X does not follow Y. Deus Ex 2 (and presumably Thief 3) sucked. It sucked because of what Ion Storm did. As others have pointed out, it is possible to make a release for both the Xbox and PCs that doesn't suck. Therefore, if it sucks, it must be Ion Storm's fault.
Of course it is Ion Storm's fault. But why the change of heart in Ion Storm? Why the sudden love for the console market, represented on a symbolic level, perhaps, by the shift of perspective from first (traditionally PC) to third (traditionally console)? That's what I'm attempting to address here. KOTOR will be, no doubt, the shining example for your statement. And yet, it was released first for the Xbox. Moreover, Bioware's next game is Xbox exclusive, and this is one example among denizens. I would also assert that the exceptions, Half Life 2 and Doom III, are being made for the PC largely out of nostalgia or loyalty on behalf to the PC. Even companies that are capable of made excellent PC/Console games are focusing on the console.
Pirating "comes from any of" my discussion [sic] because I believe it's a significant reason why the PC industry is hurting. Actually, I didn't say "suck it up and buy the games." I said don't pirate, and don't buy games that require complicated patches and installations (which to say, nearly all PC games save the Sims; coicindence that it's a regular top ranking seller on the PC charts? I don't think so). Companies are in business to make money, and good games (usually) make money; at this point though, those good games are being made for the console instead of the PC because that's where the money is. While there is a dynamic between the consumer and the publisher, like any industry, it is mostly driven by how we spend our money (or don't). Inevitably, we shape it with the monies we spend. This is a Frankenstein we've created; this pirating, patching beast that lumbers into walls (and, most likely, crates) while a speedy Sonic/Mario/Crash zooms by, collecting floating dollar bills that could have been our's.
If it isn't our fault as consumers, for pirating and allowing (and more importantly, buying) unfinished products, then why the mass exodus to the console industry? I personally think that this is a good thing as I hope we'll see the burgeoning indie PC market thrive, and what all this will eventually mean though is far less flashy productions ala Blizzard and Valve. I'll save that, though, for another post.
I anticipate comments here mirroring many of the comments on the web forums discussing this, consisting mostly of the assertion that third person loses some of the immersion that first person supposedly provides. Consoles have again "ruined" what would have otherwise been a great PC title.
Now, I played Thief 1 & 2, and they're both great games, classics to be sure. Still, I can't deny that after having played Metal Gear Solid and especially Splinter Cell, there's something to be said for the third person perspective, particularly when used in stealth games. What the first person perspective may add in immersion, it detracts signficantly in peripheral view. Ok, sure, I can see around a corner that I probably wouldn't be able to see around without third person. But the fact remains that playing a game in first person is really like looking at the world through a narrow cardboard box. If someone is standing next to me as I type this, I can see them even though I'm not looking directly at them. Likewise, I can see things to the side in a third person game. Conversely, in a first person game, I can't do that. Personally, I'll take the "unrealism" of being able to see around corners over the lack of peripheral vision anyday in a stealth game. Besides, I'm not really sure how this unrealistic looking around corners really differs that much from the infamous lean keys in FPS, and more recent games (like Splinter Cell) add the cost of being seen when you peek around corners.
With regards to the belief that consoles have ruined yet another title, I think that the PC industry (consumers and publishers alike) needs a good long introspect look at itself. The fact that we're sitting close to the end of this console lifespan and yet I have yet to see graphics, and far more importantly *good* gameplay, truly exceed that of what exists on my consoles as they once did at this point in the Playstation lifecycle is significant. Moreover, PC game piracy, both pre-release (i.e. HL2) and after is at least as rampant as it ever is if not much more so. The charts are dominated by The Sims, and yet PC publishers think that the market with the money will orgasm over a monthly screenshoot of Doom III with super-vexal-triple-z-buffer-120fps screenshoots. I remember when this all started at the beginning of this console cycle, and all the PC gaming magazines said it wouldn't last. Well, it's obviously lasted, and I personally think that it'll only get "worse."
Basically, this: stop bitching about Ion Storm and kin making console games and stop pirating. Moreover, petition (and demonstrate appropriate patronage, or the lack thereof, towards) companies to release final products that don't require 4 years of IT certification to install and get operational (obviously including Ion Storm). In relation to the PC market, the console maret is merely the path of least resistance, both consumer and publisher wise. We're in a (generally) free market, and by and large companies, who are in business to make money, will go where the making money is good. If that's not in happy utopia PC land, we have only ourselves to blame.
When customers pre-order a game at an EB or Best Buy or the like, they're often given a psuedo-box filled with "goodies." Usually this includes some kind of mini strategy guide, and/or a demo or addon disc, etc. If not a box, you'll often receive some kind t-shirt or at least some schlocky branded pencil eraser or earmuffs. Or whatever.
Okay, okay; the employees take this crap home themselves and hoard it. The intent of the publisher, however, remains. There is this understanding that when you give money to someone, you get something back. In our specific case example, you really shouldn't need to get anything since your $5-$10 goes towards the game. And yet, it feels somehow more real if you walk out with something you can hold, albeit a cheap-ass box with a black tshirt you'd never be caught dead wearing.
Physical objects, in relation to this discussion, serve two roles. First, as a tangible anchor, a remainder that you now own something that you previously did not. On a subconscious level, I think physical products serve as a token or relic to show other people that you own something but also as a symbol stating, "I own this now."
Secondly but quite related and illustrated effectively by the editorial, I think physical purchasing also appeals to the hoarding/pack-ing nature of humans; the desire to collect and store more things than we had before. Perhaps we're seeing that desire slowly erode, what with the impact of purchasable digital music remaining to be seen. Still, as of right now, I think it's fair to say that most people want to own something; not merely because of possible future technical difficulties, but rather as a proof of purchase, a tangible item that we've added to our "stash o' stuff." I think that while it includes the role of a remainder of the "enemies you have defeated," it's more than that also a representation of possession and ownership. For Gamespot editors, physical boxes may well serve as remainders of games finished, but for most normal people, they serve as remainders for games yet unfinished as well. We may never play the game more than 5 hours, but by golly we "own" that game and that's half the battle. The ownership is more important, in many ways, of the games played. The fact that I have Panzeer Dragon Orta, REZ, and Ico on my shelf says something about me as a person, not merely as remainders of good times.
Why do religions have symbols, such as rosaries or crosses, for such blantantly abstract concepts? For much the same reason that we collect physical games. The more vivid an experience, be it music, film, religion, or gaming, the more we as human beings will desire a physical product.
None of that exists, really, with downloadable games. Purchasable broadband gaming is like a religion with symbols; it's cold, sterile, and most importantly completely abstract (in a digital sense of the word). Who wants a religion without symbols?
-------
Endnote: Software pirates may seem to disprove what I've said. Why, then, the existence of sites like cdcover.cc; this need to print out colorful, highly detailed box art and CD/DVD labels? If, for pirates, who would seem to be closest in this idea of digital abstraction, why not merely use a sharpie and a paper sleeve? They have the same pack-ing desire everyone else does, only manifested a more illicitly.
Also in the news, e-books from Amazon will obiliterate the printed book market, grocery delivery services will annihilate the brick and mortar grocery stores, DigiScent smelling PC devices are the next video cards, broadband video retails are the wave of the future, and PointCast rocks.
(I'd have thrown in more digitally oriented links, but the websites are all, well, gone)
This is an interesting theory but ultimately I think that you're wrong.
You made some fantastic points, and you're probably right. In my indie idealistic enthusiasm, allow me to a counter point though. I hope I didn't sound like I was going as far to suggest that the consumer was somehow being "screwed," and I am most likely downplaying the fact that mainstream implies that a significant number of people like, say, Korn in NFL Street. Your formula is well thought out, you know, at least as far as music in video game formulas go, but the very mainstream nature of Korn being mainstream means that most people have already heard Korn and have made a decision about whether they'll like it or not whereas this is definitely not the case for a large majority of the music in PGR2 or Amped.
I suppose what I'm suggesting is that one more sale to Korn is worth far less than one more sale to Trail of the Dead. Likewise, exposure through a video game is far less important to a band like Korn whose songs play on half of the dial. But for a more obscure band, a game like PGR is going to allow penetration into homes that barely even know such a music market exists, let alone that the band.
You're right, but I think what I'm trying to say is that this specific example, the EA-Korn (or whomever artist) does far less to help anyone than a like agreement between MS and Simple Plan. I can't imagine anyone buying NFL Street or liking it more because Korn's in it, and even if people buy a Korn CD because they heard it in NFL Street, that sale is far less important to Korn in the long run. On the other hand, attaching a band like Simple Plan to Project Gotham Racing 2 adds specific character to PGR2 (because the player has likely never heard the song anywhere else)an when sales do occur they are more significant to the band itself. I think that the response of people, even people who really like Korn, when playing NFL Street would be a subdued, "Oh, cool. Korn, I like them." Whereas the response of people playing Project Gotham Racing 2 would be, "Who is this, I really like it!" That is to say that I think you'll find far fewer posts on message boards by people asking, "Who are these 'Korn' guys in NFL Street'? They rock!" than you will a similar question about PGR2.
Of course, this is all speculative and in the end you're probably right. Sigh.
I'm going to sound like a rabid fanboy here, so apologies all around. I'm not, but I think that in this case Microsoft's approach is far more - dare I say - altruistic? Perhaps I'm saying this because I've already bought three albums based on the music I heard in Project Gotham Racing 1 & 2. I would've bought more if I didn't already own them (...Trail of the Dead, for example). I think that at least in terms of enjoying the game, I like having this vast library of songs that, in PGR's case, are organized by styles by way of radio stations. In the same right, I despise Korn, and if it's played even half as often as Offspring in Crazy Taxi I'll never buy any game with them in it.
I use the word altruistic carefully, since because much of the music Microsoft uses in PGR and Amped is largely "unknown" (comparetively speaking to EA's "selections") they are obviously able to procure much more of it. Moreover, it helps the artist much more than it would PGR. Who's going to go buy Project Gotham Racing because American Hi-Fi has a song in it? On the other hand, it's quite possible that American Hi-Fi will receive more penetration than they would've without PGR2. Additionally, the consumer hears music they like rather than having a single song or set songs drilled into their head with a Cross-Promotional hammer.
And, if that doesn't suit you, you can use your own music with custom soundtracks. How can you beat that?
This sounds to me more like EA and Sony having some kind of promotional screwfest that consumers received an invitation to watch than it does an attempt to make the game "better" by adding character as the music does, however, in the case of PGR and Amped. If I've heard an artist on the radio, on the Ford commercial, on the hold line to my bank's customer service, AND finally on NFL Street, it does nothing for me. There is no connection. But if the only time I've ever heard Majestic 12 not in my CD player is on PGR2, a characteristical (is that a word?) connection is made between the two. EA's mainstream approach is generic and faceless; MS's indie approach is far preferable on every single side of the equation, be it consumer, publisher, or artist.
Of course, I had heard when Amped first came out that Microsoft had not paid the artists correctly, but am unable to find anything on the net supporting that. If that were the case, everything I'd said is wrong. Whoops.
Man-cube is an officially registered TradeMark of H.A.R.M. Any use or implication specifically reserved and is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws, and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws. Any violation of this policy will result in horrible, tortured, and excrutiatingly slow death. By Man-Cube (TM). Or Mime. Probably Man-Cube (TM) though, since they're cheaper to hire on a per hour basis than the French. Either way, it'll be a death that'll make you wish you hadn't violated the trademark of Man-Cube (TM).
It's interesting that the cited articles didn't mention two big Warner Brothers-controlled properties: Superman and Batman.
After the video gaming atrocities that were [INSERT ANY SUPERMAN OR BATMAN VIDEO GAME NAME HERE] and [REPEAT] and [REPEAT], not to mention [REPEAT], I wouldn't mention them either if I were either WB or Jason Hall.
One of the things Nintendo is best at is coming up with extremely bizarre products...and then making them work.
At first, I had to check your list there to see if it was a list of things that didn't work. They all are, save the GB. More importantly, many of those things are items from the golden age of Nintendo. The e-reader is more recent, but compared to what they were churning out prior (add the powerglove to your list, the Mario mouse, the exercise pad) most of these are from years ago. Nintendo introduced them and then they quickly faded into the background of popular culture. Really, the only innovation that is still being used is the Gameboy. Even Mario and Zelda are from their glory days (Pokemon was an idea from a company that Nintendo bought).
That's not to say that I didn't love Windwaker, or the GBA SP. But these are evolutions of concepts formed years ago, not fresh innovations. This makes them completely unlike Apple, who is still actively a market leader in design (from the iMacs to the iPods to, well, putting a small letter in front of words to make them sound cool). Nintendo, on the other hands, is doing its best to catch up. Even the Wavebird, a fantastic wireless device, is an evolution and not an innovation. Meanwhile, and in the same industry, Sony is releasing Nintendo-esque products like the Eyetoy - and, at the same time, getting a good deal of success while doing it, which is more than we can say for Nintendo's efforts.
I like Nintendo's apathetic "investor-may-care" attitude; this idea that they'll cater to 10% of the market for the duration of their corporate lifespan (which is, admitedly, very Apple-Like). Unfortunately, (and unlike Apple) I just don't know if there's room enough in the console market to support that kind of niche company. I hope so.
I can't wait to see this fly. When I worked at EB, we had problems with customers mixing up the power cable with the A/V cable. They thought the memory card fit into the controller slot. We had one guy who came in to buy a Dreamcast jump pack (generic tremor pack) because he couldn't jump high enough to get a certain part of the game. Did you see the back of the Phantom? Dear God, this'll be great. Obviously, they're going for a more mainstream audience than the PC niche crowd, since those people already have PCs AND broadband AND the patience to install hardware and software and patches. So the question is literally: who's dumb enough to buy this?
Internal Memo found in 3drealms, Infinium Labs, Valve, Ogo, and Vaporware Companies across the nation:
TO: PR DPT. FROM: CEO
I just read slashdot, and all we ever needed to stop being vaporware was a release date! And get this: we can slate for April 1st! Sweet Deal eh! Get to work on this "release date" stat!
-------------------
FROM: PR DPT TO: CEO
Work on release date already started. We'll get the release date to you "when it's ready."
Assuming that a decent enough WinXP PC costs $500, after the cost of an Xbox I still have about 6+ years of XBL before it meets the cost of a PC. Last time I checked, PS2 online gaming is free after an initial investment of the network adapter.
Even assuming that this hypothetical person already has a PC, the whole "free" thing is overrated anyway. PC online gaming does cost, although not in a dollar amount but in time units. Get the game installed. Try to play. Crashes. Download new graphics driver. Low FPS. Try driver before newest one, works fine but causes static noises with the sound driver. Get new sound driver. Fiddle with screen res and graphics settings. Runs fine. Crap, I need a patch for the game. Download that. Ok. What? Now I have to download a different map to enter this game? Ok, got that. What the hell? How is this guy sniping me from across the map and through two walls? And why do my DVDs on videos show up gray when I play them on my computer now? Grrrrr....!!
Yeah, I think I'll "be your guest," thanks. When I bought Project Gotham Racing 2, I placed the disc in the xbox and within the bootup time of the game I could have been racing online if I wanted to. No patch installs, no screwing with drivers, no fiddling with settings. Shrink wrap-to-online-gaming in less than 2 minutes tops, and that's being extra careful putting the disc in the tray. PC online gaming, then, is not "free." It costs significantly in the currency of convenience and time. Path of least resistance remember? Why do people drink bottled water when water fountains are everywhere? Because it's just easier. I can't carry around a fountain with me. Why not just buy a 2 liter of pop and bring a cup instead of buying a can from the machine? Why not make my own coffee and bring that to work instead of stopping by a coffeeshop to pay for it? Sometimes, "free" does cost more.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "high priced games" since, unless you're meaning that it's significantly easier to pirate games on the PC than on console, they cost about the same last time I checked.
There are two forces working against PCs and for consoles.
First, the consumer. Yes, your PC has higher precision in FPS games. Yes, your PC gets higher FPS. Yes, your PC can display games at a higher resolution. Does the 26 year old bachlor who has broadband to have it (that is to say, porn) and PS2 and Madden 2004 give damn about FPS and 1600 pixels and 128mb of gpu ram yadda yadda yadda? Nope. It matters to us because, well, it's always mattered to us. Because we're PC fanatics. But better FPS and higher accuracy doesn't necessarily mean more fun, it just means a higher FPS and accuracy. Whoopie. Personally, I've yet to see anything on PC that eclipses the strinking visuals in titles like Viewtiful Joe, or Zelda, ICO, or Panzeer Dragoon Orta. Additionally, while consoles aren't existing within some kind of non-cheating utopia kingdom, it's a far better situation than the PC, particularly on Xbox Live. You only have so many credit cards for new XBL accounts, whereas IPs come as easy as power cycling your modem. Lag is typically better, as every player on XBL and in most PS2 games are required to have broadband. Most of these same games also require voice (which, granted and thanks to the seemingly shared low IQ on XBL, is sometimes detrimental) and have a built in unified awareness system (I know when my friend is online regardless of what game she's playing). Basically, the mainstream consumer is on the side of console onling gaming if they're on either side at all. It certainly won't be PC, which includes significanlty more hurdles to really play online than the console, even in the relative childhood of online console gaming. Path of less resistance, remember?
Secondly, if they don't already - and many of them do - I think publishers will prefer console online gaming to PC. There's more control there, even if it's through the Microsoft controlled XBL. Particularly with XBL, there's less liability. Some guy sexually harassing little kids? No problem, you have his credit card, not some untracable IP that leads you to a library or wireless hotspot. There's also financial control. It's much harder to charge for a roster update through a PC than it is on a console, when you've stored their credit card number. Whether this is good for the consumer is debatable, but I think the cards, which are predominately in the hands of the publishers, are definitely stacked against PC gaming. If there is any altruism, it's because companies like Valve and id have a certain spot in their heart for PC gaming, not because they see any financial reasoning to do so. If you think this is the norm rather than the exception, you're the only one still getting $15 off coupons to Amazon.com every week in your email box.
Face it: when it comes to at least racing and sports, consoles have quite easily dominated online gameplay (yes, I know how cool Live for Speed is). All that's left is RPG, FPS, and RTS, and I think console devs will be happy to leave RTS firmly in the grip of the PC.
I think what most people who've posted are doing is examing their own habits with regards to online gaming but have largely neglected to truly examine the entirety of the video game market. Sure, PC gaming will always be here and for some ungodly reason people will still be playing dust on CS, and PC online will most certainly for the next year or two to come what with Half Life 2 and Doom III on the horizon. However, I'm as enamored with the net integration in PGR2 as the article writer is, and I think it's a glimpse of what can really be accomplished with online console gaming. PGR2 not only meets PC gaming, but it smacks in the ass, trips it out, and has surpassed what PC gaming should have been doing this whole time. If PC gaming does survive, it'll have been done with the mantra "evolve or die;" and I think in many ways it will begin to resemble console gaming (i.e. Steam significantly resembles XBL).
It sounds like quite specifically what you didn't like about KOTOR was the lack of thieving ability. There is that (obviously you never got far enough), but I'll concede that it definitely is not as developed as Fallout. Why? Because thieving doesn't really fit into the Star Wars universe. Star Wars has always been about having huge epic battles, and sneaking around in the shadows is just not what characterizes Star Wars.
As far as the story, if you've only played 6-8 hours you probably haven't seen enough of the story to care. I'm one that believes a game should grab you by the collars within the first hour otherwise it's useless, and KOTOR definitely did that for me. Nevertheless, the story does pick up. Moreover, what was great about KOTOR was the fact that if you sat there and talked to everyone over and over again, the story became much more detailed and full of subplots. If you had just talked to everyone one time and went on your merry little way, you're probably missing a huge chunk of these highly intricate character development subplots.
For me, KOTOR was one of the few games in which character development does occur. Moreover, it's only one of the only games I've played in which I really cared about the NPCs and what happened to them; they really had enough dimension to them for me to be concerned about whether they completed their own personal quests. Which is far more than I can say for Episode I & II. Sigh.
" - Ecclesiastes
Why the dislike of franchises, if they're fun? Some of the best games this year have been based on some kind of franchise: Knights of the Old Republic, Crimson Skies, Tron 2.0, Prince of Persia, Windwaker. Sure, not all franchise games did well., as a long string of crappy Batman games continues. Nevertheless, it seems to me this is no different than non-franchise/sequel games: some good, some bad, some ugly.
So what is a franchise or a sequel anyway? Aside from the attachment of a legal copyright, it's a game that's based in an established and defined world, right? But isn't Viewtiful Joe working within a world as established as that which frames Prince of Persia: Sands of Time? Instead of the confines of a defined environment and style established by two prior games, Viewtiful Joe is still working within the language and world of a comic book or action movie. That is to say that as strange as it would be in, for example, SW:KOTOR to suddenly meet up with a machine gun toting helicopter that operates on only two dimensions, it's just as unlikey in VJ for a three dimensional seriously driven Dark Jedi level boss. KOTOR is following the rules of the Star Wars "world," but VJ is just as adherent to the rules and confines of a comic book or action movie. Moreover, what of the franchise established by the first Prince of Persia isn't borrowed anyway from the old Sinbad movies or the steretypical Persian archetype? Take out the characteristic crumbling legdes in Sands of Time and it could have been called, say, Prince *in* Persia or merely Sands of Time and just as easily not been a franchise. So why discount good games merely because there's a copyright symbol attached to the title?
I submit that originality does not necessitate the exclusion of the existence of a copyright, and that on many fundamental levels, all games are "franchises" because there is no true, pure originality. I understand that this may be walking the fine line of an unnecessary frivolous discussion on semantics, but discounting games merely because they're a franchise or a sequel is just silly. Doing so, particularly this year, means you're missing out on a lot of very, very, very well designed and great games. The prequisite should be, "Is this fun?" not "Is this 'new'"?
Which begs the question: why do the big publishers always screw up? I hope - I really hope - that this game will be a kind of milestone in the creation of an independent games scene. Yes, I know, there already is one. The problem with the existing one, at least in terms of its relationship with the larger game industry, is that no one really makes puzzle games anymore. Games like this, however, may very well bring "modding" into the next level and create a sort of farm team of talent for the bigger publishers and devs. Basically, maybe this could be someone's resume, ala Memento for Christopher Nolan or Bottle Rocket for Wes Anderson in film.
Nintendo isn't exactly a saint, I'll agree. There's proof of them engaging in price fixing and they've taken a stance against emulation. They aren't as evil as the other two but they aren't as big either.
I liked most of your post, but not applying the same treatment to Nintendo that Sony and MS get is unfair. Let's not forget that Nintendo used to be very controlling, almost to a Mac-level of totalitarianism, in the console market. For example, it wasn't that long ago that Nintendo tried to sue cheat guide publishers for printing screenshots of their games so that they could monopolize the strategy guide market. That's one case. The only reason Nintendo has become more publisher and consumer friendly is because they're losing to Sony. While Nintendo claims that the proprietary GC disc size is to prevent piracy, the more likely reason (since piracy is as rampant now as it is for the other two systems) is that Nintendo owns the manufacturing factory for the discs, similar to their same business models for the cartridges for the NES-N64 and the GB-GBA.
Nintendo has only recently shed themselves of their anti-developer diplomatic policies, and buys out as many dev teams and houses as MS and Sony do.
I like that it won't matter to you anymore, but nevertheless, slashdot should not act sympathetic towards Nintendo because of business practices, because I'd venture to say that everything Sony and MS have done Nintendo has already done in one form or another. Slashdot likes Nintendo because slashdot likes underdogs, not because it dislikes big companies. Nintendo used to be that big company slashdot would've hated if we were around in the mid eighties. If we're going to like Nintendo more than Sony and MS, it ought to be because they generally make better games than Sony and MS, not because we feel corporately sorry for them.
You know, this is going to reveal my innate geekiness, but if I hadn't just seen this episode of TNG on SpikeTV the other day I wouldn't have remembered. Does tranquility remind anyone else of the TNG episode "The Game"?
I listened to the samples of ZenStrings, and it sounds as repetetive as anything in Final Fantasy. Why? Because without the set patterns of composed music, one measure of randomized music basically sounds the same as the next because there were no patterns with which to "landmark" the music with. After 10 minutes of random music, it'll all start to sound the same as well, and while you may not have heard the same thing, without landmark patterns you'll swear you had. Where's the use in that?
There's an easier way to "de-repeatize" music, and that's to create great music. I don't remember the music in Halo being particularly repetitive and I've certainly played that for well over 72 hours. Same for KOTOR.
I don't think taking up space is an issue. The virtual radio stations of GTA:VC and Project Gotham Racing 2 just throw so much music at you (and good music too!) that I've really yet to feel like I've heard the same song too much, and since the music is pretty great, I actually turn it up when I hear a favorite.
I think the third solution was first exhibited by LucasArts in X-Wing and its ilk; the idea of set themes but changing dynamically.
I think there are far more effective solutions than ZenStrings. That's not to say that ZenStrings isn't an anchievement, but throw that stuff in a game and it'll hurt the general atmosphere of most games because the music is not "intentful."
I can't find any pics, but I remember PC Gamer had an article about a year or two ago on all the Starcraft related merchandise in Korea. Starcraft running shoes, Starcraft Doritos, Starcraft candy, Starcraft toilet paper.
Slashdot Mirror
X does not follow Y. Deus Ex 2 (and presumably Thief 3) sucked. It sucked because of what Ion Storm did. As others have pointed out, it is possible to make a release for both the Xbox and PCs that doesn't suck. Therefore, if it sucks, it must be Ion Storm's fault.
Of course it is Ion Storm's fault. But why the change of heart in Ion Storm? Why the sudden love for the console market, represented on a symbolic level, perhaps, by the shift of perspective from first (traditionally PC) to third (traditionally console)? That's what I'm attempting to address here. KOTOR will be, no doubt, the shining example for your statement. And yet, it was released first for the Xbox. Moreover, Bioware's next game is Xbox exclusive, and this is one example among denizens. I would also assert that the exceptions, Half Life 2 and Doom III, are being made for the PC largely out of nostalgia or loyalty on behalf to the PC. Even companies that are capable of made excellent PC/Console games are focusing on the console.
Pirating "comes from any of" my discussion [sic] because I believe it's a significant reason why the PC industry is hurting. Actually, I didn't say "suck it up and buy the games." I said don't pirate, and don't buy games that require complicated patches and installations (which to say, nearly all PC games save the Sims; coicindence that it's a regular top ranking seller on the PC charts? I don't think so). Companies are in business to make money, and good games (usually) make money; at this point though, those good games are being made for the console instead of the PC because that's where the money is. While there is a dynamic between the consumer and the publisher, like any industry, it is mostly driven by how we spend our money (or don't). Inevitably, we shape it with the monies we spend. This is a Frankenstein we've created; this pirating, patching beast that lumbers into walls (and, most likely, crates) while a speedy Sonic/Mario/Crash zooms by, collecting floating dollar bills that could have been our's.
If it isn't our fault as consumers, for pirating and allowing (and more importantly, buying) unfinished products, then why the mass exodus to the console industry? I personally think that this is a good thing as I hope we'll see the burgeoning indie PC market thrive, and what all this will eventually mean though is far less flashy productions ala Blizzard and Valve. I'll save that, though, for another post.
I anticipate comments here mirroring many of the comments on the web forums discussing this, consisting mostly of the assertion that third person loses some of the immersion that first person supposedly provides. Consoles have again "ruined" what would have otherwise been a great PC title.
Now, I played Thief 1 & 2, and they're both great games, classics to be sure. Still, I can't deny that after having played Metal Gear Solid and especially Splinter Cell, there's something to be said for the third person perspective, particularly when used in stealth games. What the first person perspective may add in immersion, it detracts signficantly in peripheral view. Ok, sure, I can see around a corner that I probably wouldn't be able to see around without third person. But the fact remains that playing a game in first person is really like looking at the world through a narrow cardboard box. If someone is standing next to me as I type this, I can see them even though I'm not looking directly at them. Likewise, I can see things to the side in a third person game. Conversely, in a first person game, I can't do that. Personally, I'll take the "unrealism" of being able to see around corners over the lack of peripheral vision anyday in a stealth game. Besides, I'm not really sure how this unrealistic looking around corners really differs that much from the infamous lean keys in FPS, and more recent games (like Splinter Cell) add the cost of being seen when you peek around corners.
With regards to the belief that consoles have ruined yet another title, I think that the PC industry (consumers and publishers alike) needs a good long introspect look at itself. The fact that we're sitting close to the end of this console lifespan and yet I have yet to see graphics, and far more importantly *good* gameplay, truly exceed that of what exists on my consoles as they once did at this point in the Playstation lifecycle is significant. Moreover, PC game piracy, both pre-release (i.e. HL2) and after is at least as rampant as it ever is if not much more so. The charts are dominated by The Sims, and yet PC publishers think that the market with the money will orgasm over a monthly screenshoot of Doom III with super-vexal-triple-z-buffer-120fps screenshoots. I remember when this all started at the beginning of this console cycle, and all the PC gaming magazines said it wouldn't last. Well, it's obviously lasted, and I personally think that it'll only get "worse."
Basically, this: stop bitching about Ion Storm and kin making console games and stop pirating. Moreover, petition (and demonstrate appropriate patronage, or the lack thereof, towards) companies to release final products that don't require 4 years of IT certification to install and get operational (obviously including Ion Storm). In relation to the PC market, the console maret is merely the path of least resistance, both consumer and publisher wise. We're in a (generally) free market, and by and large companies, who are in business to make money, will go where the making money is good. If that's not in happy utopia PC land, we have only ourselves to blame.
When customers pre-order a game at an EB or Best Buy or the like, they're often given a psuedo-box filled with "goodies." Usually this includes some kind of mini strategy guide, and/or a demo or addon disc, etc. If not a box, you'll often receive some kind t-shirt or at least some schlocky branded pencil eraser or earmuffs. Or whatever.
Okay, okay; the employees take this crap home themselves and hoard it. The intent of the publisher, however, remains. There is this understanding that when you give money to someone, you get something back. In our specific case example, you really shouldn't need to get anything since your $5-$10 goes towards the game. And yet, it feels somehow more real if you walk out with something you can hold, albeit a cheap-ass box with a black tshirt you'd never be caught dead wearing.
Physical objects, in relation to this discussion, serve two roles. First, as a tangible anchor, a remainder that you now own something that you previously did not. On a subconscious level, I think physical products serve as a token or relic to show other people that you own something but also as a symbol stating, "I own this now."
Secondly but quite related and illustrated effectively by the editorial, I think physical purchasing also appeals to the hoarding/pack-ing nature of humans; the desire to collect and store more things than we had before. Perhaps we're seeing that desire slowly erode, what with the impact of purchasable digital music remaining to be seen. Still, as of right now, I think it's fair to say that most people want to own something; not merely because of possible future technical difficulties, but rather as a proof of purchase, a tangible item that we've added to our "stash o' stuff." I think that while it includes the role of a remainder of the "enemies you have defeated," it's more than that also a representation of possession and ownership. For Gamespot editors, physical boxes may well serve as remainders of games finished, but for most normal people, they serve as remainders for games yet unfinished as well. We may never play the game more than 5 hours, but by golly we "own" that game and that's half the battle. The ownership is more important, in many ways, of the games played. The fact that I have Panzeer Dragon Orta, REZ, and Ico on my shelf says something about me as a person, not merely as remainders of good times.
Why do religions have symbols, such as rosaries or crosses, for such blantantly abstract concepts? For much the same reason that we collect physical games. The more vivid an experience, be it music, film, religion, or gaming, the more we as human beings will desire a physical product.
None of that exists, really, with downloadable games. Purchasable broadband gaming is like a religion with symbols; it's cold, sterile, and most importantly completely abstract (in a digital sense of the word). Who wants a religion without symbols?
-------
Endnote: Software pirates may seem to disprove what I've said. Why, then, the existence of sites like cdcover.cc; this need to print out colorful, highly detailed box art and CD/DVD labels? If, for pirates, who would seem to be closest in this idea of digital abstraction, why not merely use a sharpie and a paper sleeve? They have the same pack-ing desire everyone else does, only manifested a more illicitly.
Also in the news, e-books from Amazon will obiliterate the printed book market, grocery delivery services will annihilate the brick and mortar grocery stores, DigiScent smelling PC devices are the next video cards, broadband video retails are the wave of the future, and PointCast rocks.
(I'd have thrown in more digitally oriented links, but the websites are all, well, gone)
This is an interesting theory but ultimately I think that you're wrong.
You made some fantastic points, and you're probably right. In my indie idealistic enthusiasm, allow me to a counter point though. I hope I didn't sound like I was going as far to suggest that the consumer was somehow being "screwed," and I am most likely downplaying the fact that mainstream implies that a significant number of people like, say, Korn in NFL Street. Your formula is well thought out, you know, at least as far as music in video game formulas go, but the very mainstream nature of Korn being mainstream means that most people have already heard Korn and have made a decision about whether they'll like it or not whereas this is definitely not the case for a large majority of the music in PGR2 or Amped.
I suppose what I'm suggesting is that one more sale to Korn is worth far less than one more sale to Trail of the Dead. Likewise, exposure through a video game is far less important to a band like Korn whose songs play on half of the dial. But for a more obscure band, a game like PGR is going to allow penetration into homes that barely even know such a music market exists, let alone that the band.
You're right, but I think what I'm trying to say is that this specific example, the EA-Korn (or whomever artist) does far less to help anyone than a like agreement between MS and Simple Plan. I can't imagine anyone buying NFL Street or liking it more because Korn's in it, and even if people buy a Korn CD because they heard it in NFL Street, that sale is far less important to Korn in the long run. On the other hand, attaching a band like Simple Plan to Project Gotham Racing 2 adds specific character to PGR2 (because the player has likely never heard the song anywhere else)an when sales do occur they are more significant to the band itself. I think that the response of people, even people who really like Korn, when playing NFL Street would be a subdued, "Oh, cool. Korn, I like them." Whereas the response of people playing Project Gotham Racing 2 would be, "Who is this, I really like it!" That is to say that I think you'll find far fewer posts on message boards by people asking, "Who are these 'Korn' guys in NFL Street'? They rock!" than you will a similar question about PGR2.
Of course, this is all speculative and in the end you're probably right. Sigh.
I'm going to sound like a rabid fanboy here, so apologies all around. I'm not, but I think that in this case Microsoft's approach is far more - dare I say - altruistic? Perhaps I'm saying this because I've already bought three albums based on the music I heard in Project Gotham Racing 1 & 2. I would've bought more if I didn't already own them (...Trail of the Dead, for example). I think that at least in terms of enjoying the game, I like having this vast library of songs that, in PGR's case, are organized by styles by way of radio stations. In the same right, I despise Korn, and if it's played even half as often as Offspring in Crazy Taxi I'll never buy any game with them in it.
I use the word altruistic carefully, since because much of the music Microsoft uses in PGR and Amped is largely "unknown" (comparetively speaking to EA's "selections") they are obviously able to procure much more of it. Moreover, it helps the artist much more than it would PGR. Who's going to go buy Project Gotham Racing because American Hi-Fi has a song in it? On the other hand, it's quite possible that American Hi-Fi will receive more penetration than they would've without PGR2. Additionally, the consumer hears music they like rather than having a single song or set songs drilled into their head with a Cross-Promotional hammer.
And, if that doesn't suit you, you can use your own music with custom soundtracks. How can you beat that?
This sounds to me more like EA and Sony having some kind of promotional screwfest that consumers received an invitation to watch than it does an attempt to make the game "better" by adding character as the music does, however, in the case of PGR and Amped. If I've heard an artist on the radio, on the Ford commercial, on the hold line to my bank's customer service, AND finally on NFL Street, it does nothing for me. There is no connection. But if the only time I've ever heard Majestic 12 not in my CD player is on PGR2, a characteristical (is that a word?) connection is made between the two. EA's mainstream approach is generic and faceless; MS's indie approach is far preferable on every single side of the equation, be it consumer, publisher, or artist.
Of course, I had heard when Amped first came out that Microsoft had not paid the artists correctly, but am unable to find anything on the net supporting that. If that were the case, everything I'd said is wrong. Whoops.
Man-Cubes(TM) ?
Man-cube is an officially registered TradeMark of H.A.R.M. Any use or implication specifically reserved and is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws, and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws. Any violation of this policy will result in horrible, tortured, and excrutiatingly slow death. By Man-Cube (TM). Or Mime. Probably Man-Cube (TM) though, since they're cheaper to hire on a per hour basis than the French. Either way, it'll be a death that'll make you wish you hadn't violated the trademark of Man-Cube (TM).
It's interesting that the cited articles didn't mention two big Warner Brothers-controlled properties: Superman and Batman.
After the video gaming atrocities that were [INSERT ANY SUPERMAN OR BATMAN VIDEO GAME NAME HERE] and [REPEAT] and [REPEAT], not to mention [REPEAT], I wouldn't mention them either if I were either WB or Jason Hall.
Fatbabies speculative post here. Company press release here.
One of the things Nintendo is best at is coming up with extremely bizarre products...and then making them work.
At first, I had to check your list there to see if it was a list of things that didn't work. They all are, save the GB. More importantly, many of those things are items from the golden age of Nintendo. The e-reader is more recent, but compared to what they were churning out prior (add the powerglove to your list, the Mario mouse, the exercise pad) most of these are from years ago. Nintendo introduced them and then they quickly faded into the background of popular culture. Really, the only innovation that is still being used is the Gameboy. Even Mario and Zelda are from their glory days (Pokemon was an idea from a company that Nintendo bought).
That's not to say that I didn't love Windwaker, or the GBA SP. But these are evolutions of concepts formed years ago, not fresh innovations. This makes them completely unlike Apple, who is still actively a market leader in design (from the iMacs to the iPods to, well, putting a small letter in front of words to make them sound cool). Nintendo, on the other hands, is doing its best to catch up. Even the Wavebird, a fantastic wireless device, is an evolution and not an innovation. Meanwhile, and in the same industry, Sony is releasing Nintendo-esque products like the Eyetoy - and, at the same time, getting a good deal of success while doing it, which is more than we can say for Nintendo's efforts.
I like Nintendo's apathetic "investor-may-care" attitude; this idea that they'll cater to 10% of the market for the duration of their corporate lifespan (which is, admitedly, very Apple-Like). Unfortunately, (and unlike Apple) I just don't know if there's room enough in the console market to support that kind of niche company. I hope so.
I can't wait to see this fly. When I worked at EB, we had problems with customers mixing up the power cable with the A/V cable. They thought the memory card fit into the controller slot. We had one guy who came in to buy a Dreamcast jump pack (generic tremor pack) because he couldn't jump high enough to get a certain part of the game. Did you see the back of the Phantom? Dear God, this'll be great. Obviously, they're going for a more mainstream audience than the PC niche crowd, since those people already have PCs AND broadband AND the patience to install hardware and software and patches. So the question is literally: who's dumb enough to buy this?
Oh yeah. We "people" may have enough consoles and a powerful PC, but whenver a new console comes out, we always buy it. I forgot.
1. Identify most popular game genre (FPS, RTS, RPG, etc) and subgenre (FPS: Strategic, say).
2. Apply Star Wars template (i. e. medics become Bacta Droids, magic becomes "force," etc)
3. Name game Star Wars: [Random Star Wars noun] + [Name best befitting genre & subgenre].
Hey if it worked for Force Commander, it's gotta work with...oh; never mind.
At least the game publishers don't have to worry about Games X Copy actually selling. Most will just pirate it.
Internal Memo found in 3drealms, Infinium Labs, Valve, Ogo, and Vaporware Companies across the nation:
TO: PR DPT.
FROM: CEO
I just read slashdot, and all we ever needed to stop being vaporware was a release date! And get this: we can slate for April 1st! Sweet Deal eh! Get to work on this "release date" stat!
-------------------
FROM: PR DPT
TO: CEO
Work on release date already started. We'll get the release date to you "when it's ready."
Assuming that a decent enough WinXP PC costs $500, after the cost of an Xbox I still have about 6+ years of XBL before it meets the cost of a PC. Last time I checked, PS2 online gaming is free after an initial investment of the network adapter.
Even assuming that this hypothetical person already has a PC, the whole "free" thing is overrated anyway. PC online gaming does cost, although not in a dollar amount but in time units. Get the game installed. Try to play. Crashes. Download new graphics driver. Low FPS. Try driver before newest one, works fine but causes static noises with the sound driver. Get new sound driver. Fiddle with screen res and graphics settings. Runs fine. Crap, I need a patch for the game. Download that. Ok. What? Now I have to download a different map to enter this game? Ok, got that. What the hell? How is this guy sniping me from across the map and through two walls? And why do my DVDs on videos show up gray when I play them on my computer now? Grrrrr....!!
Yeah, I think I'll "be your guest," thanks. When I bought Project Gotham Racing 2, I placed the disc in the xbox and within the bootup time of the game I could have been racing online if I wanted to. No patch installs, no screwing with drivers, no fiddling with settings. Shrink wrap-to-online-gaming in less than 2 minutes tops, and that's being extra careful putting the disc in the tray. PC online gaming, then, is not "free." It costs significantly in the currency of convenience and time. Path of least resistance remember? Why do people drink bottled water when water fountains are everywhere? Because it's just easier. I can't carry around a fountain with me. Why not just buy a 2 liter of pop and bring a cup instead of buying a can from the machine? Why not make my own coffee and bring that to work instead of stopping by a coffeeshop to pay for it? Sometimes, "free" does cost more.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "high priced games" since, unless you're meaning that it's significantly easier to pirate games on the PC than on console, they cost about the same last time I checked.
There are two forces working against PCs and for consoles.
/bow_head for moddown.
First, the consumer. Yes, your PC has higher precision in FPS games. Yes, your PC gets higher FPS. Yes, your PC can display games at a higher resolution. Does the 26 year old bachlor who has broadband to have it (that is to say, porn) and PS2 and Madden 2004 give damn about FPS and 1600 pixels and 128mb of gpu ram yadda yadda yadda? Nope. It matters to us because, well, it's always mattered to us. Because we're PC fanatics. But better FPS and higher accuracy doesn't necessarily mean more fun, it just means a higher FPS and accuracy. Whoopie. Personally, I've yet to see anything on PC that eclipses the strinking visuals in titles like Viewtiful Joe, or Zelda, ICO, or Panzeer Dragoon Orta. Additionally, while consoles aren't existing within some kind of non-cheating utopia kingdom, it's a far better situation than the PC, particularly on Xbox Live. You only have so many credit cards for new XBL accounts, whereas IPs come as easy as power cycling your modem. Lag is typically better, as every player on XBL and in most PS2 games are required to have broadband. Most of these same games also require voice (which, granted and thanks to the seemingly shared low IQ on XBL, is sometimes detrimental) and have a built in unified awareness system (I know when my friend is online regardless of what game she's playing). Basically, the mainstream consumer is on the side of console onling gaming if they're on either side at all. It certainly won't be PC, which includes significanlty more hurdles to really play online than the console, even in the relative childhood of online console gaming. Path of less resistance, remember?
Secondly, if they don't already - and many of them do - I think publishers will prefer console online gaming to PC. There's more control there, even if it's through the Microsoft controlled XBL. Particularly with XBL, there's less liability. Some guy sexually harassing little kids? No problem, you have his credit card, not some untracable IP that leads you to a library or wireless hotspot. There's also financial control. It's much harder to charge for a roster update through a PC than it is on a console, when you've stored their credit card number. Whether this is good for the consumer is debatable, but I think the cards, which are predominately in the hands of the publishers, are definitely stacked against PC gaming. If there is any altruism, it's because companies like Valve and id have a certain spot in their heart for PC gaming, not because they see any financial reasoning to do so. If you think this is the norm rather than the exception, you're the only one still getting $15 off coupons to Amazon.com every week in your email box.
Face it: when it comes to at least racing and sports, consoles have quite easily dominated online gameplay (yes, I know how cool Live for Speed is). All that's left is RPG, FPS, and RTS, and I think console devs will be happy to leave RTS firmly in the grip of the PC.
I think what most people who've posted are doing is examing their own habits with regards to online gaming but have largely neglected to truly examine the entirety of the video game market. Sure, PC gaming will always be here and for some ungodly reason people will still be playing dust on CS, and PC online will most certainly for the next year or two to come what with Half Life 2 and Doom III on the horizon. However, I'm as enamored with the net integration in PGR2 as the article writer is, and I think it's a glimpse of what can really be accomplished with online console gaming. PGR2 not only meets PC gaming, but it smacks in the ass, trips it out, and has surpassed what PC gaming should have been doing this whole time. If PC gaming does survive, it'll have been done with the mantra "evolve or die;" and I think in many ways it will begin to resemble console gaming (i.e. Steam significantly resembles XBL).
It sounds like quite specifically what you didn't like about KOTOR was the lack of thieving ability. There is that (obviously you never got far enough), but I'll concede that it definitely is not as developed as Fallout. Why? Because thieving doesn't really fit into the Star Wars universe. Star Wars has always been about having huge epic battles, and sneaking around in the shadows is just not what characterizes Star Wars.
As far as the story, if you've only played 6-8 hours you probably haven't seen enough of the story to care. I'm one that believes a game should grab you by the collars within the first hour otherwise it's useless, and KOTOR definitely did that for me. Nevertheless, the story does pick up. Moreover, what was great about KOTOR was the fact that if you sat there and talked to everyone over and over again, the story became much more detailed and full of subplots. If you had just talked to everyone one time and went on your merry little way, you're probably missing a huge chunk of these highly intricate character development subplots.
For me, KOTOR was one of the few games in which character development does occur. Moreover, it's only one of the only games I've played in which I really cared about the NPCs and what happened to them; they really had enough dimension to them for me to be concerned about whether they completed their own personal quests. Which is far more than I can say for Episode I & II. Sigh.
"There is nothing new under the sun.
" - Ecclesiastes Why the dislike of franchises, if they're fun? Some of the best games this year have been based on some kind of franchise: Knights of the Old Republic, Crimson Skies, Tron 2.0, Prince of Persia, Windwaker. Sure, not all franchise games did well., as a long string of crappy Batman games continues. Nevertheless, it seems to me this is no different than non-franchise/sequel games: some good, some bad, some ugly.
So what is a franchise or a sequel anyway? Aside from the attachment of a legal copyright, it's a game that's based in an established and defined world, right? But isn't Viewtiful Joe working within a world as established as that which frames Prince of Persia: Sands of Time? Instead of the confines of a defined environment and style established by two prior games, Viewtiful Joe is still working within the language and world of a comic book or action movie. That is to say that as strange as it would be in, for example, SW:KOTOR to suddenly meet up with a machine gun toting helicopter that operates on only two dimensions, it's just as unlikey in VJ for a three dimensional seriously driven Dark Jedi level boss. KOTOR is following the rules of the Star Wars "world," but VJ is just as adherent to the rules and confines of a comic book or action movie. Moreover, what of the franchise established by the first Prince of Persia isn't borrowed anyway from the old Sinbad movies or the steretypical Persian archetype? Take out the characteristic crumbling legdes in Sands of Time and it could have been called, say, Prince *in* Persia or merely Sands of Time and just as easily not been a franchise. So why discount good games merely because there's a copyright symbol attached to the title?
I submit that originality does not necessitate the exclusion of the existence of a copyright, and that on many fundamental levels, all games are "franchises" because there is no true, pure originality. I understand that this may be walking the fine line of an unnecessary frivolous discussion on semantics, but discounting games merely because they're a franchise or a sequel is just silly. Doing so, particularly this year, means you're missing out on a lot of very, very, very well designed and great games. The prequisite should be, "Is this fun?" not "Is this 'new'"?
You should go back to school and learn what 'begs the question' means.
Please, enlighten me.
Downloaded and ran this game... very impressive!
Which begs the question: why do the big publishers always screw up? I hope - I really hope - that this game will be a kind of milestone in the creation of an independent games scene. Yes, I know, there already is one. The problem with the existing one, at least in terms of its relationship with the larger game industry, is that no one really makes puzzle games anymore. Games like this, however, may very well bring "modding" into the next level and create a sort of farm team of talent for the bigger publishers and devs. Basically, maybe this could be someone's resume, ala Memento for Christopher Nolan or Bottle Rocket for Wes Anderson in film.
Nintendo isn't exactly a saint, I'll agree. There's proof of them engaging in price fixing and they've taken a stance against emulation. They aren't as evil as the other two but they aren't as big either.
I liked most of your post, but not applying the same treatment to Nintendo that Sony and MS get is unfair. Let's not forget that Nintendo used to be very controlling, almost to a Mac-level of totalitarianism, in the console market. For example, it wasn't that long ago that Nintendo tried to sue cheat guide publishers for printing screenshots of their games so that they could monopolize the strategy guide market. That's one case. The only reason Nintendo has become more publisher and consumer friendly is because they're losing to Sony. While Nintendo claims that the proprietary GC disc size is to prevent piracy, the more likely reason (since piracy is as rampant now as it is for the other two systems) is that Nintendo owns the manufacturing factory for the discs, similar to their same business models for the cartridges for the NES-N64 and the GB-GBA.
Nintendo has only recently shed themselves of their anti-developer diplomatic policies, and buys out as many dev teams and houses as MS and Sony do.
I like that it won't matter to you anymore, but nevertheless, slashdot should not act sympathetic towards Nintendo because of business practices, because I'd venture to say that everything Sony and MS have done Nintendo has already done in one form or another. Slashdot likes Nintendo because slashdot likes underdogs, not because it dislikes big companies. Nintendo used to be that big company slashdot would've hated if we were around in the mid eighties. If we're going to like Nintendo more than Sony and MS, it ought to be because they generally make better games than Sony and MS, not because we feel corporately sorry for them.
You must have accidently (?) installed the Touch-Each-Others'-Boobies patch 1.4 before playing.
You know, this is going to reveal my innate geekiness, but if I hadn't just seen this episode of TNG on SpikeTV the other day I wouldn't have remembered. Does tranquility remind anyone else of the TNG episode "The Game"?
I listened to the samples of ZenStrings, and it sounds as repetetive as anything in Final Fantasy. Why? Because without the set patterns of composed music, one measure of randomized music basically sounds the same as the next because there were no patterns with which to "landmark" the music with. After 10 minutes of random music, it'll all start to sound the same as well, and while you may not have heard the same thing, without landmark patterns you'll swear you had. Where's the use in that?
There's an easier way to "de-repeatize" music, and that's to create great music. I don't remember the music in Halo being particularly repetitive and I've certainly played that for well over 72 hours. Same for KOTOR.
I don't think taking up space is an issue. The virtual radio stations of GTA:VC and Project Gotham Racing 2 just throw so much music at you (and good music too!) that I've really yet to feel like I've heard the same song too much, and since the music is pretty great, I actually turn it up when I hear a favorite.
I think the third solution was first exhibited by LucasArts in X-Wing and its ilk; the idea of set themes but changing dynamically.
I think there are far more effective solutions than ZenStrings. That's not to say that ZenStrings isn't an anchievement, but throw that stuff in a game and it'll hurt the general atmosphere of most games because the music is not "intentful."
I can't find any pics, but I remember PC Gamer had an article about a year or two ago on all the Starcraft related merchandise in Korea. Starcraft running shoes, Starcraft Doritos, Starcraft candy, Starcraft toilet paper.
I'm fibbing about the toilet paper. Maybe.