But the implication is there. Otherwise, why go to such great lengths to avoid making a political statement with the game? How many mainstream games do actually make an intentional political statement? I can't think of any in recent memory, and yet there are at least a dozen where one was unintentionally made within the construct of the game.
2015 is determined to try and avoid making a political statement or offending anybody.
The game industry is an infant still, and it's this kind of false political sanitization that reflects its immaturity. In the Eurogamer article, the author, Tom Bramwell, writes, "Men of Valor is pointless . . . It has no point to make." No surprise there. "According to developer 2015," Bramwell adds, "Men of Valor is largely narrative and action, and wrapped up in historical research and observation, not politics."
Well, as a historian, I object to the belief that anything can be based on "historical research and observation" and not be political. All history, and therefore historical research, is political. It's all biased. It all leans in one direction or the other. Team 2015 is merely fooling itself with this silly psuedo-nihilism. Historians left behind the ill founded belief that there is one "true" or "accurate" version of history a long time ago. Besides, what does historically accurate mean anyway? That the hills and shacks and trees are in the right place? That the guns look real? All these things meant something so much more to the soldiers there than hills, and shacks, trees, and guns. They symbolized something to them, they meant something. Team 2015 isn't performing some circus act historical accuracy, it's ignoring what these things really mean, they're ignoring the entire point of, well, everything.
Besides, even in saying "nothing" Team 2015 is saying "something." Within the construct of the game, it is advantageous, and therefore "good" and "right", to kill the Vietnamese, because the player won't progress through the game without killing them. The construct of the game will reward the killing of the Vietnamese by advancing the player to the next level. So they are saying something. Very basically, they're communicating to the player "If you kill these digital representations, these symbols of the VC, we will let you play the game longer."
Someone should, intentionally, try to make a statement using a video game. If Michael Moore's film, and the recent barrage of documentaries, proves anything it's that you can be profitable while making entertainment that is very political in nature. You can get away with saying something and making money while doing it. I'm not against fun games, nor am I going to go off and say that Warioware and Tetris shouldn't exist. But, Team 2015 and the other wargame developers should never claim this mythical historical accuracy, and they should stop trying to say nothing because they're saying something anyways. Maturity in games comes not with sterilization, but the ability to use video games as a mean of expression and communication as well as entertainment.
It's time for the video game industry to mature, and that inevitably means growing some balls. Team 2015 could be the first, if they're up for it.
Dear Sid: Make Religion
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Here's my game idea, which I now offer free to anyone (particularly Sid Meier). Call it "Religion."
Think Civilization + Populist + The Sims = Religion. You are God, singular only in the same sense that you are a country's leader in Civlization. Like in Meier's Civilization or Colonization, where you are essentially the spirit behind the government, in Religion you are that same faceless spirit. You start at the beginning of humanity, and you can set a few minor parameters of your religion. Polytheistic? Monotheistic? Atheistic? The development of your specific religion would very much reflect the tech tree in Civ. Only a few choices in the beginning of the game, each providing branches to other choices. Do you forbid the eating of meat, even though your tribe may only be able to find meat to kill? Do you prostelytize aggressively or passively? Should you order your most devoted follower to write down what you say, or should you rely on oral tradition? You could make changes to your religion's beliefs. Executed properly, minor changes would go unnoticed. Major changes might be necessary to adapt to a changing world, but if not done carefully would alienate your current followers and create a splinter religion (oh no, it's Christianity!).
The catch is that, like Populist, you could never just click on a human (unit) and move them as you do in Civ. You could tell them to, and like the Sims, the AI behind that human would choose to obey. Is the human you're ordering to kill another human a recent convert from a rival but pacifistic religion? Is she hungry, from not eating meat? Are you asking him to kill his son (aka a unit that has remained loyal to the religion for some time, perhaps). All these things would play into whether the follower actually follows your orders, or disobeys. Moreover, the disparity between the order and the willingness to follow might create more problems than it solves (oh no! Joseph Smith!)
Each choice and action would cost energy (mana), but your followers would give this to you in form of devotion. Do you, then, opt for many fellowers but low requirements, or create a cult with fewer but far more devoted people?
The challenge, like it is in Civ, would be to experiment and sandbox. Is it possible to create a monotheistic, moderate religion that doesn't require excessive devotion but do so early in humanity's development? Again, keeping with the idea that you are the spirit behind religion and not so much God, can you create Atheism? Is it possible to create a pacifistic religion early on, or an aggressive tyrannical one late in modernization? Are you content to maintain a small cult throughout world history only to create an militant apocolypse in the end?
The underlying theory behind the game would be that religion is the primary component that molds and shapes society, as Civilization presumes that government is.
The end score: how much did your religion affect the world. Did it create goverments, wars, peace?
You know, that's the thing about Derek Smart. Just when he's almost set to become relegated to nostalgic net legend, like the flash Hamsters or dancing babies, he does something like this. Does this make him a living legend? I think so.
Actually, people like Derek Smart make me wonder why we don't have video game comedians. Sure, we have Penny Arcade and Something Awful, and enough of the Old Man Murray cronies are floating around that their humor pops up now and then, but we really need a live, stand up game comic. A physical embodiment of the humor that just overflows from the gaming community. Besides, Derek Smart writes the material himself! "Derek Smart: FU / LIVE IN DC" could one album title. Instead of standing before a set of bricks and garbage cans, they could be in front of oversized video game controllers. And there's even a single network to be broadcast on, and it wouldn't be very hard to be funny enough to get on there.
Hey, for anyone I might have inspired: ask him if any of the characters in Freespace 3 will be Asian. Writing the material himself, I tell you.
Not really. Can you name one title from any of this generation's launch titles that was great, save perhaps Halo? There aren't any, or they're few in number, because the end of a hardware cycle is a thin time for software. If anything, E3 2003/2004 were the best conferences for gamers. Developers have mastered each system's nuances and have reached a plateau in graphics and started to focus more on gameplay. Games released now are refined, honed. Games released for the new systems will be choppy, rushed, and extremely rough around the edges, and in some cases little more than graphical show off stunts.
The changing of the guard is a purgatory for developers. Games released on older systems will be expected to have lower prices, and therefore will result in lower profits. On the other side of the fence, gamers will have just spent $300 on a new system, not including money towards needed periphereals or forced bundles. In the least, that's six games that they could have bought otherwise. What's more is that it will incite rabid fanboyism in the press, and we'll see a barrage of articles over-evaluating the systems. ("The Xbox2 has 8 vertices to it. The PS3 also has 8 vertices to it. EVALUATION: Corners are great to a system, and always add to the stackability. They're keeping with the console tradition of not using pyramids or spherical shapes. WINNER: Tie.")
If anything, E3 2005 will be a great year for PC gamers if only because the engines (Doom 3 & Half Life 2), which are the PC industry's equivalent to consoles and follow a similar cyclical pattern, will have been released and leased out to developers.
But yeah, I guess if you're excited about seeing graphical demos or launch titles that will never actually see the light of day on the new systems, or will look dated within six months of the system's release, sure. E3 2005 will be a biggy. Have fun at E3'05. Go get your hard on. Hardware on, that is.
I almost believed author Clive Thompson until he called, at the end of his article, Manhunt "another superb recent stealth game." Recent, I can believe. Supberb, not so much.
An increase of 2.5 hours to 3 is only because the number of dimwits has increased and it takes that much longer to find decent people to play with. Most people swear too much more than is either funny, meaningful, or than they would in conversations in the "real world." Very few demonstrate any kind of patience with newbies even though everyone starts out that way. They drop out when they start losing and are poor losers.
I've found that Live is much more fun during the summer afternoons when the 8-5 30 year old assholes are at work and the only people playing are kids, who are usually much nicer, polite, and patient.
Live's most necessary feature is not so much Windows integration, it's some fair means of warning me when I'm getting into a game with someone who demonstrates poor sportsmanship. the primary question for MS-Xbox shouldn't be, "How can windows users know when people are online?" it should be, "How can people fairly rate the sportsmanship of other players?"
So why don't video game publishers try to capitalize on the summer months
Easy. Games are sold retail, and retail is Christmas. No matter how many dedicated gamers exist that would buy games in the summer, it can't compare to the legion of mothers and wives that walk into game stores at Christmas.
Moreover, because retail is Christmas, investors expect high fourth quarter earnings. Say you're Vivendi, and you release Game X in August. For the same, it sells well. Let's say 2 million units, hypothetically. Now, release the game game fourth quarter (xmas), and due to competition you only sell 1.5million.
You've made less money, and probably spent more in advertising to get it. But because investors pay far more attention to fourth quarter earnings than third, every dollar made during Christmas is technically worth more to the company than if that dollar had been made in summer.
Even Hollywood adheres to retail law. It's best season is probably summer, but when it has to go through a retail channel (DVD sales) the studios plan their most profitable releases for Christmas. If there's any deviation, it's only because the picture companies are more financially secure than the gaming companies.
Not really. You'll have to have bought the $200 original Steel Battalion and controller, which means for anyone not owning the original SB, Line of Contact will pick your pocket for $250 to play.
What about the ones listed for $30?
Well, let's see. Using gamerankings:
Auto Modellista - 54%. Capcom v. Snk 2 - 80%
Group S Challenge - 54%
Dino Crisis 3 - 56%
Genma Onimusha - 80%
Pro Cast Fishing - 43%
So, the highest scored Capcom Xbox games are either ports, or they cost upwards $200 to play. So, perhaps to revise my statement: Capcom, how about making some good games that cost $50?
Face it, the Xbox is going to die
You're countering an argument I never made. In fact, I would argue that the Xbox died in Japan a long time ago. What I did suggest is that Capcom never tried in the first place. This business about Capcom "not being interested in making Xbox games anymore..." Hell, the gamerankings show that they were never interested. Of course, Capcom threw their bets in with Nintendo with the Resident Evil exclusive deal instead of the PS2, so it's not as if Capcom is some bellweather for console success.
And what you experienced is why the print media, and the major media sites like IGN and Gamespot, are the ones who really have to start exhibiting the same ethics you demonstrated. Obviously, they're not, as the recent future publishing & atari fiasco has hit the fan, and as the bribery becomes more and more paraded (like the recent Lucasarts Battlefront tease).
The editor of Computer Games magazine wrote an editorial in this month's issue echoing much of what you and I said (pg15, "In Praise of Praise"). I think you'd find interesting. "If you believe that one of the duties of the press is to be on the side of its readers as opposed to solely cheerlead for the industry, the press is failing to hold up its end of the bargain," Bauman writes. Sadly, what with the decline of the PC in terms of market influence, I'm not even sure if Computer Games is a large enough publication to really make a dent in the practices of the gaming media. Again, here's hoping.
This is an unusual thing for government to foot the bill for. Obviously this kind of service is only useful for people who have jobs, and more specifically those who have office jobs with continual access to a PC and the web. Why isn't the Hoosier state government, instead, providing net access and low cost PCs to lower income families who don't have jobs? For the $1 per Hoosier, they could have taken that $6mil total and provided at cost broadband to 200K-300K Hoosiers for educational purposes or job-finding. I live in Indiana, and our state job outlook is not cheery. In fact, jobs keep leaving. So what gives?
Point taken. However, that might be true for some items that are not mentioned in previews at all. That's often not the case though. Some of the phrases, such as, "the controls are great" or "the graphics are amazing" are completely oppposites of the review that follows. How can the controls be good in the preview, and not in the final game? Within 10 minutes, I could scan through previews and reviews and give you example after example of completely contradictory statements.
Why can't the previewers say, "[Component X] needs some work"? Previewers have loose lips when it comes to praise for the game in previews and have no qualm citing features that don't exist or aren't implemented. Yet, when it comes to problems, they say nothing. That makes no sense, and is not only unbalanced but unethical. If an article is labeled as a preview, then the previewer should trust the reader enough to know that it is simply a preview, not an thorough critique. A more realistic solution would simply consist of writing less previews. Most gaming magazines spend more pagetime to previews than they do reviews. That's a major problem.
Frankly, previewers should not be "hoping for the best." Go read any number of previews on the web for poorly reviewed games, and try to determine the tone of the preview. Compare it, then, to the tone of the review. Previews are rarely neutral, as they should be. They are often orgasms of fanboy language. Every other sentence is written as if the author fully expected it to grace the headline of a print ad for that same game. Exclamation points abound. Sentences are shorter. The tone is of intent anticipation, enthusiasm, excitement. This is true for many of the Driver 3 previews I linked to. If anything, this "hoping for the best" simply reflects that we have a gaming media chalked full of psuedo-professional gaming enthusiasts, not honest and talented writers.
One thing Atari does do well, which obviously does not include making great epic games, is teasing the press. Quite frankly, the press has no balls, and Atari's Enter the Matrix proved it once. EGM, for example, dedicated half of its magazine and cover to the game the month before it came out, with cautious but glowing language. Driver 3 proves the balllessness of the press once again. Driv3r isn't nearly the comedown that ETM was, but for a massively marketed game that's getting 5/10s and 60%s, it's as if these people had played an entirely different game before it came out.
EGM's, for example, doesn't say specifically, "this is a great game," but it comes as close as it can. Driver 3, EGM claims, is "high-revving hardly-a-GTA-clone that's peeling rubber to the PlayStation 2 and Xbox." The language used is as excited as it woul be in a 8 or 9/10 review. Yet, they're not even looking at the full game. I wouldn't doubt if a majority of the preview came from a designer just talking about great the game is, and the previewer transcribing it.
1up, the online media conglomerate for several print magazines, goes further. "Judging by the time we've spent so far with the near-final . . . it avoids the pitfalls that all the other GTA wannabes fell into. From a technical standpoint, DRIV3R is already something special."
CVG is as generous and used as many exclamation points as the editor probably allowed. "We haven't even had a chance to talk about how the top-notch storyline is shaping up, the amazing Hollywood voice cast, how cool the first-person viewpoint is and the way you can complete missions by going in with your guns blazin' or your wheels squealin'."
Gamepro, in a hands on preview, said the game "was looking very nice," "collision detection is already solid," and the "variety is sure to please anyone." Likewise, Gampro promises that "Driv3r is already shaping up into what looks like an incredibly fun title."
Of the quick survey I did of DRIV3R's previews, IGN's was sadly the most realistic. They list a few of its problems, but then reassure, "We know it'll be fixed." The rest of the preview sounds like a giddy school girl. Likewise, Gamespot admits that the graphics are rough, but "Driver 3 definitely looks promising." Then, like IGN, they seem to apologize for that nugget of truth with an entire paragraph on how great Driver 3 will be. It's as if they just insulted the game designers' mothers.
What's happening here is a symbiotic relationship between the press and the publishers. Like movies, music, or comic books, in most cases a game makes a majority of its sales during the first 2-4 weeks of its shelflife. There are exceptions, including GTA3, but the largest portion of games aren't GTA3s, but DRIV3Rs. With regards to print magazines, that renders the reviews almost useless. The people that buy after the first month probably don't read game magazines and sites nearly as much as those who do buy in the first month. Secondly, first day buyers often don't even have online reviews, let alone the print reviews which come out a full month or two after the game's release. That means that buyers are relying on previews almost exclusively.
And I think the publishers know it. What's going on here is simple, as demonstrated by the extremely apologetic and defensive Gamespot and IGN reviewers, is that if the previewers were honest, they'd lose their "exclusives" and
Played it for a while. There might be a decent game hidden beneath the cubersome controls and camera, but I was never given the motivation to keep looking for it. Ater finally figuring out how to zoom in and out I'd forgotten the tutorial's objectives and couldn't find them anywhere, so I spent 5 more minutes wandering around the house to no avail.
There are some areas that indie/budget companies just can't compete in. Graphics, as Skools Out demonstrates, is one area. Sound, and even bug-testing are others. I'm forgiving there. But play logistics has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with designers who don't look at their game more objectively. There's no excuse save laziness for the kind of silly controls and nauseating camera Skools Out exhibits.
Come on, take the fanboy charades elsewhere. Really. I like Nintendo as much as the next guy, but what the hell are Ratchet & Clank, or ICO, or Sly Cooper? They're all better games than Mario on the Gamecube. Nintendo is not some kind of immortal on earth, they're not the Messiah of video games, a company that can never make a mistake. They put their pants on one, er financial leg at time. They've also made their fair share of bad mistakes, including the original GBA design which they had the guts to wisely revamp with the SP.
In your inevitable fanaticism, don't misinterpret me as saying that Sony is somehow a better company, or that Nintendo is a crappy one. Nintedo is amazing. And certainly don't turn this into a crap of a thread debating which console is better, because I'm afraid that's where you may want to head this. Sony isn't necessarily worse, persay, they're just different. They, too, have made some pretty phenomonal video game treats in their time that I think you're ignoring. What's more is that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, even in Nintendo, that would say that Nintendo is not better off with the competition Sony has brought to the table.
Again, disclaimer: I'm not impressed by either machine. Still, don't underestimate Sony. They toppled the giant once, so there's nothing to say they can't do it again. Nintendo is playing the game better this time, but its still in reaction to Sony's market movements, and mirroring a competitor is a bad place to be.
The huge movie, UBIK, is coming out next weekend. Hello? Directed by Sam Raimi? Starring Tobey Maguire? And what about the epic trilogy finale coming out next year directed by George Lucas? As the final in the VALIS trilogy, I just hope Lucas doesn't screw it up with all his digital effects. The last two have been amazing, but I'm not sure how PKD would've taken to all the effects Lucas is throwing in there.
It all started when Steven Spielberg launched his own career by filming The Man in the High Castle back in the early 80s. Of course, Ridley's Scott *strict* adherence to PKD's book for the movie, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep helped make PKD the ideal movie source.
PKD is so respected that no one in the film industry would even dare making a subpar movie. Haha - imagine if John Woo got a hold of one of his stories! Geez! I mean, we're running OUT of PKD stuff to make movies out of! You have to be bigtime to be able to film what's left of the "modern kafka" that hasn't already been filmed! Are you guys cra..
Oh, wait. Wait a minute. IMDB only shows a few crappy renditions of PKD movies! WTF!?! WTF is "BLADE RUNNER"?!?? What the hell kind of parallel universe am I in that doesn't make brilliant movies out of PKD writings!!?! And who are these men - CmdrTaco!?! Arresting me for saying too much!? Slashdot controls everything? I don't understand!?.////don't listen to the...
Have you tried using a STYLUS to play Far Cry? There's a significant difference between a stylus and a mouse. If there wasn't and they were the same thing, than Nintendo would've had a player using the stylus to control Metroid DS, not the pad.
And supposing they are the same, that's all the more reason not to use them on a portable system. With a stylus and/or mouse on a PC, I have a surface that allows me to use one hand to control the pointing device, and another to control my keyboard. With the DS, if I'm using the stylus that's all I can do. My other hand is stabilizing the device, holding it..
So either way, the stylus doesn't make sense. Thanks for playing though.
I'm not terrribly fond of either, really. The PSP seems like it's doing too much to do one thing well. Speaking specifically of the DS though, graphic and processing power aside (which don't match the PSP), we're looking at three additions to the DS from the GB.
The stylus looks interesting, in that you can write messsages. And play variants of Wario-Ware. But beyond that, I'm having a hard time seeing any third party developer making a game that uses it. And I don't really see much beyond novelty - ala E-reader or power glove - for the stylus.
The best Nintendo had to demonstrate the Dual Screen functionality with were maps. I don't see how that fundamentally changes the gaming experience, or adds anything to the gaming experience the PSP can't do with a start button. Moreover, looking at the map means taking your eyes away from the main action of what's happening on screen 1. I can't see third parties supporting this beyond maps. Why? Because with two portable platforms they won't want to code platform specific games. They'll go with the lowest common denominator, which means the single screened PSP. And if the stylus works for gaming, why haven't PC stylus games taken off - at all?
The wireless multiplayer is pretty great, and perhaps is the DS's redeeming feature. Knowing Nintendo's track record with internet multiplayer (which is to say not having one), I wouldn't expect much more beyond being in the same room. You can do that now, even if it is wired. And if the PSP doesn't support it, why code it into the game enough that it dramatically improves/affects gameplay?
I think the DS will face the same problem that Nintendo has always faced. Nintendo comes up with these hardware ideas based on internal games, and then expects the third parties to follow along. The DS is closer to the e-reader, or the power glove, or the Gamecube - Gameboy interoperability. Novel, integrated with a few first party titles, but little more than that. Nintendo currently dominates the portable market, yet the e-reader and the GC-GBA connection are barely used among third party devs. It can only be harder when you have a team developing the same game for both the PSP and the DS.
I'm not saying the DS absolutely can't work, or that the PSP will bury it into the ground. I'm merely surprised at how overwhelmingly positive the response has been to something that hasn't really shown that it can do anything. Predicting the inevitable Nintendo fans who will retort simply with some accusation of trolling, I'm not an Xbox or PS2 fanboy. I love my Gamecube. I'm merely wondering why the DS is so great (or the PSP), and where the revolution in gaming is that Nintendo keeps promising everyone. I'm perfectly willing to change my viewpoint when someone tells me why the DS will be so great.
Crystal Dynamics looked to Warren Spector and Ion Storm for inspiration and advice on this game
Crystal Dynamics: Mr. Spector, can we make a Deus Ex inspired game? If so, do you have any advice? Warren Spector: Sure, what the hell, I'm out of here in a month anyway. Um, advice? Make it dark. Yeah, dark but with nanites.
Not sure. I've ordered at least 10 magazines from various ebay auctions, and all have gone through within a month to two months. Didn't pay more than $10 for any of them, many major magazines (Harper's, Atlantic). That doesn't answer your question, I know, but it seems somehow legit.
Slashdot Mirror
But the implication is there. Otherwise, why go to such great lengths to avoid making a political statement with the game? How many mainstream games do actually make an intentional political statement? I can't think of any in recent memory, and yet there are at least a dozen where one was unintentionally made within the construct of the game.
2015 is determined to try and avoid making a political statement or offending anybody.
The game industry is an infant still, and it's this kind of false political sanitization that reflects its immaturity. In the Eurogamer article, the author, Tom Bramwell, writes, "Men of Valor is pointless . . . It has no point to make." No surprise there. "According to developer 2015," Bramwell adds, "Men of Valor is largely narrative and action, and wrapped up in historical research and observation, not politics." Well, as a historian, I object to the belief that anything can be based on "historical research and observation" and not be political. All history, and therefore historical research, is political. It's all biased. It all leans in one direction or the other. Team 2015 is merely fooling itself with this silly psuedo-nihilism. Historians left behind the ill founded belief that there is one "true" or "accurate" version of history a long time ago. Besides, what does historically accurate mean anyway? That the hills and shacks and trees are in the right place? That the guns look real? All these things meant something so much more to the soldiers there than hills, and shacks, trees, and guns. They symbolized something to them, they meant something. Team 2015 isn't performing some circus act historical accuracy, it's ignoring what these things really mean, they're ignoring the entire point of, well, everything.
Besides, even in saying "nothing" Team 2015 is saying "something." Within the construct of the game, it is advantageous, and therefore "good" and "right", to kill the Vietnamese, because the player won't progress through the game without killing them. The construct of the game will reward the killing of the Vietnamese by advancing the player to the next level. So they are saying something. Very basically, they're communicating to the player "If you kill these digital representations, these symbols of the VC, we will let you play the game longer."
Someone should, intentionally, try to make a statement using a video game. If Michael Moore's film, and the recent barrage of documentaries, proves anything it's that you can be profitable while making entertainment that is very political in nature. You can get away with saying something and making money while doing it. I'm not against fun games, nor am I going to go off and say that Warioware and Tetris shouldn't exist. But, Team 2015 and the other wargame developers should never claim this mythical historical accuracy, and they should stop trying to say nothing because they're saying something anyways. Maturity in games comes not with sterilization, but the ability to use video games as a mean of expression and communication as well as entertainment.
It's time for the video game industry to mature, and that inevitably means growing some balls. Team 2015 could be the first, if they're up for it.
Here's my game idea, which I now offer free to anyone (particularly Sid Meier). Call it "Religion."
Think Civilization + Populist + The Sims = Religion. You are God, singular only in the same sense that you are a country's leader in Civlization. Like in Meier's Civilization or Colonization, where you are essentially the spirit behind the government, in Religion you are that same faceless spirit. You start at the beginning of humanity, and you can set a few minor parameters of your religion. Polytheistic? Monotheistic? Atheistic? The development of your specific religion would very much reflect the tech tree in Civ. Only a few choices in the beginning of the game, each providing branches to other choices. Do you forbid the eating of meat, even though your tribe may only be able to find meat to kill? Do you prostelytize aggressively or passively? Should you order your most devoted follower to write down what you say, or should you rely on oral tradition? You could make changes to your religion's beliefs. Executed properly, minor changes would go unnoticed. Major changes might be necessary to adapt to a changing world, but if not done carefully would alienate your current followers and create a splinter religion (oh no, it's Christianity!).
The catch is that, like Populist, you could never just click on a human (unit) and move them as you do in Civ. You could tell them to, and like the Sims, the AI behind that human would choose to obey. Is the human you're ordering to kill another human a recent convert from a rival but pacifistic religion? Is she hungry, from not eating meat? Are you asking him to kill his son (aka a unit that has remained loyal to the religion for some time, perhaps). All these things would play into whether the follower actually follows your orders, or disobeys. Moreover, the disparity between the order and the willingness to follow might create more problems than it solves (oh no! Joseph Smith!)
Each choice and action would cost energy (mana), but your followers would give this to you in form of devotion. Do you, then, opt for many fellowers but low requirements, or create a cult with fewer but far more devoted people?
The challenge, like it is in Civ, would be to experiment and sandbox. Is it possible to create a monotheistic, moderate religion that doesn't require excessive devotion but do so early in humanity's development? Again, keeping with the idea that you are the spirit behind religion and not so much God, can you create Atheism? Is it possible to create a pacifistic religion early on, or an aggressive tyrannical one late in modernization? Are you content to maintain a small cult throughout world history only to create an militant apocolypse in the end?
The underlying theory behind the game would be that religion is the primary component that molds and shapes society, as Civilization presumes that government is.
The end score: how much did your religion affect the world. Did it create goverments, wars, peace?
So, what do you think Sid?
You know, that's the thing about Derek Smart. Just when he's almost set to become relegated to nostalgic net legend, like the flash Hamsters or dancing babies, he does something like this. Does this make him a living legend? I think so.
Actually, people like Derek Smart make me wonder why we don't have video game comedians. Sure, we have Penny Arcade and Something Awful, and enough of the Old Man Murray cronies are floating around that their humor pops up now and then, but we really need a live, stand up game comic. A physical embodiment of the humor that just overflows from the gaming community. Besides, Derek Smart writes the material himself! "Derek Smart: FU / LIVE IN DC" could one album title. Instead of standing before a set of bricks and garbage cans, they could be in front of oversized video game controllers. And there's even a single network to be broadcast on, and it wouldn't be very hard to be funny enough to get on there.
Hey, for anyone I might have inspired: ask him if any of the characters in Freespace 3 will be Asian. Writing the material himself, I tell you.
Looks like E3 2005 is going to be a biggy.
Not really. Can you name one title from any of this generation's launch titles that was great, save perhaps Halo? There aren't any, or they're few in number, because the end of a hardware cycle is a thin time for software. If anything, E3 2003/2004 were the best conferences for gamers. Developers have mastered each system's nuances and have reached a plateau in graphics and started to focus more on gameplay. Games released now are refined, honed. Games released for the new systems will be choppy, rushed, and extremely rough around the edges, and in some cases little more than graphical show off stunts.
The changing of the guard is a purgatory for developers. Games released on older systems will be expected to have lower prices, and therefore will result in lower profits. On the other side of the fence, gamers will have just spent $300 on a new system, not including money towards needed periphereals or forced bundles. In the least, that's six games that they could have bought otherwise. What's more is that it will incite rabid fanboyism in the press, and we'll see a barrage of articles over-evaluating the systems. ("The Xbox2 has 8 vertices to it. The PS3 also has 8 vertices to it. EVALUATION: Corners are great to a system, and always add to the stackability. They're keeping with the console tradition of not using pyramids or spherical shapes. WINNER: Tie.")
If anything, E3 2005 will be a great year for PC gamers if only because the engines (Doom 3 & Half Life 2), which are the PC industry's equivalent to consoles and follow a similar cyclical pattern, will have been released and leased out to developers.
But yeah, I guess if you're excited about seeing graphical demos or launch titles that will never actually see the light of day on the new systems, or will look dated within six months of the system's release, sure. E3 2005 will be a biggy. Have fun at E3'05. Go get your hard on. Hardware on, that is.
I almost believed author Clive Thompson until he called, at the end of his article, Manhunt "another superb recent stealth game." Recent, I can believe. Supberb, not so much.
An increase of 2.5 hours to 3 is only because the number of dimwits has increased and it takes that much longer to find decent people to play with. Most people swear too much more than is either funny, meaningful, or than they would in conversations in the "real world." Very few demonstrate any kind of patience with newbies even though everyone starts out that way. They drop out when they start losing and are poor losers.
I've found that Live is much more fun during the summer afternoons when the 8-5 30 year old assholes are at work and the only people playing are kids, who are usually much nicer, polite, and patient.
Live's most necessary feature is not so much Windows integration, it's some fair means of warning me when I'm getting into a game with someone who demonstrates poor sportsmanship. the primary question for MS-Xbox shouldn't be, "How can windows users know when people are online?" it should be, "How can people fairly rate the sportsmanship of other players?"
So why don't video game publishers try to capitalize on the summer months
Easy. Games are sold retail, and retail is Christmas. No matter how many dedicated gamers exist that would buy games in the summer, it can't compare to the legion of mothers and wives that walk into game stores at Christmas.
Moreover, because retail is Christmas, investors expect high fourth quarter earnings. Say you're Vivendi, and you release Game X in August. For the same, it sells well. Let's say 2 million units, hypothetically. Now, release the game game fourth quarter (xmas), and due to competition you only sell 1.5million.
You've made less money, and probably spent more in advertising to get it. But because investors pay far more attention to fourth quarter earnings than third, every dollar made during Christmas is technically worth more to the company than if that dollar had been made in summer.
Even Hollywood adheres to retail law. It's best season is probably summer, but when it has to go through a retail channel (DVD sales) the studios plan their most profitable releases for Christmas. If there's any deviation, it's only because the picture companies are more financially secure than the gaming companies.
So that game isn't available for $50?
Not really. You'll have to have bought the $200 original Steel Battalion and controller, which means for anyone not owning the original SB, Line of Contact will pick your pocket for $250 to play.
What about the ones listed for $30?
Well, let's see. Using gamerankings:
Auto Modellista - 54%.
Capcom v. Snk 2 - 80%
Group S Challenge - 54%
Dino Crisis 3 - 56%
Genma Onimusha - 80%
Pro Cast Fishing - 43%
So, the highest scored Capcom Xbox games are either ports, or they cost upwards $200 to play. So, perhaps to revise my statement: Capcom, how about making some good games that cost $50?
Face it, the Xbox is going to die
You're countering an argument I never made. In fact, I would argue that the Xbox died in Japan a long time ago. What I did suggest is that Capcom never tried in the first place. This business about Capcom "not being interested in making Xbox games anymore..." Hell, the gamerankings show that they were never interested. Of course, Capcom threw their bets in with Nintendo with the Resident Evil exclusive deal instead of the PS2, so it's not as if Capcom is some bellweather for console success.
Abe also stated Capcom "isn't interested in developing more" Xbox titles, simply saying: "There are no plans... It's just not profitable enough."
Call me crazy, but maybe Capcom should try making xbox games for $50 instead of, you know, $200.
Great post.
And what you experienced is why the print media, and the major media sites like IGN and Gamespot, are the ones who really have to start exhibiting the same ethics you demonstrated. Obviously, they're not, as the recent future publishing & atari fiasco has hit the fan, and as the bribery becomes more and more paraded (like the recent Lucasarts Battlefront tease).
The editor of Computer Games magazine wrote an editorial in this month's issue echoing much of what you and I said (pg15, "In Praise of Praise"). I think you'd find interesting. "If you believe that one of the duties of the press is to be on the side of its readers as opposed to solely cheerlead for the industry, the press is failing to hold up its end of the bargain," Bauman writes. Sadly, what with the decline of the PC in terms of market influence, I'm not even sure if Computer Games is a large enough publication to really make a dent in the practices of the gaming media. Again, here's hoping.
I know movie licensed games usually suck, but maybe they could score a Thief in the Night deal?
This is an unusual thing for government to foot the bill for. Obviously this kind of service is only useful for people who have jobs, and more specifically those who have office jobs with continual access to a PC and the web. Why isn't the Hoosier state government, instead, providing net access and low cost PCs to lower income families who don't have jobs? For the $1 per Hoosier, they could have taken that $6mil total and provided at cost broadband to 200K-300K Hoosiers for educational purposes or job-finding. I live in Indiana, and our state job outlook is not cheery. In fact, jobs keep leaving. So what gives?
Point taken. However, that might be true for some items that are not mentioned in previews at all. That's often not the case though. Some of the phrases, such as, "the controls are great" or "the graphics are amazing" are completely oppposites of the review that follows. How can the controls be good in the preview, and not in the final game? Within 10 minutes, I could scan through previews and reviews and give you example after example of completely contradictory statements.
Why can't the previewers say, "[Component X] needs some work"? Previewers have loose lips when it comes to praise for the game in previews and have no qualm citing features that don't exist or aren't implemented. Yet, when it comes to problems, they say nothing. That makes no sense, and is not only unbalanced but unethical. If an article is labeled as a preview, then the previewer should trust the reader enough to know that it is simply a preview, not an thorough critique. A more realistic solution would simply consist of writing less previews. Most gaming magazines spend more pagetime to previews than they do reviews. That's a major problem.
Frankly, previewers should not be "hoping for the best." Go read any number of previews on the web for poorly reviewed games, and try to determine the tone of the preview. Compare it, then, to the tone of the review. Previews are rarely neutral, as they should be. They are often orgasms of fanboy language. Every other sentence is written as if the author fully expected it to grace the headline of a print ad for that same game. Exclamation points abound. Sentences are shorter. The tone is of intent anticipation, enthusiasm, excitement. This is true for many of the Driver 3 previews I linked to. If anything, this "hoping for the best" simply reflects that we have a gaming media chalked full of psuedo-professional gaming enthusiasts, not honest and talented writers.
One thing Atari does do well, which obviously does not include making great epic games, is teasing the press. Quite frankly, the press has no balls, and Atari's Enter the Matrix proved it once. EGM, for example, dedicated half of its magazine and cover to the game the month before it came out, with cautious but glowing language. Driver 3 proves the balllessness of the press once again. Driv3r isn't nearly the comedown that ETM was, but for a massively marketed game that's getting 5/10s and 60%s, it's as if these people had played an entirely different game before it came out.
EGM's, for example, doesn't say specifically, "this is a great game," but it comes as close as it can. Driver 3, EGM claims, is "high-revving hardly-a-GTA-clone that's peeling rubber to the PlayStation 2 and Xbox." The language used is as excited as it woul be in a 8 or 9/10 review. Yet, they're not even looking at the full game. I wouldn't doubt if a majority of the preview came from a designer just talking about great the game is, and the previewer transcribing it.
1up, the online media conglomerate for several print magazines, goes further. "Judging by the time we've spent so far with the near-final . . . it avoids the pitfalls that all the other GTA wannabes fell into. From a technical standpoint, DRIV3R is already something special."
CVG is as generous and used as many exclamation points as the editor probably allowed. "We haven't even had a chance to talk about how the top-notch storyline is shaping up, the amazing Hollywood voice cast, how cool the first-person viewpoint is and the way you can complete missions by going in with your guns blazin' or your wheels squealin'."
Gamepro, in a hands on preview, said the game "was looking very nice," "collision detection is already solid," and the "variety is sure to please anyone." Likewise, Gampro promises that "Driv3r is already shaping up into what looks like an incredibly fun title."
Of the quick survey I did of DRIV3R's previews, IGN's was sadly the most realistic. They list a few of its problems, but then reassure, "We know it'll be fixed." The rest of the preview sounds like a giddy school girl. Likewise, Gamespot admits that the graphics are rough, but "Driver 3 definitely looks promising." Then, like IGN, they seem to apologize for that nugget of truth with an entire paragraph on how great Driver 3 will be. It's as if they just insulted the game designers' mothers.
What's happening here is a symbiotic relationship between the press and the publishers. Like movies, music, or comic books, in most cases a game makes a majority of its sales during the first 2-4 weeks of its shelflife. There are exceptions, including GTA3, but the largest portion of games aren't GTA3s, but DRIV3Rs. With regards to print magazines, that renders the reviews almost useless. The people that buy after the first month probably don't read game magazines and sites nearly as much as those who do buy in the first month. Secondly, first day buyers often don't even have online reviews, let alone the print reviews which come out a full month or two after the game's release. That means that buyers are relying on previews almost exclusively.
And I think the publishers know it. What's going on here is simple, as demonstrated by the extremely apologetic and defensive Gamespot and IGN reviewers, is that if the previewers were honest, they'd lose their "exclusives" and
-cough-96k-cough-
Ken Williams got out just in time!
Played it for a while. There might be a decent game hidden beneath the cubersome controls and camera, but I was never given the motivation to keep looking for it. Ater finally figuring out how to zoom in and out I'd forgotten the tutorial's objectives and couldn't find them anywhere, so I spent 5 more minutes wandering around the house to no avail.
There are some areas that indie/budget companies just can't compete in. Graphics, as Skools Out demonstrates, is one area. Sound, and even bug-testing are others. I'm forgiving there. But play logistics has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with designers who don't look at their game more objectively. There's no excuse save laziness for the kind of silly controls and nauseating camera Skools Out exhibits.
4 people at a time eh? Microsoft could market it in Japan as, "Talk to half of all the Xbox users in Japan at one time!"
Come on, take the fanboy charades elsewhere. Really. I like Nintendo as much as the next guy, but what the hell are Ratchet & Clank, or ICO, or Sly Cooper? They're all better games than Mario on the Gamecube. Nintendo is not some kind of immortal on earth, they're not the Messiah of video games, a company that can never make a mistake. They put their pants on one, er financial leg at time. They've also made their fair share of bad mistakes, including the original GBA design which they had the guts to wisely revamp with the SP.
In your inevitable fanaticism, don't misinterpret me as saying that Sony is somehow a better company, or that Nintendo is a crappy one. Nintedo is amazing. And certainly don't turn this into a crap of a thread debating which console is better, because I'm afraid that's where you may want to head this. Sony isn't necessarily worse, persay, they're just different. They, too, have made some pretty phenomonal video game treats in their time that I think you're ignoring. What's more is that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, even in Nintendo, that would say that Nintendo is not better off with the competition Sony has brought to the table.
Again, disclaimer: I'm not impressed by either machine. Still, don't underestimate Sony. They toppled the giant once, so there's nothing to say they can't do it again. Nintendo is playing the game better this time, but its still in reaction to Sony's market movements, and mirroring a competitor is a bad place to be.
How can this not be good?
The huge movie, UBIK, is coming out next weekend. Hello? Directed by Sam Raimi? Starring Tobey Maguire? And what about the epic trilogy finale coming out next year directed by George Lucas? As the final in the VALIS trilogy, I just hope Lucas doesn't screw it up with all his digital effects. The last two have been amazing, but I'm not sure how PKD would've taken to all the effects Lucas is throwing in there.
It all started when Steven Spielberg launched his own career by filming The Man in the High Castle back in the early 80s. Of course, Ridley's Scott *strict* adherence to PKD's book for the movie, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep helped make PKD the ideal movie source.
PKD is so respected that no one in the film industry would even dare making a subpar movie. Haha - imagine if John Woo got a hold of one of his stories! Geez! I mean, we're running OUT of PKD stuff to make movies out of! You have to be bigtime to be able to film what's left of the "modern kafka" that hasn't already been filmed! Are you guys cra..
Oh, wait. Wait a minute. IMDB only shows a few crappy renditions of PKD movies! WTF!?! WTF is "BLADE RUNNER"?!?? What the hell kind of parallel universe am I in that doesn't make brilliant movies out of PKD writings!!?! And who are these men - CmdrTaco!?! Arresting me for saying too much!? Slashdot controls everything? I don't understand!?.////don't listen to the...
It's called THE MOUSE!
Have you tried using a STYLUS to play Far Cry? There's a significant difference between a stylus and a mouse. If there wasn't and they were the same thing, than Nintendo would've had a player using the stylus to control Metroid DS, not the pad.
And supposing they are the same, that's all the more reason not to use them on a portable system. With a stylus and/or mouse on a PC, I have a surface that allows me to use one hand to control the pointing device, and another to control my keyboard. With the DS, if I'm using the stylus that's all I can do. My other hand is stabilizing the device, holding it..
So either way, the stylus doesn't make sense. Thanks for playing though.
I'm not terrribly fond of either, really. The PSP seems like it's doing too much to do one thing well. Speaking specifically of the DS though, graphic and processing power aside (which don't match the PSP), we're looking at three additions to the DS from the GB.
The stylus looks interesting, in that you can write messsages. And play variants of Wario-Ware. But beyond that, I'm having a hard time seeing any third party developer making a game that uses it. And I don't really see much beyond novelty - ala E-reader or power glove - for the stylus.
The best Nintendo had to demonstrate the Dual Screen functionality with were maps. I don't see how that fundamentally changes the gaming experience, or adds anything to the gaming experience the PSP can't do with a start button. Moreover, looking at the map means taking your eyes away from the main action of what's happening on screen 1. I can't see third parties supporting this beyond maps. Why? Because with two portable platforms they won't want to code platform specific games. They'll go with the lowest common denominator, which means the single screened PSP. And if the stylus works for gaming, why haven't PC stylus games taken off - at all?
The wireless multiplayer is pretty great, and perhaps is the DS's redeeming feature. Knowing Nintendo's track record with internet multiplayer (which is to say not having one), I wouldn't expect much more beyond being in the same room. You can do that now, even if it is wired. And if the PSP doesn't support it, why code it into the game enough that it dramatically improves/affects gameplay?
I think the DS will face the same problem that Nintendo has always faced. Nintendo comes up with these hardware ideas based on internal games, and then expects the third parties to follow along. The DS is closer to the e-reader, or the power glove, or the Gamecube - Gameboy interoperability. Novel, integrated with a few first party titles, but little more than that. Nintendo currently dominates the portable market, yet the e-reader and the GC-GBA connection are barely used among third party devs. It can only be harder when you have a team developing the same game for both the PSP and the DS.
I'm not saying the DS absolutely can't work, or that the PSP will bury it into the ground. I'm merely surprised at how overwhelmingly positive the response has been to something that hasn't really shown that it can do anything. Predicting the inevitable Nintendo fans who will retort simply with some accusation of trolling, I'm not an Xbox or PS2 fanboy. I love my Gamecube. I'm merely wondering why the DS is so great (or the PSP), and where the revolution in gaming is that Nintendo keeps promising everyone. I'm perfectly willing to change my viewpoint when someone tells me why the DS will be so great.
Crystal Dynamics looked to Warren Spector and Ion Storm for inspiration and advice on this game
Crystal Dynamics: Mr. Spector, can we make a Deus Ex inspired game? If so, do you have any advice?
Warren Spector: Sure, what the hell, I'm out of here in a month anyway. Um, advice? Make it dark. Yeah, dark but with nanites.
Not sure. I've ordered at least 10 magazines from various ebay auctions, and all have gone through within a month to two months. Didn't pay more than $10 for any of them, many major magazines (Harper's, Atlantic). That doesn't answer your question, I know, but it seems somehow legit.