That reminds me. At exactly the same time, we (at the EB I was working at) got so many calls for the Playstation9. Sony, at the same time as this "launch," was running ads for a bloody PS9. How fucking brilliant was that?
Geez.
You make some great points in the post. I will make on major dispute, and that's Sony had a strong launch lineup. I was working at EB at the time of the PS2 launch, and there's no way that the software they had at launch was anything but one of the worst launch line-ups in history. Of course, there were about eight times more games than the N64 launch (which is to say 16, as opposed to say, 2), but the only strong titles at launch were SSX and Madden 2001. And that was pushing it.
I remember the lucky few that did own a PS2 within the first few months (and a memory card - lucky bastards) would stand in front of the wall just blankly staring, as if maybe a decent title would suddenly morph from the game wall into vision. The launch, by nearly every definition, was a complete failure. First, there weren't enough games. Then there weren't enough systems. Then there weren't enough memory cards. Compound this with Christmas, greedy retailers (including EB) who sold it for nothing less than a $600 bundle, and greedy Ebayers picking 5 up at a time, and you've got yourself one of the most fuddled up launches in the history of consoles. And let us not even speak of the first party *TITLE* (singular, not plural) at launch (-cough-fantavision-cough).
No, the Xbox and Gamecube launches fared fare better. Consequently, it's a testament to Sony's reputation among adult gamers as well as the surge of software in the spring and summer quarter of the following year. Oh yeah, it didn't hurt that Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy X, and Grand Theft Auto 3 also came out the following Christmas.
No, I never said Doom I and II weren't decent; I'm more than willing to give credit where credit is due. The same with Quake (although I think it's stretching it to say it was one of the best FPS). However, I think we entered a post-iD world when Valve released Half Life. Of course, we had stuff like Blood and System Shock that well predated the story-focused scripted Half Life.
I'm also not sure I'd agree with the less keys more pure game, otherwise that flash spank the monkey game is god's gift to humanity. I see your point, but I think what I'm getting at when I refer to Half Life 2, Deus Ex 2, etc is that these are predominately more story and content driven than Doom III looks. And don't get me wrong littlghoti, I think there's a place for Doom III. I'm not saying it's going to be the crappiest game of all time.
But I don't think think we need to ejaculate every time a new screenshot is released, that's all.
The original Half-Life marked the end of iD as a viable player in the content game. Don't get me wrong, the engines they create are used time and time again to create some fairly great stuff, and no doubt we'll see the same of Doom III.
But in terms of viable single player pure *content*, I still don't see Doom III as being much more than a tech demo at worst, and at best a 3D Resident Evil wannabe. I've tried, I really have, but there just isn't much to like when we have potentially more creative work like Deus Ex 2, Half Life 2, XIII and the like on the horizon.
I read in interviews with both Naughty Dog (of Jak and Daxter/Crash fame) and Warren Spector, and I liked what they said (seperately): we've reached a plateau of graphical improvement, and it's time to start working on gameplay. Why can't John Carmack dedicate his obvious talent to developing a fluid game conversational tool? What about increasing the number of on-screen AIs, so streets in games can actually be crowded (for once! and without being subpar State of Emergency)?
How about stuff that I can't think of because I'm not as smart as these people? Why is Carmack working towards vertical development, better graphics, instead of horizontal development (non-graphical development). I understand there are certain advancements in Doom III in terms of physics, but the main thrust is graphics. Why?
Oh, because that's where the money is (-cough- ATI/NVIDIA -cough-). I forgot.
Hit the HTML submit button instead of the extrans preview: ---------- What are online revolts and revolutions? They are the resolution to the paradox of a society that encourages and rewards individualism, but at the very same time generalizes, stereotypes, and also rewards conformity. In other words, we tell individuals that they are important, but at the same time, thanks to the proliferatino of mass media, Americans now have a greater perception of those around them than anyone else at any time in history. Prior to this, the world was contained to largely a town, or section of a city. Now, however, Americans are individuals, yes, so we are told.
But we also feel terribly small when we realize that we play such a small role in the perceived world around us (the world that mass media presents us with). We are made to believe that individuals are of the highest importance. The paradox, though, is why do our actions mean so little? If we, as individuals, are as important as the American idealogy would have us believe, why then are our actions meaningless as individuals? Why is the mass media more concerned with seeminlgy everything around us, except ourselves? The paradox? Individuals are important. But individuals are also ignored. If I am important, why can I not apply this level of importance to the world around me? If the individual is penultimate in American society, why am I completely ignored by society when I want lower taxes? Why can I not change and control the environment, if I am as important as everyone tells me?
The people in these online games have realized, either on a conscious level or otherwise, that if they cannot change the immediate environment around them, if their individual actions do not mean anything in the immediate world, all that is required is to switch environments, change worlds. It is in online games that their importance as individuals is recognized alongside the importance of their actions. They are both individual and impacting. It's important to note that American society has always moved in this direction; gangs, cliques, etc, are all manifestations of this.
But online games give the illusion of incredible impact. They match the importance of individualism with the importance of impact. The players in Second Life are creating a revolt! A revolt! How is that possible within the confines of the real world? What does a nude sit-in in the real world accomplish? A novelty at best, and nothing at worst. But a nude sit-in in Britannia? That accomplishes something.
I believe that what is now on the absolute fringe of society will gradually make its way into mainstream. They are the perfect solution to the American paradox of individuals and impact, they manage to squeeze by both and integrate these two elements into a world where an individual's personhood and their actions are equivalent in importantance.
What are online revolts and revolutions?
They are the resolution to a paradox of a society that encourages and rewards individualism, but at the very same time generalizes, stereotypes, and also rewards conformity. In other words, we tell individuals that they are important, but at the same time, thanks to the proliferatino of mass media, Americans now have a greater perception of those around them than anyone else at any time in history. Prior to this, the world was contained to largely a town, or section of a city. Now, however, Americans are individuals, yes, so we are told.
But we also feel terribly small when we realize that we play such a small role in the perceived world around us (the world that mass media presents us with). We are made to believe that individuals are of the highest importance. The paradox, though, is why do our actions mean so little? If we, as individuals, are as important as the American idealogy would have us believe, why then are our actions meaningless as individuals? Why is the mass media more concerned with seeminlgy everything around us, except ourselves? The paradox? Individuals are important. But individuals are also ignored. If I am important, why can I not apply this level of importance to the world around me? If the individual is penultimate in American society, why am I completely ignored by society when I want lower taxes? Why can I not change and control the environment, if I am as important as everyone tells me?
The people in this online games have realized, either on a conscious level or otherwise, that if they cannot change the immediate environment around them, if their individual actions do not mean anything in the immediate world, all that is required is to switch environments, change worlds. It is in online games that their importance as individuals is recognized alongside the importance of their actions. They are both individual and impacting. It's important to note that American society has always moved in this direction; gangs, cliques, etc, are all manifestations of this.
But online games give the illusion of incredible impact. They match the importance of individualism with the importance of impact. The players in Second Life are creating a revolt! A revolt! How is that possible within the confines of the real world? What does a nude sit-in in the real world accomplish? A novelty at best, and nothing at worst. But a nude sit-in in Britannia? That accomplish something.
I believe that what is now on the absolute fringe of society will gradually make its way into mainstream. They are the perfect solution to the American paradox of individuals and impact, they manage to squeeze by both and integrate these two elements into a world where an individual's personhood and their actions are as important.
I may be biased since I just finished REZ a few weeks ago, but the yellow blocky guy on level 3 or 4 was one of the most intense boss fights I'd ever played in a video game. It was among the hardest, but in terms of creativity, I think it was incredibly brilliant.
On the PC side, which really isn't know for decent boss battles, who can forget nearly every single boss in the NOLF series? Fighting the ninja girl in a house tossed about by a tornado? And mancubes! Mancubes!
Oh yes, lest we forget the prolific Doom ][ (see I'm 'leet because I didn't REALLY use roman numerials) boss: John Romero's head. Man, who know how satisfying that would become!
Give me a break. The CFO's statements reveal two things. First of all, he plans on charging people to play on the PS2. They're not charging now, so if he is correct and content devs don't get paid on Xbox Live, how are they getting paid on the PS2? What would he be so worried about if he isn't making money now? Obviously, EA has yet to reveal some kind of pay-to-play plan later on down the road. And based on EA's on-line "track record," I think I'll stick with Xbox Live.
Secondly, his comment reveals EA's specific bias against the Xbox. MS *does* pay developers for content. Who's getting the bucks on Phantasy Star Online? It's Sega, a completely non-MS company.
The problem with this is that when EA starts charging, so will Activision. So will Midway. So will [insert game publisher here]. Being benignly generous and saying that each of these services will only charge a measley $5 a month to play their games online, what if a gamer wants to play Madden 2004, Tony Hawk Underground, and Resident Evil Online? That's a possible $15 a month for a slice of the games!
No, what bothers EA about XBL is not that they don't get paid. It's that they don't get *enough*.
I'll admit, they have a good eye for talent, that EA. But as far as corporate personalities go, he's the successful class ring type guy in high school that no one liked 5 years later. They pretty much ditched Sega when the Dreamcast came along even though it was very much Sega that enabled EA to establish their #1 franchise. They're building up a helluva lot of bad karma, and one day it's all going to come crashing in.
I know that when you first think about it, Sony doesn't really seem to have their game dev together. But they really do. Check out the A+ titles they've published throughout the lifespan of the PS2: ATV Offroad Fury, Frequency/Amplitude, Dark Cloud 2 (which you mentioned), Gran Turismo 3 (upcoming 4), Hot Shots 3, ICO, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, SOCOM, Mark of Kri, War of Monsters... and, there are the risky ones like Getaway, My Street, and Okage - but largely the first party lineup has done, at least critically, fairly well. I think it could be said that Sony has singlehandely done more recently for the platforming genre than anyone including Nintendo (and especially Microsoft). Jak, Sly, and Ratchet are not only great games, but they're quite possibly the best 3D platformers since Mario 64, and in some aspects even better.
Yes, their sports lineup is undoubtadly a huge joke. Additionally, their first party launch titles, which consisted of Fantavsion, was probably the most lackluster console launch. But they now have more hits than they do bombs, which, unless you're counting Halo as 15 hits, is far more than one can say about MS. And I *liked* Bloodwake!
I do disagree with you regarding your example of Nintendo and Rare. This is very much what Sony has done with Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and much more unsuccessfully 989 Studios. I think Bungie is a prime example of MS replicating this, but I think MS tends to "outsource" their first party titles a little more than Sony and Nintendo. In terms of them buying out Sega and Capcom, that was all rumors and was never really substantiated. Hell, you could've spun a wheel and come up with a rumor than Company A was buying Company B.
Not in relation to your post August Zero, but to those that have chastised Microsoft for buying up bungie: how is that any different than Sony buying up Verant?
Five days earlier, I may not have agreed with you. But I think there may some truth in your post. My wife is very much a typical non-video game player, like the type of person Braben is referring to. Oh sure, by mere association with me she's played a great deal of The Sims, dabbled in Super Monkey Ball and Animal Crossing, but has otherwise left all the video game playing to me.
I picked up the surprisingly highly rated Simpsons Hit & Run. It's essentially GTA3/VC, but with Simpsons. She tries to play. So what does she do when she learns Homer can indiscriminatly kick people? She chases Ned Flanders kids around for five minutes kicking them around Springfield, laughing out loud every time the Flanders kid falls to the pavement.
Although I'm no fan of GTA, she's seen me play it a few times and given no more or no less interest than any other game. But here she is, very much exhibiting the "spirit" of GTA, but within the confines of a Simpson game. And enjoying it as much as a 13 year old male shooting up Chinatown in GTA3.
Maybe you're right? Maybe GTA4 should star a female character? What makes a game fun to women (besides being able to kick Ned Flander's kids around)?
I think the Tapwave looks a heck of a lot more promising than the N-Gage. That said, the only people who've reviewed it are business magazines. They love it. Maybe there's a market there, who knows, but if Tapwave is going for the gaming market they need to start showing up at these game shows to win some people over.
I mean Sony's really showing them up with the PSP. I can't wait to get it so it can mow my lawn during the day, cook lobster during the night. Oh yeah, and maybe play games! Sweet!
Good points, and fairly good research. I did some minor research of my own though and found completely different results from several different pages. Most were from NPD Intellect, which tracks game sales, and others (like the Ownt.com link) either referenced some other site or magazine or didn't bother to cite at all.
There are also two things to consider, one for each "side," when considering Doom and The Sims. First of all, Doom was highly pirated. I knew dozens of people who played it but very few who actually owned it. Moreover, it was distributed through shareware and that probably tends to deflate sales figures. On the other hand, The Sims numbers probably don't include the seven or eight add-ons which have consistently dominated recent sales charts.
So, yeah, we can debate semantics and stats - but all the lists include The Sims and Myst on the chart, so I don't think we can readily excuse it as overrated. Sure, we can discuss whether it was good, or bad, or whether people had CD-ROMs or not, or what have you. But to suggest that they are overrated is a gross application of our FPS "worldview" to the general market. Moreover, it's very much excluding a huge market that does not fit the traditional gamer stereotype. That cannot be denied.
First, Myst was easy to install. You stick the CD-ROM in and it installs itself in your brand new Win95 install. Other games required you to screw with autoexec files (I still have nightmares about DOS4GW.EXE).
Myst was easy to play. You click, and something happens. You click on the side of the screen and you move.
Myst was pretty to look at. Oh sure, it was a slideshow, but to those outside of the computer culture, a pretty picture is a pretty picture. To us, we don't see a pretty picture; we see a pre-rendered (PRE-RENDERED!) single image flash up. But outside our "worldview," does it really matter if it was pre-rendered or not?
And finally, the plot, considering what was out at the time was pretty decent.
Now compare that to, say, Duke3d or Syndicate, which were out at the same time. They required a dos installation, required the use of all 10 fingers, and, to the uniniated, didn't look at all as good as the pre-rendered (gasp!) Myst.
I think Myst blows. But someone thought it was fun. A lot of someones.
They're boring to us. That doesn't mean they're overrated. I suppose on a personal definition, sure, but I don't think that's what we're necessarily going for here (otherwise any game - Deus Ex, Moonbase Commander, Live for Speed, whatever, would be up for grabs). So while press is certainly an indicater of overrating (cf. Daikitana, Messiah, etc), sales - a direct indication of how many people purchased the game - is not. I'll admit that it certainly can be, and Enter the Matrix is a good parardigm for that, but ETM received universally terrible reviews.
So again, the definition is definitely fuzzy. Is it Sales + Reviews - Hype? Maybe. But I think in examining overrated games we also have to look at general cultural impact. The Sims? It's boring, yeah (to us, anyway). But what makes The Sims a better case against overrating is that the expansion packs continually knock out anything on the charts. Again, I've already stated this does not equate equal rankings. But it does illustrate that people (not you or I or probably most of the people here on games.slashdot) keep wanting to play The Sims. EA could release The Sims Crap A Big One, and it would sell.
We're not talking about the first game here, like Enter The Matrix, whose sequel will most certainly not do as well as the first. We're talking about a game that is essentially on it's - what - seventh or eighth runthru, and it's still selling?
I'm not too keen on reviews (gamespot gave Black & White a 9.3!), but The Sims has had an incredibly positive reception. But most importantly, the people who are buying this game, my wife, for example, or her friend that started coming over much more often when she learned we had The Sims, absolutely LOVES the Sims.
I showed her the Half Life 2 preview videos and she yawned and walked away. When I told her there's a new expansion pack coming out for The Sims, she wants to run down to EB and preorder the game. I'm thinking, "hey, that's my job!" Suffice it to say, there are much more people that like The Sims than those that think "the game is rather trite and boring and just not a fun thing to do."
What would I think if I had not heard of The Sims and picked it up out of the bargain bin? I'd think it's extremely underrated. The game really is brilliant, and I mean that in a completely This-Is-Boring-To-Me-My-Wife-Is-Taking-Over-My-Com pute kind of way. It's a dollhouse, the completely epitome of a sandbox game. Myst, that's a different story since we have almost 10 years perspective on it and it hasn't aged well. But the sales of Riven - which *was* crappy - were nearly as high as Myst. People really enjoyed Myst, but like The Sims, it most certainly wasn't people who hang around here.
My admonition remains: the majority of the general US population think that Doom and it's kin down to Half Life 2/Doom III are "rather trite and boring and nost just a fun thing to do." Those same people pretty much love The Sims (and loved Myst). They really do. In terms of general culture and society, we're the minority here. So in that respect, The Sims in particular is very amazing. It has done what no other game since Myst has been able to do: get "normal" people to play it. That's something that on a large scale, Doom III or Half Life 2 will never do. That deserves something, yes?
What about Shiny's pre-Enter The Matrix Messiah? There are others that are less recent, but for the life of me I can't recall which. But Messiah was supposed to be God's gift to gamingkind...
Of course, there are the vaporwares like Prey and (yes, any sentence with vaporware must have...) Duke Nukem Forever.
And it's quite possible that Half Life 2, although I doubt it, may really blow. Maybe Gamespy should hold off on their #1 until they play HL2?
And while we're listing good feminine games, don't forget Animal Crossing, which is Harvest Moon + The Sims.
When I worked at EB, I was surprised at how many girls really enjoyed fighting games like Tekken and the like. Also, Oddworld was pretty huge among women.
But definitely least favorite were action games like GTA, Halo, Max Payne - the like. There were the rare few, but mostly women hated those games.
I suppose I could keep Sims and Myst and concede Halo in a Great Compromise.
But, I would urge you to be slightly less PC-centric and examine Halo as if it really were the first FPS you'd played since Goldeneye or Perfect Dark. In that context, Halo is very significant. I didn't mention this, but Halo also proved that someone could decently control a FPS with a controller (comparitively) and, at the time, it was pretty sharp looking. When it came out, it looked graphically better than anything on the PC.
Of course, I'll never say Halo is perfect. There's a terrible amount of repetition in the middle. I think that we'll see what Halo was really meant to be when Halo 2 comes out. That said, Halo 2 has a lot to live up to in a post Half Life 2 world.
That is, unless Half Life 2 turns out to be the #1 overrated game.
A few words in defense of Myst, The Sims, and Halo. They are prevelant in the threads here, and they may very well end up on the top 25 on gamespy (but I doubt it).
First of all, there's a definitive PC slant here, while my guess is that Gamespy will most likely lean towards the console side in their list.
Secondly, I think it's easy to automatically dislike games that are extremely popular, such as Myst, The Sims, and Halo. They make easy targets, and in a very underground-esque kind of way, it's cool to dislike what's, well, cool. But merely because we dislike something doesn't mean it's necessarily overrated. I really dislike GTA3, but I can't deny its impact nor the fact that it may very well be a good game.
Likewise, and in regards to Myst, I'm not a fan. But Myst single-handedly opened the door for CD-ROM as a viable storage format. Yeah, it also opened the door to an onslaught of FMV and wannabees, and Myst isn't exactly a shining example of design brilliance. It's a slideshow with clicking But it isn't *that* bad, and what's more is that it brought in a tremendous amount of non traditional gamers, more commonly known as "females."
The Sims has done exactly the same thing, and in many ways is the spirital successor to Myst (without the technology push). In fact, long before GTA3, The Sims, very much in the vein of its predecessors, was pioneering open-ended, emergent, sandbox gameplay. More than that though, is that the game is largely played by moms and girlfriends and daughters and sisters; *not* by the guy who just got home from a 72 hour straight LAN party to sit down to play 3 more hours of Battelfield 1942.
Myst and The Sims are mass appeal titles, but merely because they are mainstream doesn't mean they're overrated. I would suggest that their importance in gaming cannot at all be overstated, and would go as far to say that there should be far more of these games. Even if I don't like to play them.
Halo is very much the same way, but on a smaller scale. It's a PC first person shooter...for the console. That alone is significant, and it also explains why it's making the slashdot overrated lists posted here. In college dorms everywhere, Halo replaced Goldeneye as the 2:30am procrastination technique. It revived co-op gameplay. But to many of you, it's just another PC FPS (albeit, you would argee, a fun one). What should prevent Halo from being in any overrated list is its multiplayer. To us, this is nothing new. But to console gamers, Halo is *the* original multiplayer shooter, not Team Fortress, or Quake, or Counterstrike. And there's nothing wrong with that.
My advice? Step out from the standard Doom-Lineage (Doom to Half Life 2)/PC covering and look around again. Mass appeal does not (always) equal overrated. Use Black & White as a paradigm for something not being what it ought to have been, not Myst or The Sims.
I'll go with most of the ones of your list, save Halo and Myst.
First of all, Halo wasn't really "rated" at all. As I recall, when I bought the Xbox along with Halo (one of those infernal bundle deals) the day the xbox hit shelves, the press hadn't been very kind to Halo. In fact, the prior E3 press completely trashed it, citing poor framerate issues, weak gameplay, corny plot and dialogue. The list went on.
2-3 years later (has it really been 3?) and Halo is still *the* reason to own an Xbox. What's more is that it is nearly singlehandedly responsible for reviving the long lost co-op play. In many college dorms, Halo replaced the aging Goldeneye as game of choice. The single player - ehhh good. But Halo's multiplayer impact is unprecedented. Sure, it'd been done on PC. But we're talking two different worlds here, and Halo brought that over to the console.
As far as Myst goes, Myst very much *did* singlehandedly usher in the CD-ROM age. I'll tell you this much: it wasn't that Tim Curry FMV crap that did it. CD-ROMs would've eventually become standard, but it did so in such short a time solely because of Myst. And in reference to my defense post of the Sims, it garnered a huge amount of non-traditional gamers.
Black & White should be first on your list. My guess is that it'll definitely be #1 on Gamespy's.
I didn't expect to see The Sims mentioned at all in a discussion of overrated games. Of course, I'm going to (safely?) assume that you're a male, and that you usually play games.
That said, The Sims influence on games simply cannot be overstated. Why? Because for the majority of females that play it, it is quite possibly the first and only game they've *ever* played. I worked full time for EB for three years, and the Sims brought in more non-gamer females than any other game in the history of the store. Someone's buying all those $20-$30 add ons because each one rules the sales charts every month, even if that someone isn't you.
So, on a personal level, I think one could say they didn't like the Sims. I'm one of them. But I think there's a huge amount of people, mostly females and mostly non-gamers, who would argue many of the points in your post.
You're right. I should have clarified. Are there policies that dissuade the Xbox from succedding in Japan? No. Are Nintendo and Sony involved in activities to prevent the Xbox from being available for sale? Most certainly not. The Xbox is doing so poorly in Japan that that's probably the last thing on their corporate minds.
What is creating a difficult, and consequently very closed, market for Microsoft is a sort of "cultural tariff." Microsoft is American, and therefore they have absolutely no idea either how to market the Xbox to the Japanese, nor even how to create games worth playing for the Japanese. In that sense, in the cultural sense, Japan is very much closed to not only Microsoft, but I would contend *any* Western based company. Are Sony and Nintendo telling retailers NOT to carry the Xbox? No. But they are part of a culture which is very much closed to American video games. I believe it was the rather arrogant but slightly visionary head of Team Ninja who said in an interview that in Japan it was all about contacts. Of which Microsoft, of course, has next to null. If they had any, they fired them all a month or two ago.
Japan is very much a closed social and cultural video game market.
In the context of BigChigger's original post, his intent was obviously to imply that the only reason the Xbox does well is because they exist without competition, and any failure on behalf of the xbox is due solely because competition exists. That's not the reason for the dismal failure of the Xbox in Japan, and it's no more faulty logic than saying anyone who pees standing up is male. It's a coicindence, and it happens to make a for a witty, modable post on slashdot. Nor does it explain Nintendo's failure in America with the Gamecube and Microsoft's relative success in the same region.
So you are right Guppy, on a technical sense. But certainly not an overreaching broad cultural sense. Fanboys are annoying, be they Xbox, Nintendo, Sony. By diametrical association, so to are anti-fanboys, who, around here, are most often anti-Microsoft. I felt that BigChigger's post was reflective of that.
Good points, all, neostorm. Although I'd suggest that for Square, Kingdom Hearts represented the about shift that you refer to, not FFX-2 (although, to be fair, I haven't played FFX-2)
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me. At exactly the same time, we (at the EB I was working at) got so many calls for the Playstation9. Sony, at the same time as this "launch," was running ads for a bloody PS9. How fucking brilliant was that? Geez.
You make some great points in the post. I will make on major dispute, and that's Sony had a strong launch lineup. I was working at EB at the time of the PS2 launch, and there's no way that the software they had at launch was anything but one of the worst launch line-ups in history. Of course, there were about eight times more games than the N64 launch (which is to say 16, as opposed to say, 2), but the only strong titles at launch were SSX and Madden 2001. And that was pushing it.
I remember the lucky few that did own a PS2 within the first few months (and a memory card - lucky bastards) would stand in front of the wall just blankly staring, as if maybe a decent title would suddenly morph from the game wall into vision. The launch, by nearly every definition, was a complete failure. First, there weren't enough games. Then there weren't enough systems. Then there weren't enough memory cards. Compound this with Christmas, greedy retailers (including EB) who sold it for nothing less than a $600 bundle, and greedy Ebayers picking 5 up at a time, and you've got yourself one of the most fuddled up launches in the history of consoles. And let us not even speak of the first party *TITLE* (singular, not plural) at launch (-cough-fantavision-cough).
No, the Xbox and Gamecube launches fared fare better. Consequently, it's a testament to Sony's reputation among adult gamers as well as the surge of software in the spring and summer quarter of the following year. Oh yeah, it didn't hurt that Metal Gear Solid 2, Final Fantasy X, and Grand Theft Auto 3 also came out the following Christmas.
Those of us who've posted here about our lack of enthusiasm for Doom III... we're not alone.
I bet Hot Topic is already selling t-shirts with the screenshots.
psssss, iD....gothic industrial is so twentieth century.....
No, I never said Doom I and II weren't decent; I'm more than willing to give credit where credit is due. The same with Quake (although I think it's stretching it to say it was one of the best FPS). However, I think we entered a post-iD world when Valve released Half Life. Of course, we had stuff like Blood and System Shock that well predated the story-focused scripted Half Life.
I'm also not sure I'd agree with the less keys more pure game, otherwise that flash spank the monkey game is god's gift to humanity. I see your point, but I think what I'm getting at when I refer to Half Life 2, Deus Ex 2, etc is that these are predominately more story and content driven than Doom III looks. And don't get me wrong littlghoti, I think there's a place for Doom III. I'm not saying it's going to be the crappiest game of all time.
But I don't think think we need to ejaculate every time a new screenshot is released, that's all.
The original Half-Life marked the end of iD as a viable player in the content game. Don't get me wrong, the engines they create are used time and time again to create some fairly great stuff, and no doubt we'll see the same of Doom III.
But in terms of viable single player pure *content*, I still don't see Doom III as being much more than a tech demo at worst, and at best a 3D Resident Evil wannabe. I've tried, I really have, but there just isn't much to like when we have potentially more creative work like Deus Ex 2, Half Life 2, XIII and the like on the horizon.
I read in interviews with both Naughty Dog (of Jak and Daxter/Crash fame) and Warren Spector, and I liked what they said (seperately): we've reached a plateau of graphical improvement, and it's time to start working on gameplay. Why can't John Carmack dedicate his obvious talent to developing a fluid game conversational tool? What about increasing the number of on-screen AIs, so streets in games can actually be crowded (for once! and without being subpar State of Emergency)?
How about stuff that I can't think of because I'm not as smart as these people? Why is Carmack working towards vertical development, better graphics, instead of horizontal development (non-graphical development). I understand there are certain advancements in Doom III in terms of physics, but the main thrust is graphics. Why?
Oh, because that's where the money is (-cough- ATI/NVIDIA -cough-). I forgot.
Hit the HTML submit button instead of the extrans preview:
----------
What are online revolts and revolutions? They are the resolution to the paradox of a society that encourages and rewards individualism, but at the very same time generalizes, stereotypes, and also rewards conformity. In other words, we tell individuals that they are important, but at the same time, thanks to the proliferatino of mass media, Americans now have a greater perception of those around them than anyone else at any time in history. Prior to this, the world was contained to largely a town, or section of a city. Now, however, Americans are individuals, yes, so we are told.
But we also feel terribly small when we realize that we play such a small role in the perceived world around us (the world that mass media presents us with). We are made to believe that individuals are of the highest importance. The paradox, though, is why do our actions mean so little? If we, as individuals, are as important as the American idealogy would have us believe, why then are our actions meaningless as individuals? Why is the mass media more concerned with seeminlgy everything around us, except ourselves? The paradox? Individuals are important. But individuals are also ignored. If I am important, why can I not apply this level of importance to the world around me? If the individual is penultimate in American society, why am I completely ignored by society when I want lower taxes? Why can I not change and control the environment, if I am as important as everyone tells me?
The people in these online games have realized, either on a conscious level or otherwise, that if they cannot change the immediate environment around them, if their individual actions do not mean anything in the immediate world, all that is required is to switch environments, change worlds. It is in online games that their importance as individuals is recognized alongside the importance of their actions. They are both individual and impacting. It's important to note that American society has always moved in this direction; gangs, cliques, etc, are all manifestations of this.
But online games give the illusion of incredible impact. They match the importance of individualism with the importance of impact. The players in Second Life are creating a revolt! A revolt! How is that possible within the confines of the real world? What does a nude sit-in in the real world accomplish? A novelty at best, and nothing at worst. But a nude sit-in in Britannia? That accomplishes something.
I believe that what is now on the absolute fringe of society will gradually make its way into mainstream. They are the perfect solution to the American paradox of individuals and impact, they manage to squeeze by both and integrate these two elements into a world where an individual's personhood and their actions are equivalent in importantance.
What are online revolts and revolutions? They are the resolution to a paradox of a society that encourages and rewards individualism, but at the very same time generalizes, stereotypes, and also rewards conformity. In other words, we tell individuals that they are important, but at the same time, thanks to the proliferatino of mass media, Americans now have a greater perception of those around them than anyone else at any time in history. Prior to this, the world was contained to largely a town, or section of a city. Now, however, Americans are individuals, yes, so we are told. But we also feel terribly small when we realize that we play such a small role in the perceived world around us (the world that mass media presents us with). We are made to believe that individuals are of the highest importance. The paradox, though, is why do our actions mean so little? If we, as individuals, are as important as the American idealogy would have us believe, why then are our actions meaningless as individuals? Why is the mass media more concerned with seeminlgy everything around us, except ourselves? The paradox? Individuals are important. But individuals are also ignored. If I am important, why can I not apply this level of importance to the world around me? If the individual is penultimate in American society, why am I completely ignored by society when I want lower taxes? Why can I not change and control the environment, if I am as important as everyone tells me? The people in this online games have realized, either on a conscious level or otherwise, that if they cannot change the immediate environment around them, if their individual actions do not mean anything in the immediate world, all that is required is to switch environments, change worlds. It is in online games that their importance as individuals is recognized alongside the importance of their actions. They are both individual and impacting. It's important to note that American society has always moved in this direction; gangs, cliques, etc, are all manifestations of this. But online games give the illusion of incredible impact. They match the importance of individualism with the importance of impact. The players in Second Life are creating a revolt! A revolt! How is that possible within the confines of the real world? What does a nude sit-in in the real world accomplish? A novelty at best, and nothing at worst. But a nude sit-in in Britannia? That accomplish something. I believe that what is now on the absolute fringe of society will gradually make its way into mainstream. They are the perfect solution to the American paradox of individuals and impact, they manage to squeeze by both and integrate these two elements into a world where an individual's personhood and their actions are as important.
I may be biased since I just finished REZ a few weeks ago, but the yellow blocky guy on level 3 or 4 was one of the most intense boss fights I'd ever played in a video game. It was among the hardest, but in terms of creativity, I think it was incredibly brilliant.
On the PC side, which really isn't know for decent boss battles, who can forget nearly every single boss in the NOLF series? Fighting the ninja girl in a house tossed about by a tornado? And mancubes! Mancubes!
Oh yes, lest we forget the prolific Doom ][ (see I'm 'leet because I didn't REALLY use roman numerials) boss: John Romero's head. Man, who know how satisfying that would become!
Give me a break. The CFO's statements reveal two things. First of all, he plans on charging people to play on the PS2. They're not charging now, so if he is correct and content devs don't get paid on Xbox Live, how are they getting paid on the PS2? What would he be so worried about if he isn't making money now? Obviously, EA has yet to reveal some kind of pay-to-play plan later on down the road. And based on EA's on-line "track record," I think I'll stick with Xbox Live.
Secondly, his comment reveals EA's specific bias against the Xbox. MS *does* pay developers for content. Who's getting the bucks on Phantasy Star Online? It's Sega, a completely non-MS company.
The problem with this is that when EA starts charging, so will Activision. So will Midway. So will [insert game publisher here]. Being benignly generous and saying that each of these services will only charge a measley $5 a month to play their games online, what if a gamer wants to play Madden 2004, Tony Hawk Underground, and Resident Evil Online? That's a possible $15 a month for a slice of the games!
No, what bothers EA about XBL is not that they don't get paid. It's that they don't get *enough*.
I'll admit, they have a good eye for talent, that EA. But as far as corporate personalities go, he's the successful class ring type guy in high school that no one liked 5 years later. They pretty much ditched Sega when the Dreamcast came along even though it was very much Sega that enabled EA to establish their #1 franchise. They're building up a helluva lot of bad karma, and one day it's all going to come crashing in.
I know that when you first think about it, Sony doesn't really seem to have their game dev together. But they really do. Check out the A+ titles they've published throughout the lifespan of the PS2: ... and, there are the risky ones like Getaway, My Street, and Okage - but largely the first party lineup has done, at least critically, fairly well. I think it could be said that Sony has singlehandely done more recently for the platforming genre than anyone including Nintendo (and especially Microsoft). Jak, Sly, and Ratchet are not only great games, but they're quite possibly the best 3D platformers since Mario 64, and in some aspects even better.
ATV Offroad Fury, Frequency/Amplitude, Dark Cloud 2 (which you mentioned), Gran Turismo 3 (upcoming 4), Hot Shots 3, ICO, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, SOCOM, Mark of Kri, War of Monsters
Yes, their sports lineup is undoubtadly a huge joke. Additionally, their first party launch titles, which consisted of Fantavsion, was probably the most lackluster console launch. But they now have more hits than they do bombs, which, unless you're counting Halo as 15 hits, is far more than one can say about MS. And I *liked* Bloodwake!
I do disagree with you regarding your example of Nintendo and Rare. This is very much what Sony has done with Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and much more unsuccessfully 989 Studios. I think Bungie is a prime example of MS replicating this, but I think MS tends to "outsource" their first party titles a little more than Sony and Nintendo. In terms of them buying out Sega and Capcom, that was all rumors and was never really substantiated. Hell, you could've spun a wheel and come up with a rumor than Company A was buying Company B.
Not in relation to your post August Zero, but to those that have chastised Microsoft for buying up bungie: how is that any different than Sony buying up Verant?
Five days earlier, I may not have agreed with you. But I think there may some truth in your post. My wife is very much a typical non-video game player, like the type of person Braben is referring to. Oh sure, by mere association with me she's played a great deal of The Sims, dabbled in Super Monkey Ball and Animal Crossing, but has otherwise left all the video game playing to me.
I picked up the surprisingly highly rated Simpsons Hit & Run. It's essentially GTA3/VC, but with Simpsons. She tries to play. So what does she do when she learns Homer can indiscriminatly kick people? She chases Ned Flanders kids around for five minutes kicking them around Springfield, laughing out loud every time the Flanders kid falls to the pavement.
Although I'm no fan of GTA, she's seen me play it a few times and given no more or no less interest than any other game. But here she is, very much exhibiting the "spirit" of GTA, but within the confines of a Simpson game. And enjoying it as much as a 13 year old male shooting up Chinatown in GTA3.
Maybe you're right? Maybe GTA4 should star a female character? What makes a game fun to women (besides being able to kick Ned Flander's kids around)?
I think the Tapwave looks a heck of a lot more promising than the N-Gage. That said, the only people who've reviewed it are business magazines. They love it. Maybe there's a market there, who knows, but if Tapwave is going for the gaming market they need to start showing up at these game shows to win some people over.
I mean Sony's really showing them up with the PSP. I can't wait to get it so it can mow my lawn during the day, cook lobster during the night. Oh yeah, and maybe play games! Sweet!
Good points, and fairly good research. I did some minor research of my own though and found completely different results from several different pages. Most were from NPD Intellect, which tracks game sales, and others (like the Ownt.com link) either referenced some other site or magazine or didn't bother to cite at all. There are also two things to consider, one for each "side," when considering Doom and The Sims. First of all, Doom was highly pirated. I knew dozens of people who played it but very few who actually owned it. Moreover, it was distributed through shareware and that probably tends to deflate sales figures. On the other hand, The Sims numbers probably don't include the seven or eight add-ons which have consistently dominated recent sales charts. So, yeah, we can debate semantics and stats - but all the lists include The Sims and Myst on the chart, so I don't think we can readily excuse it as overrated. Sure, we can discuss whether it was good, or bad, or whether people had CD-ROMs or not, or what have you. But to suggest that they are overrated is a gross application of our FPS "worldview" to the general market. Moreover, it's very much excluding a huge market that does not fit the traditional gamer stereotype. That cannot be denied.
In terms of keeping with the movie, the ad looked cool?
please don't hit me?
First, Myst was easy to install. You stick the CD-ROM in and it installs itself in your brand new Win95 install. Other games required you to screw with autoexec files (I still have nightmares about DOS4GW.EXE).
Myst was easy to play. You click, and something happens. You click on the side of the screen and you move.
Myst was pretty to look at. Oh sure, it was a slideshow, but to those outside of the computer culture, a pretty picture is a pretty picture. To us, we don't see a pretty picture; we see a pre-rendered (PRE-RENDERED!) single image flash up. But outside our "worldview," does it really matter if it was pre-rendered or not?
And finally, the plot, considering what was out at the time was pretty decent.
Now compare that to, say, Duke3d or Syndicate, which were out at the same time. They required a dos installation, required the use of all 10 fingers, and, to the uniniated, didn't look at all as good as the pre-rendered (gasp!) Myst.
I think Myst blows. But someone thought it was fun. A lot of someones.
They're boring to us. That doesn't mean they're overrated. I suppose on a personal definition, sure, but I don't think that's what we're necessarily going for here (otherwise any game - Deus Ex, Moonbase Commander, Live for Speed, whatever, would be up for grabs). So while press is certainly an indicater of overrating (cf. Daikitana, Messiah, etc), sales - a direct indication of how many people purchased the game - is not. I'll admit that it certainly can be, and Enter the Matrix is a good parardigm for that, but ETM received universally terrible reviews.
m pute kind of way. It's a dollhouse, the completely epitome of a sandbox game. Myst, that's a different story since we have almost 10 years perspective on it and it hasn't aged well. But the sales of Riven - which *was* crappy - were nearly as high as Myst. People really enjoyed Myst, but like The Sims, it most certainly wasn't people who hang around here.
So again, the definition is definitely fuzzy. Is it Sales + Reviews - Hype? Maybe. But I think in examining overrated games we also have to look at general cultural impact. The Sims? It's boring, yeah (to us, anyway). But what makes The Sims a better case against overrating is that the expansion packs continually knock out anything on the charts. Again, I've already stated this does not equate equal rankings. But it does illustrate that people (not you or I or probably most of the people here on games.slashdot) keep wanting to play The Sims. EA could release The Sims Crap A Big One, and it would sell.
We're not talking about the first game here, like Enter The Matrix, whose sequel will most certainly not do as well as the first. We're talking about a game that is essentially on it's - what - seventh or eighth runthru, and it's still selling?
I'm not too keen on reviews (gamespot gave Black & White a 9.3!), but The Sims has had an incredibly positive reception. But most importantly, the people who are buying this game, my wife, for example, or her friend that started coming over much more often when she learned we had The Sims, absolutely LOVES the Sims.
I showed her the Half Life 2 preview videos and she yawned and walked away. When I told her there's a new expansion pack coming out for The Sims, she wants to run down to EB and preorder the game. I'm thinking, "hey, that's my job!" Suffice it to say, there are much more people that like The Sims than those that think "the game is rather trite and boring and just not a fun thing to do."
What would I think if I had not heard of The Sims and picked it up out of the bargain bin? I'd think it's extremely underrated. The game really is brilliant, and I mean that in a completely This-Is-Boring-To-Me-My-Wife-Is-Taking-Over-My-Co
My admonition remains: the majority of the general US population think that Doom and it's kin down to Half Life 2/Doom III are "rather trite and boring and nost just a fun thing to do." Those same people pretty much love The Sims (and loved Myst). They really do. In terms of general culture and society, we're the minority here. So in that respect, The Sims in particular is very amazing. It has done what no other game since Myst has been able to do: get "normal" people to play it. That's something that on a large scale, Doom III or Half Life 2 will never do. That deserves something, yes?
What about Shiny's pre-Enter The Matrix Messiah? There are others that are less recent, but for the life of me I can't recall which. But Messiah was supposed to be God's gift to gamingkind...
Of course, there are the vaporwares like Prey and (yes, any sentence with vaporware must have...) Duke Nukem Forever.
And it's quite possible that Half Life 2, although I doubt it, may really blow. Maybe Gamespy should hold off on their #1 until they play HL2?
Of course, if it's Bungie you want, I can most certainly toss up Oni as an overrated title.
And while we're listing good feminine games, don't forget Animal Crossing, which is Harvest Moon + The Sims.
When I worked at EB, I was surprised at how many girls really enjoyed fighting games like Tekken and the like. Also, Oddworld was pretty huge among women.
But definitely least favorite were action games like GTA, Halo, Max Payne - the like. There were the rare few, but mostly women hated those games.
I suppose I could keep Sims and Myst and concede Halo in a Great Compromise.
But, I would urge you to be slightly less PC-centric and examine Halo as if it really were the first FPS you'd played since Goldeneye or Perfect Dark. In that context, Halo is very significant. I didn't mention this, but Halo also proved that someone could decently control a FPS with a controller (comparitively) and, at the time, it was pretty sharp looking. When it came out, it looked graphically better than anything on the PC.
Of course, I'll never say Halo is perfect. There's a terrible amount of repetition in the middle. I think that we'll see what Halo was really meant to be when Halo 2 comes out. That said, Halo 2 has a lot to live up to in a post Half Life 2 world.
That is, unless Half Life 2 turns out to be the #1 overrated game.
A few words in defense of Myst, The Sims, and Halo. They are prevelant in the threads here, and they may very well end up on the top 25 on gamespy (but I doubt it).
First of all, there's a definitive PC slant here, while my guess is that Gamespy will most likely lean towards the console side in their list.
Secondly, I think it's easy to automatically dislike games that are extremely popular, such as Myst, The Sims, and Halo. They make easy targets, and in a very underground-esque kind of way, it's cool to dislike what's, well, cool. But merely because we dislike something doesn't mean it's necessarily overrated. I really dislike GTA3, but I can't deny its impact nor the fact that it may very well be a good game.
Likewise, and in regards to Myst, I'm not a fan. But Myst single-handedly opened the door for CD-ROM as a viable storage format. Yeah, it also opened the door to an onslaught of FMV and wannabees, and Myst isn't exactly a shining example of design brilliance. It's a slideshow with clicking But it isn't *that* bad, and what's more is that it brought in a tremendous amount of non traditional gamers, more commonly known as "females."
The Sims has done exactly the same thing, and in many ways is the spirital successor to Myst (without the technology push). In fact, long before GTA3, The Sims, very much in the vein of its predecessors, was pioneering open-ended, emergent, sandbox gameplay. More than that though, is that the game is largely played by moms and girlfriends and daughters and sisters; *not* by the guy who just got home from a 72 hour straight LAN party to sit down to play 3 more hours of Battelfield 1942.
Myst and The Sims are mass appeal titles, but merely because they are mainstream doesn't mean they're overrated. I would suggest that their importance in gaming cannot at all be overstated, and would go as far to say that there should be far more of these games. Even if I don't like to play them.
Halo is very much the same way, but on a smaller scale. It's a PC first person shooter...for the console. That alone is significant, and it also explains why it's making the slashdot overrated lists posted here. In college dorms everywhere, Halo replaced Goldeneye as the 2:30am procrastination technique. It revived co-op gameplay. But to many of you, it's just another PC FPS (albeit, you would argee, a fun one). What should prevent Halo from being in any overrated list is its multiplayer. To us, this is nothing new. But to console gamers, Halo is *the* original multiplayer shooter, not Team Fortress, or Quake, or Counterstrike. And there's nothing wrong with that.
My advice? Step out from the standard Doom-Lineage (Doom to Half Life 2)/PC covering and look around again. Mass appeal does not (always) equal overrated. Use Black & White as a paradigm for something not being what it ought to have been, not Myst or The Sims.
I'll go with most of the ones of your list, save Halo and Myst.
First of all, Halo wasn't really "rated" at all. As I recall, when I bought the Xbox along with Halo (one of those infernal bundle deals) the day the xbox hit shelves, the press hadn't been very kind to Halo. In fact, the prior E3 press completely trashed it, citing poor framerate issues, weak gameplay, corny plot and dialogue. The list went on.
2-3 years later (has it really been 3?) and Halo is still *the* reason to own an Xbox. What's more is that it is nearly singlehandedly responsible for reviving the long lost co-op play. In many college dorms, Halo replaced the aging Goldeneye as game of choice. The single player - ehhh good. But Halo's multiplayer impact is unprecedented. Sure, it'd been done on PC. But we're talking two different worlds here, and Halo brought that over to the console.
As far as Myst goes, Myst very much *did* singlehandedly usher in the CD-ROM age. I'll tell you this much: it wasn't that Tim Curry FMV crap that did it. CD-ROMs would've eventually become standard, but it did so in such short a time solely because of Myst. And in reference to my defense post of the Sims, it garnered a huge amount of non-traditional gamers.
Black & White should be first on your list. My guess is that it'll definitely be #1 on Gamespy's.
I didn't expect to see The Sims mentioned at all in a discussion of overrated games. Of course, I'm going to (safely?) assume that you're a male, and that you usually play games.
That said, The Sims influence on games simply cannot be overstated. Why? Because for the majority of females that play it, it is quite possibly the first and only game they've *ever* played. I worked full time for EB for three years, and the Sims brought in more non-gamer females than any other game in the history of the store. Someone's buying all those $20-$30 add ons because each one rules the sales charts every month, even if that someone isn't you.
So, on a personal level, I think one could say they didn't like the Sims. I'm one of them. But I think there's a huge amount of people, mostly females and mostly non-gamers, who would argue many of the points in your post.
You're right. I should have clarified. Are there policies that dissuade the Xbox from succedding in Japan? No. Are Nintendo and Sony involved in activities to prevent the Xbox from being available for sale? Most certainly not. The Xbox is doing so poorly in Japan that that's probably the last thing on their corporate minds.
What is creating a difficult, and consequently very closed, market for Microsoft is a sort of "cultural tariff." Microsoft is American, and therefore they have absolutely no idea either how to market the Xbox to the Japanese, nor even how to create games worth playing for the Japanese. In that sense, in the cultural sense, Japan is very much closed to not only Microsoft, but I would contend *any* Western based company. Are Sony and Nintendo telling retailers NOT to carry the Xbox? No. But they are part of a culture which is very much closed to American video games. I believe it was the rather arrogant but slightly visionary head of Team Ninja who said in an interview that in Japan it was all about contacts. Of which Microsoft, of course, has next to null. If they had any, they fired them all a month or two ago.
Japan is very much a closed social and cultural video game market.
In the context of BigChigger's original post, his intent was obviously to imply that the only reason the Xbox does well is because they exist without competition, and any failure on behalf of the xbox is due solely because competition exists. That's not the reason for the dismal failure of the Xbox in Japan, and it's no more faulty logic than saying anyone who pees standing up is male. It's a coicindence, and it happens to make a for a witty, modable post on slashdot. Nor does it explain Nintendo's failure in America with the Gamecube and Microsoft's relative success in the same region.
So you are right Guppy, on a technical sense. But certainly not an overreaching broad cultural sense. Fanboys are annoying, be they Xbox, Nintendo, Sony. By diametrical association, so to are anti-fanboys, who, around here, are most often anti-Microsoft. I felt that BigChigger's post was reflective of that.
Good points, all, neostorm. Although I'd suggest that for Square, Kingdom Hearts represented the about shift that you refer to, not FFX-2 (although, to be fair, I haven't played FFX-2)