The way I see it is that this is a gaming device that also does everything your phone does so you don't have to carry both -- a major convenience.
There's some key words missing from your statement: "top quality" and "well."
As in, "this is a top-quality gaming device that also does everything well that your phone does so you don't have to carry both."
Why are those words missing? Because it's not true. The convenience of one device matters not when the one device is vastly inferior to the other two. Classic 2D Sonic on a vertically-oriented screen? Insane. 3D Tomb Raider with no peripheral vision? Insane again. Look at that most-duplicated screenshot from N-Gage Tomb Raider. Think Lara's about to die because some stupid wolf ran at her from a side she (you) couldn't see? Yes!
Eventually someone will make an all-in-one device that doesn't suck. This is not it.
Then somebody better re-word their press release, because that's what it seems to say:
"...developers who choose to create online games for GameCube will be licensed AOL connectivity software that will enable their games to connect online through AOL"
It doesn't say that AOL will be the only avenue, but it doesn't say it won't either.
So you never instruct your WC3 armies to kill the innocent, industrious peons of an enemy village?
The point is that violence is violence. In actuality, you're objecting to the theme of GTA, not the violence. You're just couching your personal distaste in the currently-trendy argument of "Video games are overly violent."
Feel free to not like GTA. But don't try to tell me that WC3 is somehow morally superior to GTA, because it isn't.
It's called the Nintendo Gamecube. Take a look at every piece of 'cube hardware you own. Even the memory cards and the GBA/GC Link Cable say "Nintendo Gamecube." Feel free to keep calling it "playing Nintendo," just like I'll keep calling you "dumbass."
Precisely. We've already heard that the PSP will support wireless networking, the former Afterburner dopes are working on wireless for GBA, and you just know Nintendo itself will include it stock with the next GBA iteration.
Sorry N-Gage. I'll remain looking "uncool" with my GBA SP until then.
If it wasn't Tom and Jerry at age 4, it will be youth soccer practice at age 8. Trying to insulate your kids so they'll never ever show violent tendencies is a losing, naive battle.
Is Tom and Jerry or Grand Theft Auto really too much to give up so my two year old doesn't smack my five year old with a broom? I don't think so.
Should your four year old kid be playing GTA? Of course not. No one is arguing that GTA is inappropriate for kids, so stop trying to trump up your point by trotting out bad examples.
And it is very lame to attempt the analogy GTA : LOTR:: porn : "great nude photograph". Here's some news about LOTR: it isn't real. Both GTA and LOTR are equally valid works of art that utilize violence to tell a story. You just don't like GTA. You might also not like The Godfather, OZ, or the Child's Play movie series. That doesn't make them "not art," nor does it mean they are fine for kids to view. Just because a story isn't about heroes doesn't mean it shouldn't be told. (Or played, as is the case with video games.)
So what's your point here? Are you trying to get all violent games (and other media) banned because of all that latent violence they're unmasking?
Grant Morrison is an amazing writer. His talent lies in his ability to tie many, disparate story lines together with a psychedelic, post-modern bent that incorporates the outer fringes of knowledge and dadaist imaginings.
Well, he didn't do any of that in his run on JLA, in my view. Every JLA storyline was a climactic End-Of-The-World fightfest that got increasingly unbelievable... no characterization whatsoever. It's like somebody at DC told the guy "Please give us a regular series of big superhero event cliches." He is capable of much better than his JLA work.
And his comment on a Battlestar Galactica plotline seems to confirm his current averageness. There's "endless dramatic possibilities" so he went with the expected "doom-laden struggle of man against pitiless machine"? I hope it's better than it sounds.
I seriously question playing Sonic on a small vertical screen. Seems like it will tough to anticipate jumps and such when he starts movin' fast.
Same problem with Tomb Raider. These games have no peripheral vision.
Once again, you're denigrating gameplay for the sake of fabricating an inflammatory survey. There's over 200 minigames in WarioWare, of which less than 20 could be classified as "retro." My point about Wario's new costume was facetious. Have you even played WarioWare, because it doesn't sound like you know what we're all talking about.
Your definition just eliminates far too many games to be plausible. You'd eliminate Dr. Mario because it mimics the falling block design of Tetris (and features Mario, and was also an NES game.) You'd eliminate Legend of Zelda: Four Swords because it uses art files from A Link to the Past.
And suppose somebody makes a game that is so startingly original, so unbelievably clever, so amazingly fresh... yet bases it graphically on Finding Nemo or SpongeBob or whatever happens to be hot at the time. You'd throw it right out. What if Hideo Kojima sells the Boktai concept to Disney? Does the eReader count as an original enough idea for your study?
You simply can't look at the surface dressings of a game and declare it Not Original. Much less dress those findings in words like "wasteland" and "depressing."
What really bothers me about your article is your decision to sensationally title it "Creativity Wasteland," and then throw out games based solely on superficial features. I'm sure it will be a very appealing article for GBA haters, but it proves nothing about the console's abilities and says nothing of any meaning about the game library.
Your definition of "original" is next to useless. WarioWare not considered original simply because it has Wario in it? Ridiculous. Note that Wario is the only Mario-family character in the game (not counting the 10-13 retro minigames themselves); all the other characters are totally new creations. They even gave Wario a new costume for WW.
I understand you had to come up with some kind of definition for "original." Unfortunately the one you chose results in a study that says very little.
What's the difference between this newly designed model and the WET11 (http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid= 33&scid=36&prid=432)? Aside from B vs. G, of course. I've had a WET11 serving my PS2 for a couple months now and it's worked perfectly for SOCOM, Amplitude and TMBO. I highly recommend their stuff. I use a WRT54G as my wireless router, and at any given time it's feeding the PS2 and the iBook.
That's precisely why they went proprietary. Because they don't want people to dupe their disks and burn off free copies.
The N-Gage superior? In what way?
You know, it's asinine to get into a pissing contest about graphics quality in console games vs. PC games, since those standards leapfrog every couple years anyway. Each half gets to ride high for a while until the other half supplants them.
What's more important is that the games work. (And what's more important than that is that the games are fun.) 99.9% of console games work out of the box for 99.9% of console owners. PC games just can't claim that, and we all know why that is... differing hardware, millions of configurations, etc.
Instead of getting angry at console gamers, you should be angry at the PC game creators for letting this kind of dopey stuff happen and thus giving rise to the conception that PC games aren't 100% trustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
2 years old? Didn't Steve Jobs originally unveil Halo at MacWorld Expo 1996?
Regardless, I'm sick to death of the "poor college student" complaints.
And I'm so glad to hear his dig against consoles. Shut the fcuk up.
There's some key words missing from your statement: "top quality" and "well."
As in, "this is a top-quality gaming device that also does everything well that your phone does so you don't have to carry both."
Why are those words missing? Because it's not true. The convenience of one device matters not when the one device is vastly inferior to the other two. Classic 2D Sonic on a vertically-oriented screen? Insane. 3D Tomb Raider with no peripheral vision? Insane again. Look at that most-duplicated screenshot from N-Gage Tomb Raider. Think Lara's about to die because some stupid wolf ran at her from a side she (you) couldn't see? Yes!
Eventually someone will make an all-in-one device that doesn't suck. This is not it.
"...developers who choose to create online games for GameCube will be licensed AOL connectivity software that will enable their games to connect online through AOL"
It doesn't say that AOL will be the only avenue, but it doesn't say it won't either.
I wonder if this rumored Zelda bundle means Nintendo won't ever bother to unlock LoZ from Animal Crossing either.
The point is that violence is violence. In actuality, you're objecting to the theme of GTA, not the violence. You're just couching your personal distaste in the currently-trendy argument of "Video games are overly violent."
Feel free to not like GTA. But don't try to tell me that WC3 is somehow morally superior to GTA, because it isn't.
And yet your /. user ID name is "MORTAR COMBAT!".
It's called the Nintendo Gamecube. Take a look at every piece of 'cube hardware you own. Even the memory cards and the GBA/GC Link Cable say "Nintendo Gamecube." Feel free to keep calling it "playing Nintendo," just like I'll keep calling you "dumbass."
I would guess that they learned how to handle those weapons by actually owning those weapons. Dumbass.
Sorry N-Gage. I'll remain looking "uncool" with my GBA SP until then.
Is Tom and Jerry or Grand Theft Auto really too much to give up so my two year old doesn't smack my five year old with a broom? I don't think so.
Should your four year old kid be playing GTA? Of course not. No one is arguing that GTA is inappropriate for kids, so stop trying to trump up your point by trotting out bad examples.
And it is very lame to attempt the analogy GTA : LOTR :: porn : "great nude photograph". Here's some news about LOTR: it isn't real. Both GTA and LOTR are equally valid works of art that utilize violence to tell a story. You just don't like GTA. You might also not like The Godfather, OZ, or the Child's Play movie series. That doesn't make them "not art," nor does it mean they are fine for kids to view. Just because a story isn't about heroes doesn't mean it shouldn't be told. (Or played, as is the case with video games.)
So what's your point here? Are you trying to get all violent games (and other media) banned because of all that latent violence they're unmasking?
Well, he didn't do any of that in his run on JLA, in my view. Every JLA storyline was a climactic End-Of-The-World fightfest that got increasingly unbelievable... no characterization whatsoever. It's like somebody at DC told the guy "Please give us a regular series of big superhero event cliches." He is capable of much better than his JLA work.
And his comment on a Battlestar Galactica plotline seems to confirm his current averageness. There's "endless dramatic possibilities" so he went with the expected "doom-laden struggle of man against pitiless machine"? I hope it's better than it sounds.
I seriously question playing Sonic on a small vertical screen. Seems like it will tough to anticipate jumps and such when he starts movin' fast. Same problem with Tomb Raider. These games have no peripheral vision.
Your definition just eliminates far too many games to be plausible. You'd eliminate Dr. Mario because it mimics the falling block design of Tetris (and features Mario, and was also an NES game.) You'd eliminate Legend of Zelda: Four Swords because it uses art files from A Link to the Past.
And suppose somebody makes a game that is so startingly original, so unbelievably clever, so amazingly fresh... yet bases it graphically on Finding Nemo or SpongeBob or whatever happens to be hot at the time. You'd throw it right out. What if Hideo Kojima sells the Boktai concept to Disney? Does the eReader count as an original enough idea for your study?
You simply can't look at the surface dressings of a game and declare it Not Original. Much less dress those findings in words like "wasteland" and "depressing."
Your definition of "original" is next to useless. WarioWare not considered original simply because it has Wario in it? Ridiculous. Note that Wario is the only Mario-family character in the game (not counting the 10-13 retro minigames themselves); all the other characters are totally new creations. They even gave Wario a new costume for WW.
I understand you had to come up with some kind of definition for "original." Unfortunately the one you chose results in a study that says very little.
What's the difference between this newly designed model and the WET11 (http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid= 33&scid=36&prid=432)? Aside from B vs. G, of course. I've had a WET11 serving my PS2 for a couple months now and it's worked perfectly for SOCOM, Amplitude and TMBO. I highly recommend their stuff. I use a WRT54G as my wireless router, and at any given time it's feeding the PS2 and the iBook.
Oh, I see. You're an ass who thinks the world somehow owes you free games. "24 hour evaluation purposes," right.
That's precisely why they went proprietary. Because they don't want people to dupe their disks and burn off free copies. The N-Gage superior? In what way?
You know, it's asinine to get into a pissing contest about graphics quality in console games vs. PC games, since those standards leapfrog every couple years anyway. Each half gets to ride high for a while until the other half supplants them. What's more important is that the games work. (And what's more important than that is that the games are fun.) 99.9% of console games work out of the box for 99.9% of console owners. PC games just can't claim that, and we all know why that is... differing hardware, millions of configurations, etc. Instead of getting angry at console gamers, you should be angry at the PC game creators for letting this kind of dopey stuff happen and thus giving rise to the conception that PC games aren't 100% trustworthy.