Yes, because each and every person out there would make the obvious cognitive leap that raising charity money via tournaments of a futuristic game based on fragging aliens equates to condoning kids bringing guns to school and shooting their classmates, right?/sarcasm
This is asinine. Does the school have a football team? A wrestling team? Or do those not count as violent?
Xbox Live online gaming service has set a new standard for online gaming with more than 1.4 million members around the world.
Yes! Never before have you been able to hear teenagers get yelled at by their parents, and foul-mouthed 10 year-olds exclaim that you're a "fucking gay homo faggot" before they drop out of the middle of the game!
Now, you too can wonder in amazement how no one is playing the game you want online, because it's 6 months old and they're all playing the latest and greatest!
Truly, Xbox Live has elevated PC gaming to new heights.
I don't think there are many MMO players out there who aren't painfully aware of Sony's existance in the MMO field. Or more accurately, aren't painfully aware of Sony's inpetitude.
Sony set the bar so low for customer service and game quality with EverQuest that they've become something of a running joke amongst many players.
Case in point: How many of you old EQ players remember Sony bringing down the EQ servers for a patch scheduled for 4 hours, bringing them back up 12 hours later, then, when no one can connect to their servers, blame each and every players' ISP for the problem. Then, when they finally did fix things, they'd have to take the servers down for yet another emergency patch. Or how about being told by a guide that he can't help you, even though you're stuck in a wall, because it's against policy to assist players unless their problem is one of a few SOE-confirmed bugs.
Anyways, my point is, I don't think Sony increasing their visibility is going to have much of an effect because everyone already knows they're around, and their reputation is laughably bad. I'd be more worried about SOE using this as a way to screw Turbine.
I can see your average user getting pretty bent out of shape over spam and spyware. But your average Slashdotter is probably aware of the tools that can be used to combat these things. Yes, they're both annoying, but they can be minimized to the point of being trivial.
What has me ready to give up on the internet is that you can't play a single fucking multiplayer game anywhere without being inundated by a bunch of hostile, barely-literate smacktards.
I'm a 24 year-old network admin that's tired of dealing with Windows falling apart, or having to beat my Linux box into submission to make it do what I want.
I've used OSX before, briefly, before; the university was covered in iMacs. But only to print papers, or check a website. Then, just after Christmas, I was house sitting for my sister, a technophobe that manages to use an older G4 iMac. Having a week to sit down with the OS, my reaction now is this:
I'm not running any sort of heavy duty server, so fucking forget dealing with Linux. And if I'm going to pay for an OS, OSX runs rings around the best things Microsoft could even conceive. Now, how can I justify buying a full-priced Mac when I already have a pretty uber gaming PC?
This announcement couldn't have been more perfectly timed. I adore my iPod. I'm tired of PCs. And this thing's affordable and works with the pretty pricey monitor I've already got.
If they had an option to upgrade the video card in this thing to something like a 9600/9800 Pro, I'd be absolutely sold, but as it is, I'll probably buy one, anyways.
That's probably because EVE requires the same degree of dedicated masochism that FFXI does.
I was excited about EVE, but after a friend got into beta and described what was, essentially, a sadistically slow-paced, frustrating game where most of your activities didn't even necessitate your being at the keyboard, but where you could lose [i]everything[/i] rather rapidly, I completely lost interest.
EVE isn't talked about because everything about the game reaks of elitism, and it's a far cry from accessible to more casual gamers.
I don't know, on one hand, I welcome challenge in a game, but on the other, I think it'll be exactly as you describe.
So long as MMOs are nothing but graphical spreadsheets, with the game engine handling (read: mangling) all the subtleties of combat, "challenge" is sort of a misnomer.
WoW isn't any more or less challenging than any other MMO I've ever played. EQ, DAoC, UO, AO, WoW... they're all of roughly the same complexity, with pretty shallow combat. The only challenges that come into play are getting the smacktards in your group to do their job right, and your frustration.
Indeed, when I read that Vanguard will be challenging, what I understand is "Vanguard will have horendously bad death pentalties and a a mind-blowingly long leveling treadmill."
"Nintendo is the most original and innovative game developer there is!"
Seriously, I look at this as a corrolary to the article posted yesterday. And I think Woody says it best: this is nothing but shameless franchise whoring. This isn't the sort of thing that's going to get Gamecube sales up.
I don't know what the deal is, but Nintendo needs to get their fucking act together with the GCN.
Look back at the SNES days: a huge number of games spanning every genre. Awesome first and third party support. Far, far fewer instances of Nintendo's franchise whoring. The SNES has, in my opinion, the best game lineup any console's ever had. Even today, I find myself spending more time with SNES9x than I do my GCN.
What the hell has Nintendo done? Is there a cultural difference at the company? Do developers have the perception that everything on the GCN needs to be aimed at the 10-and-under crowd?
Nintendo's got the hardware - the Gamecube is so sleek and well-made that it makes the PS2 and Xbox sseem downright amateurish in comparison. Their stance on online support is asinine. Yes, having a bunch of friends over to play is more fun than online multiplayer, but for many of us that don't have gamer friends, live far away from our gamer friends, or aren't 8 years old, having our friends over after school to play Pokemon, at the very least online multiplayer would let us play)!
The fact that the GCN's sales are poor shouldn't suprise anyone. In this generation of the consoles wars, Nintendo strutted out with the most awesome equipment there was, and then promptly impaled themselves on their own sword.
I think it's too late for the GCN. Let's hope Nintendo stops catering to the Pokemon demographic with the Revolution, and goes back to their old SNES days.
Sorry to say, but I took a while to think about it, and I can't remember. I remember when I tried to make a toon on Emerald, all my regular names were taken, and I had to make up something new. On Markov (Vanu), I went by Vex and sp3ctre, but I can't for the life of me remember what I used on Emerald.
I wasn't exactly a big part of Sturmgrenadier, though. I only stuck around for a few weeks. I was in Hornet - was a lot of fun having the coordinated hot drop of half a dozen (or more) Vanguards into some enemy base's back yard, and I can only imagine the "oh shit!" factor something like that has on the enemy.
But because of the way the channels were structured, there wasn't much of an opportunity to talk to people and get to know them. I didn't know voices, I didn't really know anyone, and still felt like a stranger, so I just stopped coming around.
It was a fun time, and really, had I stuck it out, I'm sure I would've enjoyed it, but I just had a hard time really getting integrated into the unit, and by the time I joined up, my interest in PS was waning, anyways.
I mean, just the concept of it seemed awesome: a futurisic, skill-based MMO with real-time wars!
In reality, the game falls flat. This is mainly because while the game is designed as a war sim, many (if not most) of the players play it like a MMO Quake deathmatch. People are absolutely obsessed with kill stats; rewards are based on kills, your status is based on kills. So while your side needs some (very limited, admittedly) logistics to win (such as driving AMSes, dropship pilots, medics, engineers, anti-aicraft), 9 out of 10 people are running around as infantry with the Heavy Assault weapons, reinforced exoskeletons, and personal shields, because it's the best setup for fragging (indoors; outdoors, most of them fly Reavers and spend all their time rocket-spamming infantry that can't really fight back).
Everything about the game just feels like it failed. There's no cooperation, no coordination, the devs don't even try to balance weapons (i.e. there's this weapon called the Maelstrom - a heavy assault weapon that fires a chain-lash grenade that can lash through doors - the end result is one weapon that renders all the special assault weapons obsolete, and allows one person to clear entire rooms and hallways of other people by firing through walls), there's no war being faught... it's just a giant frag-fast with a terrible engine and some of the worst, most frustrating net code I've ever seen.
So, thumbs up for Planetside's concept, but the devs took what could've been a truly unique and rewarding game, and stripped out all the unique and rewarding features so that they could compete with the likes of Quake. The game has the most arrogant, immature, and elitist community I've ever had the misfortune of experiencing, too.
Sure, there are outfits that are the exception: Glastonbury Brigade, Sturmgrenadier, and Warrior Nation (all outfits I've been a part of), but it's still hard for one outfit to make much headway in the face of a giant, swarming zerg of killwhores.
The best way I can convery the concept to anyone who hasn't played it is this:
Imagine you're playing a game of Tribes CTF. You've got 16 people on your team. 3 guys are genuinely trying to cooperate and get the other team's flag. 8 guys are completely ignoring the flag and are just trying to frag the other team, 1 idiot's running around TKing your guys and killing your own turrets, 2 more guys are arguing over a strategy to get the other flag, even though they're both, obviously barely-literate, mongoloid cock jockeys, the only guy with a vehicle is flying a bomber with no bombadier/gunner, and the last guy's AFK.
That's what Planetside feels like: a public CTF server. Except in Planetside, you have to pay a monthly fee.
Maybe some day they'll turn it around, but for the foreseeable future, I wouldn't recommend that game to anyone.
You may want to look into the Motorla V60 line. They're still being manufactured, they're tough as nails, and no-frills at all. Pretty cheap, too.
But I agree, I think newer phones designed for basic functionality would do well. As it is, the last few phones I've owned have been too big, bloated, and blumsy to match the V60 in ease of use, but nowhere near functional and practical enough to replace a PDA. I'm tired of these half-functional phones, and would gladly jump at the opportunity for a simple phone that's small, tough, easy to use, and looks good.
And no doubt, Verizon will pick one up, except the hard drive capacity will be reduced to 1GB, and it will have its multimedia features and bluetooth removed. Of course, they'll compensate by branding it with a five Verizon logos on the outside, and 3 Verizon banners in the software that can't be changed/removed, and the clock will spent as much time displaying "Verizon Wireless" as it does the time.
Seriously, I'm impressed by these phones, but they're like auto manufacturers' concept cars. And just like I go to the Detroit Auto Show every year and drool over the amazing concept cars (i.e. last year's Eclipse), when the things finally do hit the road, they're stripped-down, boring, tame, overpriced, and not at all exciting.
The same thing happens with cell phones (especially after Verizon has a hand in crippling them a la the Audiovox CDM-8900). They're exciting now, sure, but when these come out, they'll be advertised at $400, but existing customers will have to pay $800 for them, and half the features will have mysteriously vaporized.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love the idea of having one unit that takes the place of an iPod and a PDA and a cell phone in an elegant design, but it'll be another 3-4 years before we have those, and if Verizon, Sprint and the like have any say in it, they'll never be affordable to the masses.
You make a few good points. I actually intended to mention, though, that I've played just about all the big-name titles on the GCN. But I've been bitten in the ass about buying Nintendo games before; I always pay full price, beat them in a week or two, and then leave them there, collecting dust for months before I trade them in for something else. Cheaper to just rent.
Pikmin didn't seem like a bad game at all, but it just didn't grab me. I thought F-Zero was a terrible racing game that was way too difficult to boot. Viewtiful Joe was a lot of fun, but the difficulty level was a bit high. Harvest Moon, well, I didn't like it on the SNES, so I didn't bother, here. And Soul Calibur 2, while I completely agree is cool, I've already got on the Xbox.
The Dreamcast comparison is a good one, though. I had a Dreamcast. PSO was (and remains) one of my favorite games (yes, I had it on the GCN and the Xbox, but the rampant cheating online made it unplayable, and the fact that it was nothing but a port, as opposed to an update, really irked me) - I had my Dreamcast essentially just for PSO, and practically nothing else on the console interested me. I've never thought of it before, but you're right, it reminds me a lot of the GCN. At least Nintendo's got a good controller, though.;)...although, it's kind of funny (and sad) -- the Dreamcast had more online functionality 4 years ago than the GCN's had to date.
One other reason I think Nintendo really dropped the ball: Squaresoft.
Nintendo finally gets Square to make a game for the GCN, and instead of a new Sieken Densetsu, or a new franchise, or a new Final Fantasy Tactics, they release that absolutely abhorrent Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. The gameplay was amazingly shallow and repetative. It was one of the worst (not buggy or unprofessional, I mean just plain bad) single player games I've ever played, and the GBA connectivity "feature" was the kiss of death. I mean, had it been an actual feature (instead of a requirement), it could've been fun, but having the game designed from the ground up around multiplayer with multiple GBAs and link cables is, I believe, the reason the game was so shockingly bad.
Nintendo needs to strive to be more like they were in the SNES days... better third party support, less derrivative crap from their first party titles, and fewer failed peripherals and gimmicks.
*sigh*
Sorry for the rant, just frustrated with Nintendo, now that I'm thinking about it.;)
First off, a bit of a disclaimer: I own all 3 current consoles, and I enjoy them all....but let's be honest. I own, oh, say 20 games for my PS2. Mostly RPGs, plus Armored Core and a handful of others.
For the Xbox, I own about 15 games. Obviously, Halo, Halo 2... plus MechAssault 2, Breakdown, Burnout 3, Soul Calibur, Rainbow 6, Splinter Cell 2... Anything cross-platform, I get on the Xbox.
For the Gamecube? I have 2 games. Smash Bros and Mario Kart. I had Metroid Prime and Echoes - both were great the first time through for all of a few hours. Wind Waker? Lame concept - Link shouldn't be a fat little kid, but all and all a pretty decent game. Mario Sunshine? It may as well have been called random_generic_platformer01.
That's the problem with Nintendo: Nintendo is the problem with Nintendo.
The Gamecube has awesome hardware. It's without a doubt the coolest console from a hardware perspective. It has damned near Xbox-level performance in a much smaller, sleeker package. The controller? The Wavebird is the best controller ever made (with the Xbox controller S coming in second). From a hardware perspective, it makes the PS2 (and those godawful Dual Shock controllers) seem downright amateurish, and the Xbox seem like it was designed by a neaderthal.
But the PS2 has fantastic 3rd party support, with fairly solid first party support.
Xbox has lacking 3rd party support, but is great for cross-platform games because of its power, and Xbox Live makes all the difference in the world.
Nintendo? They have some of the most solid first-party support ever, but their first party games either...
A) have absolute SHIT for replayability; many of Nintendo's first-party games are definitely worth a rental, but not worth buying. Or...
B) Require that you have multiple friends over to really get the most out of (a design tendancy that obviously favors the younger Hey, come over to my place after school crowd).
Meanwhile, Nintendo's 3rd-party support is virtually non-existant. Their artistic style is almost hopelessly skewed towards Disney animation (and while there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, it's sort of limiting the scope of games that can be made - I mean, just think: if Pirates of the Carribean replaced Depp and co. with a bunch of animated characters styled after the 7 dwarves, would it really have the same flavor?)
So what this console race winds up looking like is Sony's kicking everyones' asses because of their fantastic 3rd party support, Microsoft's hanging in there because of a few awesome games and Xbox Live, and Nintendo's taking the most awesome console to date, and trying to sell it by whoring their own characters out more than a $5 Vegas hooker. Sure, sure, they're "innovative" but have you ever noticed how every time you want to take advantage of one of Nintendo's "innovations" you wind up having to buy a new peripheral?
The best thing Nintendo could do, in my eyes, anyways, is stick to making hardware (because they do a damned fine job of that), license their stable of franchises out to 3rd parties (I mean, just look what Retro managed with Metroid Prime - those fucktards at Nintendo let their most adult-oriented franchise just rot for years and years, cranking out the odd Super Metroid clone on the GBA, and then Retro takes it off their hands and makes one of the best consoles games ever), and try to build a functional platform behind their console; something like Xbox Live.
In the mean time, yeah, the Gamecube may sell as well as the Xbox, but I'd hazard a guess that your average Xbox owner is buying a lot more games than your average Gamecube owner. Maybe that is why stores are dropping it.
UT has added new weapons, new game modes, and has a large variety of maps available right out of the box.
Quake is still just about who finds the rocket launcher/rail gun first, and small, crowded arenas. They haven't changed weapons, the single-player mode is still "Hey, I can be like Doom, too!" and the multiplayer has been done better by dozens of games, now. It was being done better even when Quake 3 was new.
...but let's face it, this is Quake - the gameplay will still be stuck in 1996.
Unreal has grown up and matured. The FPS market is oversaturated with as it is, and there are a lot of good games. I know Quake has tons of name recognition, but is there really much room for a game that hasn't changed much of anything since its first incarnation 8 years ago?
I read the whole thread. My point is that your argument is bullshit. It makes the asinine assumption that all people have the means to purchase
Say some teenage kid downloads a warezed version of Photoshop, which then sits on his hard drive, never used. Was Adobe deprived of of a sale? Any rational person would say no.
Yes, it may take $1 or more worth of effort to download a single song off someone's P2P network of choice, but it takes little more effort to download a whole CD, or a movie, or a whole game.
What then? Because someone spent 2 minutes and then went to bed while his game downloaded means he would've otherwise spent $50 on the retail version of the game? That's laughable, and that's your argument.
What of people that don't want to support software vendors peddling DRM? What if the file isn't available on iTunes, or it is, and your player doesn't handle AAC files? Does Universal Records lose a sale because I downloaded a clip of a Jimmy Eat World concert that was never released for sale?
Your argument is so full of holes, it's laughable.
Not to say there aren't people that are happy enough with a downloaded version of something that would have otherwise purchased it, but to say that it's applicable in 100% of cases, or even the majority of cases, is asinine.
I could give anecdotal evidence to the contrary, as I'm sure many other Slashdotters could, and many have in the past. The simple fact is, some accountant's belief that non-existant sales equate to losses doesn't mean they are actual losses. A loss would require losing something - as in, something that exists in more than an abstract or hypothetical sense.
...because, apparently, everyone's trying to kill it.;)
Seriously, why does every new HD-based MP3 player need to be called an "iPod killer"? Is it impossible to have a successful product if it doesn't put the iPod to shame?
Look, there's no doubt the iPod is a great product. Apple's mixed enough marketing hype (and let's face it, a lot of the iPod's success has to be attributed to hype) with a great navigation tool and the best (bit still a far cry from ideal) online music store around. It's a genuinely high-quality product....but then again, so is Creative's Zen line. So are half a dozen other manufacturers' competetive products. Hell, my JetAudio iAudio M3 gets a bunch of oohs and aahs every time someone sees me using it, including iPod owners.
It's easy to beat the iPod on hardware; it's been done time and time again. iTMS, well, that's a mixed bag. Some people love it, and others couldn't possibly care less about it. Where the iPod is untouchable is mindshare; until you see Creative airing commercials for the Nomad during the Superbowl, no one will. Because, let's face it: just like Joe Sixpack thinks AOL is the internet, he thinks the iPod is the only digital audio player in town.
The games Nintendo succeeds with are ones that require interaction between others. Hell, Animal Crossing (and Pokémon, to an extent) is built almost entirely on social behavior. If you took games like those two online, you'd lose something.
How could adding online play possibly constitute "losing something" when it comes to gameplay? It certainly isn't coming at the expense of local multiplayer, or single player.
Look, this is exactly why Nintendo has such a reputation for building games for kids. Look beyond cutesy or cartoony graphics. Forget the lack of blood and gore. Those don't equate to kid-centric gameplay. Designing your games with the intent that they'll be played by Johnny 14 year-old with his buddies that come over after school, however, does.
The original Nintendo generation has grown up. We're in college and grad school, we've got wives and husbands and kids and jobs. Our friends have moved across town or across the country. We don't get to have our buddies over after school, now. Most of us don't even have the luxury of living in a dorm with dozens of potential gamers on our floor.
We are the ones that want online multiplayer; the older crowd. We don't get to enjoy those (fucking asinine) "features" Nintendo's so proud of, like necessitating GBAs and link cables for some half-assed multiplayer with people sitting right next to you.
I don't think anyone's going to argue - on those rare occaisions I can get my friends in one place, and we order some pizza and wings, throw back a few beers and beat the crap out of each other in Mario Kart or Smash Bros. or ESPN Football, it's a riot. Hell, the old Perfect Dark tournaments we'd run when I lived in the dorms were the most fun I've ever had gaming, this side of Mechwarrior leagues. But that doesn't happen too often.
What does happen often, though, is I've got a few hours of leisure time after work or class, and no one around. Do you have any idea how badly Smash Bros. sucks when you're playing by yourself against the computer? How about Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, or Zelda: Four Swords? They're terrible single-player games by today's standards.
Now, if they had online playability, and we could jump in a game with a friend from 2 states away, or hell, even a stranger, and play some co-op, or even just beat each other up, those games might appeal to a whole new market segment. But for the time being, Nintendo's own bull-headedness is relegating them to teenager types who've got the spare time, and that's why they're "kiddie" games.
Jebus McChrist, Nintendo, take yours heads out of your asses and give us a decent online platform. Get Square back. Do an update on Secret of Mana with online multiplayer. The concept excites me in ways video games shouldn't. How about getting Sega to make a new PSO that isn't a card game, or some bug-riddled piece of shit port of the exact game we played on the Dreamcast 5 years ago? How about some co-op Metroid, or online SSBM and Mario Kart? Releasing yet another Zelda spin-off with some GBA connectivity "feature" just shows that you've turned your back on the generation that made you successful in the first place.
Nintendo's got an awesome opportunity, here. Online games are neglected in two major ways: one, they're almost universally of the sports and FPS genres, and two, they're almost universally player vs. player, or maybe team vs. team. Co-op is sorely neglected. Non-FPS games are sorely neglected. Stop telling us what we want, and fucking give it to us!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because each and every person out there would make the obvious cognitive leap that raising charity money via tournaments of a futuristic game based on fragging aliens equates to condoning kids bringing guns to school and shooting their classmates, right? /sarcasm
This is asinine. Does the school have a football team? A wrestling team? Or do those not count as violent?
*sigh*
:P
That's what I get for trying to play Halo 2 while I type.
Forgot a , and PC s/b console...
Just ignore me.
Yes! Never before have you been able to hear teenagers get yelled at by their parents, and foul-mouthed 10 year-olds exclaim that you're a "fucking gay homo faggot" before they drop out of the middle of the game!
Now, you too can wonder in amazement how no one is playing the game you want online, because it's 6 months old and they're all playing the latest and greatest!
Truly, Xbox Live has elevated PC gaming to new heights.
I don't think there are many MMO players out there who aren't painfully aware of Sony's existance in the MMO field. Or more accurately, aren't painfully aware of Sony's inpetitude.
Sony set the bar so low for customer service and game quality with EverQuest that they've become something of a running joke amongst many players.
Case in point: How many of you old EQ players remember Sony bringing down the EQ servers for a patch scheduled for 4 hours, bringing them back up 12 hours later, then, when no one can connect to their servers, blame each and every players' ISP for the problem. Then, when they finally did fix things, they'd have to take the servers down for yet another emergency patch. Or how about being told by a guide that he can't help you, even though you're stuck in a wall, because it's against policy to assist players unless their problem is one of a few SOE-confirmed bugs.
Anyways, my point is, I don't think Sony increasing their visibility is going to have much of an effect because everyone already knows they're around, and their reputation is laughably bad. I'd be more worried about SOE using this as a way to screw Turbine.
So, we bitch when they cripple spam zombies, then we bitch when they raise the bandwidth cap.
Unbelievable.
Well, I, as a Comcast subscriber, am very happy with this change.
I can see your average user getting pretty bent out of shape over spam and spyware. But your average Slashdotter is probably aware of the tools that can be used to combat these things. Yes, they're both annoying, but they can be minimized to the point of being trivial.
What has me ready to give up on the internet is that you can't play a single fucking multiplayer game anywhere without being inundated by a bunch of hostile, barely-literate smacktards.
It's more than just your 50 year-old father.
I'm a 24 year-old network admin that's tired of dealing with Windows falling apart, or having to beat my Linux box into submission to make it do what I want.
I've used OSX before, briefly, before; the university was covered in iMacs. But only to print papers, or check a website. Then, just after Christmas, I was house sitting for my sister, a technophobe that manages to use an older G4 iMac. Having a week to sit down with the OS, my reaction now is this:
I'm not running any sort of heavy duty server, so fucking forget dealing with Linux. And if I'm going to pay for an OS, OSX runs rings around the best things Microsoft could even conceive. Now, how can I justify buying a full-priced Mac when I already have a pretty uber gaming PC?
This announcement couldn't have been more perfectly timed. I adore my iPod. I'm tired of PCs. And this thing's affordable and works with the pretty pricey monitor I've already got.
If they had an option to upgrade the video card in this thing to something like a 9600/9800 Pro, I'd be absolutely sold, but as it is, I'll probably buy one, anyways.
That's probably because EVE requires the same degree of dedicated masochism that FFXI does.
I was excited about EVE, but after a friend got into beta and described what was, essentially, a sadistically slow-paced, frustrating game where most of your activities didn't even necessitate your being at the keyboard, but where you could lose [i]everything[/i] rather rapidly, I completely lost interest.
EVE isn't talked about because everything about the game reaks of elitism, and it's a far cry from accessible to more casual gamers.
I don't know, on one hand, I welcome challenge in a game, but on the other, I think it'll be exactly as you describe.
So long as MMOs are nothing but graphical spreadsheets, with the game engine handling (read: mangling) all the subtleties of combat, "challenge" is sort of a misnomer.
WoW isn't any more or less challenging than any other MMO I've ever played. EQ, DAoC, UO, AO, WoW... they're all of roughly the same complexity, with pretty shallow combat. The only challenges that come into play are getting the smacktards in your group to do their job right, and your frustration.
Indeed, when I read that Vanguard will be challenging, what I understand is "Vanguard will have horendously bad death pentalties and a a mind-blowingly long leveling treadmill."
And like you said: Bollocks to that!
Okay fanboys, repeat after me:
"Nintendo is the most original and innovative game developer there is!"
Seriously, I look at this as a corrolary to the article posted yesterday. And I think Woody says it best: this is nothing but shameless franchise whoring. This isn't the sort of thing that's going to get Gamecube sales up.
That's cool and all, but when are they going to sell a release-quality game to their players? ;)
Karma be damned...
I don't know what the deal is, but Nintendo needs to get their fucking act together with the GCN.
Look back at the SNES days: a huge number of games spanning every genre. Awesome first and third party support. Far, far fewer instances of Nintendo's franchise whoring. The SNES has, in my opinion, the best game lineup any console's ever had. Even today, I find myself spending more time with SNES9x than I do my GCN.
What the hell has Nintendo done? Is there a cultural difference at the company? Do developers have the perception that everything on the GCN needs to be aimed at the 10-and-under crowd?
Nintendo's got the hardware - the Gamecube is so sleek and well-made that it makes the PS2 and Xbox sseem downright amateurish in comparison. Their stance on online support is asinine. Yes, having a bunch of friends over to play is more fun than online multiplayer, but for many of us that don't have gamer friends, live far away from our gamer friends, or aren't 8 years old, having our friends over after school to play Pokemon, at the very least online multiplayer would let us play)!
The fact that the GCN's sales are poor shouldn't suprise anyone. In this generation of the consoles wars, Nintendo strutted out with the most awesome equipment there was, and then promptly impaled themselves on their own sword.
I think it's too late for the GCN. Let's hope Nintendo stops catering to the Pokemon demographic with the Revolution, and goes back to their old SNES days.
Sorry to say, but I took a while to think about it, and I can't remember. I remember when I tried to make a toon on Emerald, all my regular names were taken, and I had to make up something new. On Markov (Vanu), I went by Vex and sp3ctre, but I can't for the life of me remember what I used on Emerald.
I wasn't exactly a big part of Sturmgrenadier, though. I only stuck around for a few weeks. I was in Hornet - was a lot of fun having the coordinated hot drop of half a dozen (or more) Vanguards into some enemy base's back yard, and I can only imagine the "oh shit!" factor something like that has on the enemy.
But because of the way the channels were structured, there wasn't much of an opportunity to talk to people and get to know them. I didn't know voices, I didn't really know anyone, and still felt like a stranger, so I just stopped coming around.
It was a fun time, and really, had I stuck it out, I'm sure I would've enjoyed it, but I just had a hard time really getting integrated into the unit, and by the time I joined up, my interest in PS was waning, anyways.
I mean, just the concept of it seemed awesome: a futurisic, skill-based MMO with real-time wars!
In reality, the game falls flat. This is mainly because while the game is designed as a war sim, many (if not most) of the players play it like a MMO Quake deathmatch. People are absolutely obsessed with kill stats; rewards are based on kills, your status is based on kills. So while your side needs some (very limited, admittedly) logistics to win (such as driving AMSes, dropship pilots, medics, engineers, anti-aicraft), 9 out of 10 people are running around as infantry with the Heavy Assault weapons, reinforced exoskeletons, and personal shields, because it's the best setup for fragging (indoors; outdoors, most of them fly Reavers and spend all their time rocket-spamming infantry that can't really fight back).
Everything about the game just feels like it failed. There's no cooperation, no coordination, the devs don't even try to balance weapons (i.e. there's this weapon called the Maelstrom - a heavy assault weapon that fires a chain-lash grenade that can lash through doors - the end result is one weapon that renders all the special assault weapons obsolete, and allows one person to clear entire rooms and hallways of other people by firing through walls), there's no war being faught... it's just a giant frag-fast with a terrible engine and some of the worst, most frustrating net code I've ever seen.
So, thumbs up for Planetside's concept, but the devs took what could've been a truly unique and rewarding game, and stripped out all the unique and rewarding features so that they could compete with the likes of Quake. The game has the most arrogant, immature, and elitist community I've ever had the misfortune of experiencing, too.
Sure, there are outfits that are the exception: Glastonbury Brigade, Sturmgrenadier, and Warrior Nation (all outfits I've been a part of), but it's still hard for one outfit to make much headway in the face of a giant, swarming zerg of killwhores.
The best way I can convery the concept to anyone who hasn't played it is this:
Imagine you're playing a game of Tribes CTF. You've got 16 people on your team. 3 guys are genuinely trying to cooperate and get the other team's flag. 8 guys are completely ignoring the flag and are just trying to frag the other team, 1 idiot's running around TKing your guys and killing your own turrets, 2 more guys are arguing over a strategy to get the other flag, even though they're both, obviously barely-literate, mongoloid cock jockeys, the only guy with a vehicle is flying a bomber with no bombadier/gunner, and the last guy's AFK.
That's what Planetside feels like: a public CTF server. Except in Planetside, you have to pay a monthly fee.
Maybe some day they'll turn it around, but for the foreseeable future, I wouldn't recommend that game to anyone.
You may want to look into the Motorla V60 line. They're still being manufactured, they're tough as nails, and no-frills at all. Pretty cheap, too.
But I agree, I think newer phones designed for basic functionality would do well. As it is, the last few phones I've owned have been too big, bloated, and blumsy to match the V60 in ease of use, but nowhere near functional and practical enough to replace a PDA. I'm tired of these half-functional phones, and would gladly jump at the opportunity for a simple phone that's small, tough, easy to use, and looks good.
And no doubt, Verizon will pick one up, except the hard drive capacity will be reduced to 1GB, and it will have its multimedia features and bluetooth removed. Of course, they'll compensate by branding it with a five Verizon logos on the outside, and 3 Verizon banners in the software that can't be changed/removed, and the clock will spent as much time displaying "Verizon Wireless" as it does the time.
Seriously, I'm impressed by these phones, but they're like auto manufacturers' concept cars. And just like I go to the Detroit Auto Show every year and drool over the amazing concept cars (i.e. last year's Eclipse), when the things finally do hit the road, they're stripped-down, boring, tame, overpriced, and not at all exciting.
The same thing happens with cell phones (especially after Verizon has a hand in crippling them a la the Audiovox CDM-8900). They're exciting now, sure, but when these come out, they'll be advertised at $400, but existing customers will have to pay $800 for them, and half the features will have mysteriously vaporized.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love the idea of having one unit that takes the place of an iPod and a PDA and a cell phone in an elegant design, but it'll be another 3-4 years before we have those, and if Verizon, Sprint and the like have any say in it, they'll never be affordable to the masses.
You make a few good points. I actually intended to mention, though, that I've played just about all the big-name titles on the GCN. But I've been bitten in the ass about buying Nintendo games before; I always pay full price, beat them in a week or two, and then leave them there, collecting dust for months before I trade them in for something else. Cheaper to just rent.
;) ...although, it's kind of funny (and sad) -- the Dreamcast had more online functionality 4 years ago than the GCN's had to date.
;)
Pikmin didn't seem like a bad game at all, but it just didn't grab me. I thought F-Zero was a terrible racing game that was way too difficult to boot. Viewtiful Joe was a lot of fun, but the difficulty level was a bit high. Harvest Moon, well, I didn't like it on the SNES, so I didn't bother, here. And Soul Calibur 2, while I completely agree is cool, I've already got on the Xbox.
The Dreamcast comparison is a good one, though. I had a Dreamcast. PSO was (and remains) one of my favorite games (yes, I had it on the GCN and the Xbox, but the rampant cheating online made it unplayable, and the fact that it was nothing but a port, as opposed to an update, really irked me) - I had my Dreamcast essentially just for PSO, and practically nothing else on the console interested me. I've never thought of it before, but you're right, it reminds me a lot of the GCN. At least Nintendo's got a good controller, though.
One other reason I think Nintendo really dropped the ball: Squaresoft.
Nintendo finally gets Square to make a game for the GCN, and instead of a new Sieken Densetsu, or a new franchise, or a new Final Fantasy Tactics, they release that absolutely abhorrent Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. The gameplay was amazingly shallow and repetative. It was one of the worst (not buggy or unprofessional, I mean just plain bad) single player games I've ever played, and the GBA connectivity "feature" was the kiss of death. I mean, had it been an actual feature (instead of a requirement), it could've been fun, but having the game designed from the ground up around multiplayer with multiple GBAs and link cables is, I believe, the reason the game was so shockingly bad.
Nintendo needs to strive to be more like they were in the SNES days... better third party support, less derrivative crap from their first party titles, and fewer failed peripherals and gimmicks.
*sigh*
Sorry for the rant, just frustrated with Nintendo, now that I'm thinking about it.
First off, a bit of a disclaimer: I own all 3 current consoles, and I enjoy them all. ...but let's be honest. I own, oh, say 20 games for my PS2. Mostly RPGs, plus Armored Core and a handful of others.
For the Xbox, I own about 15 games. Obviously, Halo, Halo 2... plus MechAssault 2, Breakdown, Burnout 3, Soul Calibur, Rainbow 6, Splinter Cell 2... Anything cross-platform, I get on the Xbox.
For the Gamecube? I have 2 games. Smash Bros and Mario Kart. I had Metroid Prime and Echoes - both were great the first time through for all of a few hours. Wind Waker? Lame concept - Link shouldn't be a fat little kid, but all and all a pretty decent game. Mario Sunshine? It may as well have been called random_generic_platformer01.
That's the problem with Nintendo: Nintendo is the problem with Nintendo.
The Gamecube has awesome hardware. It's without a doubt the coolest console from a hardware perspective. It has damned near Xbox-level performance in a much smaller, sleeker package. The controller? The Wavebird is the best controller ever made (with the Xbox controller S coming in second). From a hardware perspective, it makes the PS2 (and those godawful Dual Shock controllers) seem downright amateurish, and the Xbox seem like it was designed by a neaderthal.
But the PS2 has fantastic 3rd party support, with fairly solid first party support.
Xbox has lacking 3rd party support, but is great for cross-platform games because of its power, and Xbox Live makes all the difference in the world.
Nintendo? They have some of the most solid first-party support ever, but their first party games either...
A) have absolute SHIT for replayability; many of Nintendo's first-party games are definitely worth a rental, but not worth buying. Or...
B) Require that you have multiple friends over to really get the most out of (a design tendancy that obviously favors the younger Hey, come over to my place after school crowd).
Meanwhile, Nintendo's 3rd-party support is virtually non-existant. Their artistic style is almost hopelessly skewed towards Disney animation (and while there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, it's sort of limiting the scope of games that can be made - I mean, just think: if Pirates of the Carribean replaced Depp and co. with a bunch of animated characters styled after the 7 dwarves, would it really have the same flavor?)
So what this console race winds up looking like is Sony's kicking everyones' asses because of their fantastic 3rd party support, Microsoft's hanging in there because of a few awesome games and Xbox Live, and Nintendo's taking the most awesome console to date, and trying to sell it by whoring their own characters out more than a $5 Vegas hooker. Sure, sure, they're "innovative" but have you ever noticed how every time you want to take advantage of one of Nintendo's "innovations" you wind up having to buy a new peripheral?
The best thing Nintendo could do, in my eyes, anyways, is stick to making hardware (because they do a damned fine job of that), license their stable of franchises out to 3rd parties (I mean, just look what Retro managed with Metroid Prime - those fucktards at Nintendo let their most adult-oriented franchise just rot for years and years, cranking out the odd Super Metroid clone on the GBA, and then Retro takes it off their hands and makes one of the best consoles games ever), and try to build a functional platform behind their console; something like Xbox Live.
In the mean time, yeah, the Gamecube may sell as well as the Xbox, but I'd hazard a guess that your average Xbox owner is buying a lot more games than your average Gamecube owner. Maybe that is why stores are dropping it.
UT has added new weapons, new game modes, and has a large variety of maps available right out of the box.
Quake is still just about who finds the rocket launcher/rail gun first, and small, crowded arenas. They haven't changed weapons, the single-player mode is still "Hey, I can be like Doom, too!" and the multiplayer has been done better by dozens of games, now. It was being done better even when Quake 3 was new.
...but let's face it, this is Quake - the gameplay will still be stuck in 1996.
Unreal has grown up and matured. The FPS market is oversaturated with as it is, and there are a lot of good games. I know Quake has tons of name recognition, but is there really much room for a game that hasn't changed much of anything since its first incarnation 8 years ago?
I read the whole thread. My point is that your argument is bullshit. It makes the asinine assumption that all people have the means to purchase
Say some teenage kid downloads a warezed version of Photoshop, which then sits on his hard drive, never used. Was Adobe deprived of of a sale? Any rational person would say no.
Yes, it may take $1 or more worth of effort to download a single song off someone's P2P network of choice, but it takes little more effort to download a whole CD, or a movie, or a whole game.
What then? Because someone spent 2 minutes and then went to bed while his game downloaded means he would've otherwise spent $50 on the retail version of the game? That's laughable, and that's your argument.
What of people that don't want to support software vendors peddling DRM? What if the file isn't available on iTunes, or it is, and your player doesn't handle AAC files? Does Universal Records lose a sale because I downloaded a clip of a Jimmy Eat World concert that was never released for sale?
Your argument is so full of holes, it's laughable.
Not to say there aren't people that are happy enough with a downloaded version of something that would have otherwise purchased it, but to say that it's applicable in 100% of cases, or even the majority of cases, is asinine.
That sounds a lot like RIAA math.
I could give anecdotal evidence to the contrary, as I'm sure many other Slashdotters could, and many have in the past. The simple fact is, some accountant's belief that non-existant sales equate to losses doesn't mean they are actual losses. A loss would require losing something - as in, something that exists in more than an abstract or hypothetical sense.
...because, apparently, everyone's trying to kill it. ;)
...but then again, so is Creative's Zen line. So are half a dozen other manufacturers' competetive products. Hell, my JetAudio iAudio M3 gets a bunch of oohs and aahs every time someone sees me using it, including iPod owners.
Seriously, why does every new HD-based MP3 player need to be called an "iPod killer"? Is it impossible to have a successful product if it doesn't put the iPod to shame?
Look, there's no doubt the iPod is a great product. Apple's mixed enough marketing hype (and let's face it, a lot of the iPod's success has to be attributed to hype) with a great navigation tool and the best (bit still a far cry from ideal) online music store around. It's a genuinely high-quality product.
It's easy to beat the iPod on hardware; it's been done time and time again. iTMS, well, that's a mixed bag. Some people love it, and others couldn't possibly care less about it. Where the iPod is untouchable is mindshare; until you see Creative airing commercials for the Nomad during the Superbowl, no one will. Because, let's face it: just like Joe Sixpack thinks AOL is the internet, he thinks the iPod is the only digital audio player in town.
How could adding online play possibly constitute "losing something" when it comes to gameplay? It certainly isn't coming at the expense of local multiplayer, or single player.
Look, this is exactly why Nintendo has such a reputation for building games for kids. Look beyond cutesy or cartoony graphics. Forget the lack of blood and gore. Those don't equate to kid-centric gameplay. Designing your games with the intent that they'll be played by Johnny 14 year-old with his buddies that come over after school, however, does.
The original Nintendo generation has grown up. We're in college and grad school, we've got wives and husbands and kids and jobs. Our friends have moved across town or across the country. We don't get to have our buddies over after school, now. Most of us don't even have the luxury of living in a dorm with dozens of potential gamers on our floor.
We are the ones that want online multiplayer; the older crowd. We don't get to enjoy those (fucking asinine) "features" Nintendo's so proud of, like necessitating GBAs and link cables for some half-assed multiplayer with people sitting right next to you.
I don't think anyone's going to argue - on those rare occaisions I can get my friends in one place, and we order some pizza and wings, throw back a few beers and beat the crap out of each other in Mario Kart or Smash Bros. or ESPN Football, it's a riot. Hell, the old Perfect Dark tournaments we'd run when I lived in the dorms were the most fun I've ever had gaming, this side of Mechwarrior leagues. But that doesn't happen too often.
What does happen often, though, is I've got a few hours of leisure time after work or class, and no one around. Do you have any idea how badly Smash Bros. sucks when you're playing by yourself against the computer? How about Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, or Zelda: Four Swords? They're terrible single-player games by today's standards.
Now, if they had online playability, and we could jump in a game with a friend from 2 states away, or hell, even a stranger, and play some co-op, or even just beat each other up, those games might appeal to a whole new market segment. But for the time being, Nintendo's own bull-headedness is relegating them to teenager types who've got the spare time, and that's why they're "kiddie" games.
Jebus McChrist, Nintendo, take yours heads out of your asses and give us a decent online platform. Get Square back. Do an update on Secret of Mana with online multiplayer. The concept excites me in ways video games shouldn't. How about getting Sega to make a new PSO that isn't a card game, or some bug-riddled piece of shit port of the exact game we played on the Dreamcast 5 years ago? How about some co-op Metroid, or online SSBM and Mario Kart? Releasing yet another Zelda spin-off with some GBA connectivity "feature" just shows that you've turned your back on the generation that made you successful in the first place.
Nintendo's got an awesome opportunity, here. Online games are neglected in two major ways: one, they're almost universally of the sports and FPS genres, and two, they're almost universally player vs. player, or maybe team vs. team. Co-op is sorely neglected. Non-FPS games are sorely neglected. Stop telling us what we want, and fucking give it to us!