Console-RPG and Computer-RPG are used as much as Eastern-/Western- or American-/Japanese-, and all related to the primary origin of the style rather than any limitations. I've played some really bad ports of Console-RPGs, and I've played some Console-RPGs that were released only on the PC. Similarly, I've played some Computer-RPGs that were released only on a console (although most of these blend the elements of each style). You could probably also argue that Planescape:Torment had a lot of elements of a Console-RPG, despite being based on the BG engine and being a PC-only release.
It has nothing to do with the requirements of the games, simply with the origins of the games, as well as the platform on which they are dominant (ie the FF series is very strong on consoles, the Baldur's Gate series is very strong on PCs, but you also see a very large number of games similar to FF on consoles, and a large number of games similar to BG on the PC (not just because Square makes a lot of console RPGs and a lot of PC-RPGs use the BG engine).
It's not that the two platforms limit the games this way (although they may have in the past), it's that it's the traditional style of play on those platforms which leads to the genres being named this way. The FF games date back to the NES and span at least 4 major consoles (soon to be 5). The Ultima games date back to PCs most people probably couldn't even find today, and span most of the major Intel processors.
Well, if Fatal1ty can take three months to learn UT and then win a top tournament against guys who've played it since day one, you must realize that not only must he be skilled but he must have sufficent time to train.
Like I said the first time you pointed that out, UT's physics are very similar to Quake 1's physics, so it's just the weapons and maps at that point. That, and the fact that UT's community is smaller than Quake3's, iirc. Of course it takes time to get the differences down, but at the core it's still the same game. It's not like trying to move to something completely different, such as CS or TFC.
My point is, has been, and remains that 1v1 pro comps are the place to see the best. Sure, Fatal1ty would be an awesome team member, and I've seen serious top level team games, but it's never as intense as it gets when it's one on one.
1v1 skills don't necessarily translate to team-level games, there's a lot more that needs to be learned moving over. Of course, a 1v1 player can be utilized by a team if they can teach that player to stay in a particular area and put defensive priorities first, but most of the skills that are important for 1v1 are much less important for a team.
I guess it's like sex in the sense that a group would never be as intimate as an individual. I believe the best games happen when it gets "personal".
I guess it all comes down to personal preference. I still don't feel the best teams are the ones playing in LAN games, so the best team matches are still happening online.
heh, I changed my redundant modifier in my preferences because:
a) one of my posts got modded redundant when it clearly wasn't and
b) a lot of the posts I see in metamoderation that are marked redundant clearly are not
Maybe people just don't know what redundant means (maybe like the word ironic, they think they know what it means...).
Now, if you posted it three times, 2 of those would be redundant. Oh, and this post is probably redundant as well. Everything below my previous post is, obviously, off-topic. Since my karma hasn't moved in almost a year, I can't say I really give a shit if my posts are marked off-topic, either (as long as they actually are off-topic).
Those stats are pretty meaningless in this discussion. Half-Life already has lots of great mods, and everyone already knows it's the most popular online game today. The question is, is it the most popular because it has lots of great mods, or does it have lots of great mods because it's the most popular? Those stats don't answer any questions.
There's not much of a question there, because those stats are multiplayer only, and everyone knows that the stats also show the default HL dm is played by very few players. It's most popular because it has the most popular mods, plain and simple (and actually, you could probably say most popular mod and still be right, but there might be one or two mods that are doing better than a few other games as a whole).
As to the question of how this came to be, it may be more simple than people think. For one, the single player game was extremely popular, as you stated later in your post, so pretty much everyone had the game for ~6 months before a single mod came out anyway. Secondly, the HL SDK came out close to 8 months before the Quake 3 retail release, although Q3 betas and tools were released close to the same time as the HL SDK. Q3 also changed some things in regards to how mods are built and how they interface with the game engine, whereas HL mods are not very different from Q2 mods in terms of coding (and a lot of the mod developers from Q2's community came over to HL, giving us CS and many other mods).
Personally, I think it's a mix of both. HL is a great single player game, everyone who cared about PC gaming bought it. But it wouldn't have lasted without the mods.
Something else to note is that Valve hyped their support of the mod community long before releasing a single tool, and even before the game came out. They did this by bringing in Team Fortress Software and stating that TF2 would be an expansion pack for Half-life, or possibly included in the retail box. Most of us know where it went from there, but a large number of TF players bought Half-Life because they believed they would need it for TF2 (yeah, it's not a great idea to do that if TF2 hasn't been released yet, but it's the sort of thing that happens and the sort of thing that companies like Valve know will happen). I'm not going to complain about purchasing HL, because it gave me more than enough hours of play (through TFC) to justify the money, but the single player experience, for some of us, did not live up to the hype that seemingly everyone puts on it.
Dood this is the net, they broadcast them last year via GTV [geeteevee.com] just so you don't have to physical go. As well, that's why they demo the games, so they can be enjoyed later, wherever. Really, you should check it out, it's intense.
Actually, watching people play FPS games makes me physically ill. It's the only form of motion sickness I've ever had problems with in my life. 20 minutes is the longest I've ever managed without having to lie down, and that was watching my own demos to make sure I had gotten everything I needed (instructional demos regarding conc-jumps for cz2 in TFC).
As for community, you won't see me disagreeing here. Being part of a community is essential to development. We live in a social web whose strands are teachings. However, community does not imply team game play nor disfranchise single players game styles. Furthermore, the best of the best ultimately comes down to individuals. The edge can cut, but the tip is sharpest.
From a strictly teamplay standpoint, though, when playing team games only, and individual will perform best when working with a team that he has spent a good amount of time getting used to. Two players with a similar style on the same team can work together very well, or they can trip over each other's feet, and it's a matter of knowing the other player's habits and working with each other that determines whether the team comes off as strong or weak. 4 defenders that have worked together for a long time will know exactly what communication needs to be in place, and where excess kicks in, and it will benefit them a great deal, but a new person replacing one of those 4 can be the greatest player in the world and can take down the whole team by overrunning the others' comms or not communicating enough. Similarly, when working on defense, a player has to know how much he must roam vs. how how much roaming is too much, and interferes with the other defenders (or leaves his assumed spot open).
This is why I think team-based multiplayer has not done as well, or shown skill levels as well, in LAN atmospheres. The teams tend to be people that haven't worked together often, and they end up with a rather rushed plan. In 1v1 you don't worry about stepping on others' toes or moving too far out of place, or over-/under- communicating. In a team, all of these are factors, and are only improved with time together, as a group. Of course, in theory, a team can be built with several offense and defense groups that work in similar ways in terms of general behavior and offense-to-defense (and vice-versa) communication and you can interchange your O and D groups with little trouble, but you'll always have a certain level of efficiency with the players that work together most as an offense or a defense.
Now, as for how team-based players end up in 1v1, the skillsets have some moderate crossover, but the player will always need some amount of work to do well in whichever environment they have not played in for a while. Players don't even do well bouncing back and forth between different team games in most cases, so there's little chance that someone can go straight from playing TFC to owning an entire LAN full of 1v1 players. It is possible, however, that someone that decided to do their best in 1v1 could take some time away from more serious team-play for a while and focus on 1v1 until the actual LAN occurs, and do at least fairly well for themselves.
Vice City was GTA 3.5, or something like that.
They kept repeating that Vice City would not be GTA 4, yet people keep making that mistake since they didn't call it something like GTA3-2:Vice City. The game evolved from GTA3, but it wasn't THAT much of a change in terms of the game engine.