You make many good arguements, but I'm going to pick on a subtlety that you included.
When you kill somebody in GTA, they die. Run over somebody, they die. Beat a granny to death, she dies. On top of all that, the cops chase you. When they chase you, it gets a LOT harder to finish the game. They don't stop until they get you.
Alot harder to finish the game or impossible to finish the game requiring a start from the beginning? In Super Marios Bros you die 3 times you start over. In GTA you go to "jail" but immediately respawn. Since you are making the arguement (and have time and time again) that GTA shows consequences (this is YOUR arguement), isn't it showing that the consequence will be minor and life will go on? The consequence/violence ratio in GTA is trivial. If I flip your arguement around, maybe GTA demonstrates to someone with an altered sense of reality that there will be consequences, but nothing to worry about.
I propose that the design choice of not requiring starting over from the very beginning upon arrest could affect one with an altered perception of reality with regard to what will happen if you go on a killing/crime spree. This design choice was Rockstar's.
It would go along way if a GAME OVER screen ever appeared.
You don't have to finish a game. There I said it. Don't advocate getting less, they might just give you what you want. I wager that if games actually got demostratively shorter, more people would complain games are too short.
What games sell well? Madden, GTA, THPS. Giant games that can be played in small bites. The public has voted with their dollar that this is what they want. This is what we will get.
Yet another rant from a know-nothing bitter fanboy. This one is extra-special because it actually asks value to be removed from games. What kind of person asks for value to be removed from a product? This guy gets 30 games a month to review then actually has the balls to throw it in the public's face and complain. Out of touch much? He called big games bloated simply for the fact that they are big. Thats not bloated, thats big. You know what, forget it, I give up.
Its about 1-2 weeks before all the big holiday games are on shelfs, most rae hitting now, and this is the best news anyone is submitting?
Pain, we are often on different sides of the arguement, but we are on the same page here. Are you trying to convince me of something? Very little of my post was opinion. 95% was up to the minute fact.
The only debate I could see is clipping, and I could see collision detection so poor that it could effect the end-user, but you would have to provide an example for me to evaluate. The best selling games (GTA and THPS) have some of the worst clipping out there, yet noone complains. In general, I stand by my statements.
Ah, but Pain, I acknowledged that I had other motives. This use of the word glitch shows that he is not a pro. I think we both know that noone "industry" would use the word glitch in this context.
You make this big rant about what you think happens within Nintendo vs other companies. Then you use the noun glitch as a verb. A PROGRAM CANNOT GLITCH. NOTHING CAN GLITCH.
Please explain to me how to glitch. I want to go outside tonight and glitch. What does glitching look like?
So what does your use of the word glitch say to me? It says you have never worked in the games industry and have no idea what you are talking about. That you are just spouting random, hateful things with nothing to back it up.
Is the sorting bug with the boat's shadow and the water in The Wind Waker considered "glitching"? Wait, thats a Nintendo game.
Ah more slashdot ignorance. Say it with enough conviction and it becomes true though right?
There is a process to earn the Seal of Quality, though it really just means it was published with Nintendo's approval. Sony and Microsoft have similar processes as did Sega before them. So today it means no more or less than the other big players. Nintendo was the first to do this, and with it (and many other factors that would be OT here) they brought back video gaming and made it feasible as a business in the US. Atari's utter lack of quality control (and other factors that would be OT here) killed gaming the first time around.
Now as for Nintendo Power, sure it biased, but if you can't figure out that from the fact that it has Nintendo in the title you have some problems. They do give negative reviews, they called this game "boring". Thats right boring. You can't get worse than that in a game.
And this is Mike Hawk talking. Look at my previous posts and you'll see I love nothing more than to mess with Nintendo fans, but let it never be said I don't give credit where it is due.
Nintendo Power. Those two words used to go together. Today in the US however, they do not. If Nintendo were to request major changes to a game they would be laughed at. They just don't have the market share to command the respect they used to. I would wager that if Nintendo did something to slow a third party game down, the third party would just cancel the Gamecube release. "Well it was buggy anyway so we don't want it." Riiiiiiiiight, it makes me laugh to see someone argue that fewer games is better.
So that brings us to Sony and Microsoft. They can and do reject games because of quality. But they can't just go rejecting a game because they don't like it. If it functions according to their standards and as the publisher intends, what grounds do they have to not allow it to be released? Its a tight-rope, my friends.
So are we talking bugs or are we talking design? If its a bug, really truly a bug that is going to affect many end-users experiences it just doesn't get out the door. Does clipping affect an end-users experience? A whiny end-user maybe. Are they going to return the product? Maybe, but they would find fault in anything at that point since that individual is just probably an unhappy person who sits around judging things like Comic Book Store Guy. If its a design choice, who is the first party to stop it? Just because YOU don't like it, someone else might. And standards do exist to ensure a consistent user experience in all games that come out on a given console. Beyond that, its not really QA's job to make sure a game is fun. QA is QA, just like any other software company. Just "does it work?"
And who is NTSC-uk anyway? Does every rant by every random fanboy who bought Enter the Matrix and found a bug end up posted here now? Here's an idea NTSC-uk, if you can do better, open up a publishing house or a developer. I like how he sites (but doesn't link to) some random "programmer's" perception of QA. Just because the author alledges there is one arrogant bastard "programmer" out there (well I can tell you there are many) who hates QA, doesn't mean that he is #1 correct in what he says or #2 even knows what he is talking about.
On a final note, searching around the site, there is a little blurb that introduces the article:
"MSR, Outcast and Broken Sword. Just a few of the many games released to an unsuspecting public with bugs and flaws. Barry Ip takes a closer look at QA in the games industry"
MSR as near as I can tell (ANAICT) is a Dreamcast game, Outcast ANAICT is a PC game which they claim not to cover in their about us page, and there appears to be many games with at least the partial title of Broken Sword. Those 3 games are supposed to represent the whole console gaming industry? This is a very old article, being a gamer in the UK just sucks that bad, or the guy is a moron who does incomplete research.
I don't have the will to read the thing, but whats the point of a study to find out something may be something? Then in the little blurb used for the headline it is acknowledged that the switch from "collection of applications" to "platform" could possibly make up the cost. I'm not reading anything that can at best come to the conclusion something possibly could happen. Watch this:
Linux may cost more to use than Windows.
Windows may cost more to use than Mac.
Using MS Office may make your PC explode.
Using Photoshop may make you a homosexual.
I don't have any facts to back this stuff up, conditions may change, and IANAL, but in the great universe any of these things may happen. God Bless May.
I wonder if the straws Nintendo is grasping at are smooth or if they have those messed up little barbs on them. I hate those barbs, it can take some nasty tweezer work to get those out. Maybe they are wearing gloves, that would be a good idea.
Wow, that worked perfectly. I predicted anyone who would call the amount of filesharing today trivial an idiot and sure enough one showed up!
Thanks slashbot, prophesy fulfilled!
Still missing the point brainless. #1 It wasn't my point. Reading is hard, but dont give up. #2 The point still isnt about the crime commited but the choice of trying to prevent it. Again, I know reading is hard, but don't give up.
Who isn't convinced? EA? I'm sure they were convinced ($$$$$$$) by their bedfellows at SCEA not to go Live. Rockstar puts out Live-enabled games. Activision and Sega publish Live-enabled games. THQ even has published Live-enabled games.
As for the reasons to keep it closed. The obvious and big #1 is no cheats. There are none. None. I know that is tough to swallow for PS2 and PC gamers, but its true. #2 Consistent experience. Everyone is on broadband cause they have to be. Its nice, no HPB's to worry about as I run up the mp_beach in RtCW. #3 Consistent features. Also adding to the overall experience is the things a Live game must have. The voice communication is amazing. Any online stat tracking is standardized as well as matchmaking. #4...well I could go on, but I have a feeling you are a slashbot and your mind is very closed to new experiences. If you ever want to have a good one, I recommend XBOX Live.
Now as for SCEA and Nintendo...
Nintendo online, that was funny. And Sony, it would be correct to say they weren't that way, but they are now. Check out a new SCEA online game. You will see something called a DNAS login. This feature basically adds all of what you hate about Live (first party control and limits) but none of the features I listed above. You get the worst of both worlds!
For gaming the PC is still the wild west. And thats ok, I just like the big city. Wait, didn't the wild west die out?
Inappropriate? That is totally appropriate. The comparison was not between the action intended to be stopped, but the fundamental impossibility of stopping it from happening at all. There will always be rapes and murders and there will always be copyright infringement. The comment highlighted that just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you should try.
But I guess that concept was too much for you, slashbot.
Your choice of the word trivial is interesting to me. See, for many decades, music sharing went on offline and noone got sued. In that time the amount of copyright infringement going on could be, and was, considered trivial. Hell, it was probably good free advertising.
One would have to be an idiot to call the amount of illegal filesharing going on at any given time today trivial. Does it mean the best thing to do is sue? Probably not. Did your comment expose a lack of perspective? Oh yes.
You are quite presumptuous there Rosco. I am quite skilled in using a computer, yet I don't use p2p software. There is no need for it. There are uses for it, but there is no need. Anything I can legally copy, I can receive from another source. But go on telling yourself everyone is doing it, that is sure to stand up in court when your number is up.
Lawsuits are, in circumstances like these and my opinion, the unfair way out. Using a measure that is not available to both sides. More or less exploiting the legal service because you cannot (or don't want to) compete in any other way.
Ok, but let keep apples apples here. Along this same line of thinking, lets get rid of police. That way you dont have to worry about people using the legal system to protect themselves who cant compete in any other way. I mean, murder is only murder cause the government has said it is. So if you cant compete, defending your home, person, and family, any other way, why should the courts help you?
Oh, wait, thats exactly who the courts are there to defend.
Interesting?
Because being forward looking is a bad thing, right? Just because an option is there doesn't mean you have to use it. But someday soon the hardware will be affordable and that day you will be glad the option was included.
The next person that complains about having many features in a game should be kicked off of slashdot and probably the internet.
Look at Q3. According to Gamespy stats, there are almost 4600 people playing Quake 3 online right now. Do you think they are using the same resolution and color depth as when it was released on 12/3/99? I'm going to say no, but I bet they are glad the engine scaled upward. Idiot.
Well zealot man, you can try to mortgage anything you want. That doesn't mean the creditor has to accept it. Simply because a creditor wouldn't accept it does not mean its not property. Care to try again?
for any other computer game concern. they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor".
Clearly they can work anywhere else but a competitor. Thats all I said, thats what the article said. Where did this higher standard in your head come from?
#2 The clause is certainly not illegal in California, nor is an "Invention and Confidentiality" agreement. Hell I can point you to the labor code that specifically allows such agreements in CA if it'll shut your ignorant arse up. If its legal in crazy California I promise its legal there.
When you want to work in games you sign a contract. A contract is considered legal when both sides benefit. The potential employee gets a job for agreeing to not compete with the company for a year after leaving. This is fine and fair. If you cannot agree to this DONT SIGN UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you do sign up, be smart enough to save enough money to work at the grocery store for a year. Though I hear those cats make 17.00 an hour so it can't be that bad.
You think your safety has anything to do with this? You trivialize the work of the labor movement with your ignorant comparison. You should be ashamed.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone makes a "mod" that breaks the game, why should I care? I have a simple solution, don't use the mod, silly.
You make many good arguements, but I'm going to pick on a subtlety that you included.
When you kill somebody in GTA, they die. Run over somebody, they die. Beat a granny to death, she dies. On top of all that, the cops chase you. When they chase you, it gets a LOT harder to finish the game. They don't stop until they get you.
Alot harder to finish the game or impossible to finish the game requiring a start from the beginning? In Super Marios Bros you die 3 times you start over. In GTA you go to "jail" but immediately respawn. Since you are making the arguement (and have time and time again) that GTA shows consequences (this is YOUR arguement), isn't it showing that the consequence will be minor and life will go on? The consequence/violence ratio in GTA is trivial. If I flip your arguement around, maybe GTA demonstrates to someone with an altered sense of reality that there will be consequences, but nothing to worry about.
I propose that the design choice of not requiring starting over from the very beginning upon arrest could affect one with an altered perception of reality with regard to what will happen if you go on a killing/crime spree. This design choice was Rockstar's.
It would go along way if a GAME OVER screen ever appeared.
You don't have to finish a game. There I said it. Don't advocate getting less, they might just give you what you want. I wager that if games actually got demostratively shorter, more people would complain games are too short.
What games sell well? Madden, GTA, THPS. Giant games that can be played in small bites. The public has voted with their dollar that this is what they want. This is what we will get.
Yet another rant from a know-nothing bitter fanboy. This one is extra-special because it actually asks value to be removed from games. What kind of person asks for value to be removed from a product? This guy gets 30 games a month to review then actually has the balls to throw it in the public's face and complain. Out of touch much? He called big games bloated simply for the fact that they are big. Thats not bloated, thats big. You know what, forget it, I give up.
Its about 1-2 weeks before all the big holiday games are on shelfs, most rae hitting now, and this is the best news anyone is submitting?
Pain, we are often on different sides of the arguement, but we are on the same page here. Are you trying to convince me of something? Very little of my post was opinion. 95% was up to the minute fact.
The only debate I could see is clipping, and I could see collision detection so poor that it could effect the end-user, but you would have to provide an example for me to evaluate. The best selling games (GTA and THPS) have some of the worst clipping out there, yet noone complains. In general, I stand by my statements.
Ah, but Pain, I acknowledged that I had other motives. This use of the word glitch shows that he is not a pro. I think we both know that noone "industry" would use the word glitch in this context.
Score the parent (-1, Car Analogy) please.
For the record, one can be a terrorist and never kill anyone.
You make this big rant about what you think happens within Nintendo vs other companies. Then you use the noun glitch as a verb. A PROGRAM CANNOT GLITCH. NOTHING CAN GLITCH.
Please explain to me how to glitch. I want to go outside tonight and glitch. What does glitching look like?
So what does your use of the word glitch say to me? It says you have never worked in the games industry and have no idea what you are talking about. That you are just spouting random, hateful things with nothing to back it up.
Is the sorting bug with the boat's shadow and the water in The Wind Waker considered "glitching"? Wait, thats a Nintendo game.
Ah more slashdot ignorance. Say it with enough conviction and it becomes true though right?
There is a process to earn the Seal of Quality, though it really just means it was published with Nintendo's approval. Sony and Microsoft have similar processes as did Sega before them. So today it means no more or less than the other big players. Nintendo was the first to do this, and with it (and many other factors that would be OT here) they brought back video gaming and made it feasible as a business in the US. Atari's utter lack of quality control (and other factors that would be OT here) killed gaming the first time around.
Now as for Nintendo Power, sure it biased, but if you can't figure out that from the fact that it has Nintendo in the title you have some problems. They do give negative reviews, they called this game "boring". Thats right boring. You can't get worse than that in a game.
And this is Mike Hawk talking. Look at my previous posts and you'll see I love nothing more than to mess with Nintendo fans, but let it never be said I don't give credit where it is due.
Nintendo Power. Those two words used to go together. Today in the US however, they do not. If Nintendo were to request major changes to a game they would be laughed at. They just don't have the market share to command the respect they used to. I would wager that if Nintendo did something to slow a third party game down, the third party would just cancel the Gamecube release. "Well it was buggy anyway so we don't want it." Riiiiiiiiight, it makes me laugh to see someone argue that fewer games is better.
So that brings us to Sony and Microsoft. They can and do reject games because of quality. But they can't just go rejecting a game because they don't like it. If it functions according to their standards and as the publisher intends, what grounds do they have to not allow it to be released? Its a tight-rope, my friends.
So are we talking bugs or are we talking design?
If its a bug, really truly a bug that is going to affect many end-users experiences it just doesn't get out the door. Does clipping affect an end-users experience? A whiny end-user maybe. Are they going to return the product? Maybe, but they would find fault in anything at that point since that individual is just probably an unhappy person who sits around judging things like Comic Book Store Guy.
If its a design choice, who is the first party to stop it? Just because YOU don't like it, someone else might. And standards do exist to ensure a consistent user experience in all games that come out on a given console. Beyond that, its not really QA's job to make sure a game is fun. QA is QA, just like any other software company. Just "does it work?"
And who is NTSC-uk anyway? Does every rant by every random fanboy who bought Enter the Matrix and found a bug end up posted here now? Here's an idea NTSC-uk, if you can do better, open up a publishing house or a developer. I like how he sites (but doesn't link to) some random "programmer's" perception of QA. Just because the author alledges there is one arrogant bastard "programmer" out there (well I can tell you there are many) who hates QA, doesn't mean that he is #1 correct in what he says or #2 even knows what he is talking about.
On a final note, searching around the site, there is a little blurb that introduces the article:
"MSR, Outcast and Broken Sword. Just a few of the many games released to an unsuspecting public with bugs and flaws. Barry Ip takes a closer look at QA in the games industry"
MSR as near as I can tell (ANAICT) is a Dreamcast game, Outcast ANAICT is a PC game which they claim not to cover in their about us page, and there appears to be many games with at least the partial title of Broken Sword. Those 3 games are supposed to represent the whole console gaming industry? This is a very old article, being a gamer in the UK just sucks that bad, or the guy is a moron who does incomplete research.
News for nerds maybe, stuff that matters...no.
Wait, I didn't know this was a Nintendo title for the Gamecube!
I don't have the will to read the thing, but whats the point of a study to find out something may be something? Then in the little blurb used for the headline it is acknowledged that the switch from "collection of applications" to "platform" could possibly make up the cost. I'm not reading anything that can at best come to the conclusion something possibly could happen. Watch this:
Linux may cost more to use than Windows.
Windows may cost more to use than Mac.
Using MS Office may make your PC explode.
Using Photoshop may make you a homosexual.
I don't have any facts to back this stuff up, conditions may change, and IANAL, but in the great universe any of these things may happen. God Bless May.
I wonder if the straws Nintendo is grasping at are smooth or if they have those messed up little barbs on them. I hate those barbs, it can take some nasty tweezer work to get those out. Maybe they are wearing gloves, that would be a good idea.
Wow, that worked perfectly. I predicted anyone who would call the amount of filesharing today trivial an idiot and sure enough one showed up! Thanks slashbot, prophesy fulfilled!
Still missing the point brainless. #1 It wasn't my point. Reading is hard, but dont give up. #2 The point still isnt about the crime commited but the choice of trying to prevent it. Again, I know reading is hard, but don't give up.
Who isn't convinced? EA? I'm sure they were convinced ($$$$$$$) by their bedfellows at SCEA not to go Live. Rockstar puts out Live-enabled games. Activision and Sega publish Live-enabled games. THQ even has published Live-enabled games.
As for the reasons to keep it closed. The obvious and big #1 is no cheats. There are none. None. I know that is tough to swallow for PS2 and PC gamers, but its true.
#2 Consistent experience. Everyone is on broadband cause they have to be. Its nice, no HPB's to worry about as I run up the mp_beach in RtCW.
#3 Consistent features. Also adding to the overall experience is the things a Live game must have. The voice communication is amazing. Any online stat tracking is standardized as well as matchmaking.
#4...well I could go on, but I have a feeling you are a slashbot and your mind is very closed to new experiences. If you ever want to have a good one, I recommend XBOX Live.
Now as for SCEA and Nintendo...
Nintendo online, that was funny.
And Sony, it would be correct to say they weren't that way, but they are now. Check out a new SCEA online game. You will see something called a DNAS login. This feature basically adds all of what you hate about Live (first party control and limits) but none of the features I listed above. You get the worst of both worlds!
For gaming the PC is still the wild west. And thats ok, I just like the big city. Wait, didn't the wild west die out?
Inappropriate? That is totally appropriate. The comparison was not between the action intended to be stopped, but the fundamental impossibility of stopping it from happening at all. There will always be rapes and murders and there will always be copyright infringement. The comment highlighted that just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you should try. But I guess that concept was too much for you, slashbot.
Your choice of the word trivial is interesting to me. See, for many decades, music sharing went on offline and noone got sued. In that time the amount of copyright infringement going on could be, and was, considered trivial. Hell, it was probably good free advertising. One would have to be an idiot to call the amount of illegal filesharing going on at any given time today trivial. Does it mean the best thing to do is sue? Probably not. Did your comment expose a lack of perspective? Oh yes.
You are quite presumptuous there Rosco. I am quite skilled in using a computer, yet I don't use p2p software. There is no need for it. There are uses for it, but there is no need. Anything I can legally copy, I can receive from another source. But go on telling yourself everyone is doing it, that is sure to stand up in court when your number is up.
Lawsuits are, in circumstances like these and my opinion, the unfair way out. Using a measure that is not available to both sides. More or less exploiting the legal service because you cannot (or don't want to) compete in any other way.
Ok, but let keep apples apples here. Along this same line of thinking, lets get rid of police. That way you dont have to worry about people using the legal system to protect themselves who cant compete in any other way. I mean, murder is only murder cause the government has said it is. So if you cant compete, defending your home, person, and family, any other way, why should the courts help you?
Oh, wait, thats exactly who the courts are there to defend.
Interesting? Because being forward looking is a bad thing, right? Just because an option is there doesn't mean you have to use it. But someday soon the hardware will be affordable and that day you will be glad the option was included. The next person that complains about having many features in a game should be kicked off of slashdot and probably the internet.
Look at Q3. According to Gamespy stats, there are almost 4600 people playing Quake 3 online right now. Do you think they are using the same resolution and color depth as when it was released on 12/3/99? I'm going to say no, but I bet they are glad the engine scaled upward. Idiot.
Well zealot man, you can try to mortgage anything you want. That doesn't mean the creditor has to accept it. Simply because a creditor wouldn't accept it does not mean its not property. Care to try again?
I thought a place with thousands of free books was called a "library". My bad.
for any other computer game concern.
they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor".
Clearly they can work anywhere else but a competitor. Thats all I said, thats what the article said. Where did this higher standard in your head come from?
#2 The clause is certainly not illegal in California, nor is an "Invention and Confidentiality" agreement. Hell I can point you to the labor code that specifically allows such agreements in CA if it'll shut your ignorant arse up. If its legal in crazy California I promise its legal there.
When you want to work in games you sign a contract. A contract is considered legal when both sides benefit. The potential employee gets a job for agreeing to not compete with the company for a year after leaving. This is fine and fair. If you cannot agree to this DONT SIGN UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you do sign up, be smart enough to save enough money to work at the grocery store for a year. Though I hear those cats make 17.00 an hour so it can't be that bad.
Perspective, meet window.
You think your safety has anything to do with this? You trivialize the work of the labor movement with your ignorant comparison. You should be ashamed.