Excellent. Thanks for the links they are quite helpful, and I now have the answer to my question:
CNN: Friday, November 5, 2004 Posted: 4:15 PM EST (2115 GMT) Friday November 05, @04:23PM (#10737909)
a) Too new a story to be picked up.
So there you have it: you heard it on Slashdot first! (And yes, I do take more than seven minutes to write my posts...).
normally I'd say just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean it's not true.
I certainly agree. The question is why a story is not in the mainstream media. In the event of corporate censorship, that's a very serious concern which extends beyond the scope of a mere election. In the event that it's "not newsworthy" then I'd question their judgement and search for a different news source more in line with my interests. In the event that the news station did background checks that debunked the story, that's certainly worth knowning as well. (And when they're just slow to report it, then it doesn't mean much of anything).
Anyone care to tell me why this simply isn't being reported at all? I've never heard of the Columbus Dispatch. Nor have I heard of the Washington Dispatch (one other place I've seen run the story).
Is it too new to be picked up? Is it not considered newsworthy as just correcting a routine error? Is it being censored? And if so then why by every news company including those outside of US juristiction?
Forgive me for being a bit skeptical on this story, but I do tend to assume that vote talliers can spot an order of magnitude error.
Neither is Bush, For all that to be blunt 120-125 IQ does NOT impress me at all; I've TAed math classes in university where that apparently qualifies as below average...and when I think of the bottom half of my classes...oi.
Now please give me back the 20 minutes of my life I just wasted on searching Google.
Maybe it was just a rumor, but I do remember hearing reports of kids jumping on their cats and wondering why they didn't respawn after leaving and reentering the room....
Of course, these reports were back in the early 90s when there were fewer FPSs to blame everything on.
In some ways Adventures of Link is the best....
on
Zelda Extravaganza
·
· Score: 1
You say the gameplay failed, and I can't say I agree entirely. On the one hand, needing to walk onto a random forrest square is just very annoying and bad design. On the other hand, the battle combat is probably the deepest of the series, and choosing which stat to level up was actually quite well done; better than I've seen in a lot of modern RPGs, actually....
Basically, if you could scrap the overworld or at least the annoying bits, then the game would easily be the best Zelda I've played.
Horribly difficult? It's an NES game--what did you expect? The first NES game in a series is very frequently the hardest; in fact Zelda 2 is the only exception I can think of, being harder than the first, and that's only if you don't count the second quest from the original.
But what they fail to realize is that unlike a good flick, games such as RPGs will always have 'downtime' between scenes and higher monetary cost.
Actually movie production prices tend to be much higher than game production prices (about a factor of 10). Real life props, and actors who want seven-figure salaries tend to do that.
This then results in a product that is much more expensive in terms of time and money to the game player, but perhaps wont give you much more than an average film would at the theater in terms of storyline and content (which supposedly is the games focus).
Wait, films still have plot these days? I mean once you filter out all the explosions there's about 10 minutes left for actual character development.... Don't get me wrong, RPGs have worse plot than books, but provided the writer is decent (and sadly many suck) you will tend to get much better plot development than a movie, if only because you have more than 2 hours and replace explosions with gameplay.
Don't get me wrong, movies still have a purpose, but this has to do with acting, pacing, and cinematography. Movies that try to have actual depth...well I experienced something like that when I watched the Space Channel version of Dune in one sitting; high quality, but the whole way through it was obvious that it could be pulled off better as a book.
Yeah, you're absolutely right on that one. I think I was writing this late at night, since that did strike me as sounding a little silly when I reread it myself.
PSP and DS have a largely different target audience, which is why I dislike comparing them. Evidence suggests that the DS will have higher economic success (though still too many unknown variables to be sure). Hence, "PSP will beat the DS" claims bother me because I'm not sure they're competing in the first place, and because I don't see the evidence behind the prediction, assuming they are competing.
Of course, I've just written this post even later at night, so this should be a fun experiment!
First, whenever I see a "DS or PSP" argument on a game forum, I want to slap the people. "None" "Both" or "I'll wait till they actually have games thank you" sound like more sensible replies in all honesty.
Second, "PSP will have more games" seems like BS. Last I checked (and correct me if I'm wrong) there were about 100 third parties working on each system, and about equal number of third party games announced for each. (And then Nintendo wins the first party, of course).
Historically, poor battery life and high price is downright DEATH in the portable world. Other than Sony being stronger than Atari/Sega, what's different this time?
I'm going to paraphrase the analysis of a GameFAQs user (HoratioQHornblower) who owns a shop and so seems to know more about what will sell than I do. Here's the thing: handheld gaming is different than home console gaming. For instance, while racing games sell just fine on big consoles, they sell poorly on handelds. Who's going to buy the PSP version of GT4 when they can buy the PS2 version and play it properly on a big screen? Handheld gaming (according to him) is more centered around platformers (Marios, Metroids) and strategy games (Fire Emblem, FFTA). Roughly speaking, the list of DS games seem more suited to a handheld, whereas the PSP games are mostly scaled down console games, often literally ports of PS1 games.
Again, I'm not really doing HoratioQHornblower's argument justice, but his prediction for his store was that people woud buy the PSP first (better marketing) but return it after a couple of weeks when they find out Metal Gear Acid is a card RPG and the battery life is low. On the other hand, the DS, even ignoring the innovation, has a library which guarantees a certain level of success as a handheld, even if initial hype is lower.
There's a lot of love for the old characters who're still around and fans expect at least some level of character integrity over the years; beating the first game should be part of the application process to touch any future Zelda game.
Yep, such exciting characterization and dialogue as...
Master using it, and you can have THIS.
It's a secret to everybody.
Dodongo dislikes smoke.
Buy something will you?
I haven't played Super Mario Sunshine, but I'm willing to bet it never once uses the line "We're sorry Mario, but our Princess is in another castle" and that line has far more popularity.
Legend of Zelda was about the innovative gameplay, positively massive world, and being the first NES game to have a save file, NOT the characters and plot. Link's an elf-like character with a sword (just like the rest). Gannon is a loser blobby pig with no lines. Zelda is a Pauline ripoff. Nobody else is really worth mentioning.
Without Doom conceiving the multiplayer deathmatch, it could be radically touted that the PC today would be an abandoned platform insofar as gaming is concerned.
RtS games? The Sims? Civilization? Heck, SimCity did come out before Doom, after all. Notice the general lack of pure Adventure games on consoles? Notice the difference between computer RPGs and console RPGs?
Maybe I'm biased since I'm one of those rare cases that never got into Doom in the first place, but it wasn't the original first person shooter, and heck, from all I hear it's not the original deathmatch either!
Do you seriously think that if deathmatches had been invented on consoles (and they may well have been--see above link) that they would not be transferred to PC with online and LAN capabilities, quickly becomming more popular than the corresponding console equivalents?
Though yes, I'll agree that Doom deserves credit for popularizing it...the same way FF7 deserves credit for making RPGs more mainstream than niche.
it made me sympathize with Bush about how hard it would be to win a war like the one we are engaged in in Iraq. All of the various things that come up that make it so you lose no matter what you do (even if you defeat the "enemy" you still haven't "won".
Look at how well the war in Afganistan went. Rebuilding is going well as far as I know, and the new government regime seems to be fine, and international support is posititve about that war. If it's so hard to win such a war, how did he win so thoroughly in Afganistan?
I agree: this article does miss the point, in that wars are not all lose-lose situations. On the flip side, not playing the game should always be a strategic option, which was his point I guess.
First, Rare already had liscence to work with GBA titles, and given that 100 companies have received DS kits, it's not surprising that they got one too.
Second, why is Rare news and not a bigger developer like Square-Enix, or Konami? It is widely known that the talented development team left Rare several years ago (hence talk of "the Goldeneye team" making games for various non-Rare studios). Look at the big console games Rare released this generation; Star Fox Adventures and Grabbed by the Ghoulies. Two poorly-regarded titles total (one of which was a pushed back N64 title IIRC) from a developer who used to pump out a title every few months (10 N64 games from 1997 to 2000, and the N64 was much harder to program...).
One thing the GC lacks is a good multi-player shooter.
Haven't played it myself, though watched it in action and it looks very fast-paced. At any rate, it's made by the same team that made Goldeneye, and seems to be highly regarded by those who played it.
I can understand harping on Halo. I still see advertizments for it today, even if Microsoft didn't figure out initially that they should marktet it, so yes it does get overhyped. I do have higher hopes for Halo 2, though; Halo was a very rushed game, and that is evident (reposting):
Ign.com -
"there are a couple of gripes --> "
" (I) had a problem with repeating the levels again near the end of the game. The fact that the last three levels of the game are partial or full rehashes of earlier sections of the game is obviously due to the lack of time in getting the game finished"
"That's not to say that the game doesn't feel rushed -- there aren't any bots in multiplayer, and you can't do little things like play co-op with two different Xbox units linked together"
"Halo does have some elements to it that are not good and even a little disappointing. First off, the level design really hits a rut about midway through the single player game. The middle third of the game basically has you playing the same level over again except instead of fighting your way in to an objective like you did the first time, you're fighting your way back out. It is the same maze of bridges, corridors and areas you've already seen. The effect is you eventually realize that you're doing a lot of things over again that you assumed you were done with. If I kill every bad guy on my way into a base, why are there even more bad guys waiting for me on my way out? Constant instant gratification early on in Halo soon turns to a holding pattern of waiting for something new."
"The game is not invulnerable to severe chopping. Whenever you get multiple vehicles in large areas you're really asking for trouble"
"the H2O isn't very impressive and the blue sky texture is actually closer than you'd think"
"There's no map in Halo to tell you about new objectives and where you've been"
Gamespy.com -
"It doesn't quite live up to the hype"
"At the same time, I can't help but feel a little disappointed -- Halo is hardly the revolutionary game it's been hyped up to be. It contains a frustrating amount of uninspired, repetitive gameplay that may well have you yelling at your TV."
"In a later mission, you're placed in a facility and forced to fight your way across to an elevator on the other side. After 20 minutes of slowly progressing through identical, nondescript locations, having the same enemies thrown at you repeatedly, you're rewarded by having to do the same thing three more times, with barely a hint of variety in the gameplay."
"More than anything, it is simply frustrating to see a game degenerate to this kind of mindless, repetitive action. Once you're indoors, whether it's a Covenant structure, a spaceship, whatever -- you see the same rooms and are forced to fight the same enemies repeatedly. It's like a videogame equivalent of Groundhog Day -- it's just not exciting to play through, and you walk away feeling like there's too much filler and not enough meat.
"For the most part, we've seen a lot of this before"
Now, Halo 2, which will not be a rushed game as near as I can tell, ought to be fairly good. Bungie, after all, has shown us that they can make groundbreaking games with the Marathon series, so I think it's premature to condemn Halo 2.
GMR magazine (yeah trashy I know) had an article about what PS3 games might look like, including a few screenshots.
Randomly overheard some conversations in an Electronics Boutique.
I know people online who work in a game store, and claimed casual customers asked about the PS3, but basically never about the N5/XB2/DS/PSP. This is when I thought back to my own experiences, and noticed a correspondence. Of course I have to trust he's telling the truth--don't know him *that* well.
There's my data. None of it was based of people I know personally. I myself have a PS1, but no PS2 yet, so could be accused of being marginally anti-Sony if anything. Judge how you will.
Exactly the same way the Gameboy beat the better-graphics Gamegear: Cheaper. Better battery life. More games (yes more: backward compatible + roughly even third party support + better first party).
Oh, and the DS is a reasonable step above the N64 (I've heard it called partway between the GC and N64, but I'm no expert).
Playstation is just a really strong brand-name. I've already seen people asking about the PS3, yet very little interest in the other two systems. Even with identical graphics and games it seems reasonably clear that the PS3 would dominate, and while the hardware will be close, I doubt it'll be so close that everybody goes multiplatform.
Exclusive games also get free press from the so-called "system fanboys"; would Monkey Ball get as much attention if it were multiplatform? What about Ninja Gaiden?
So...I doubt exclusivity will be phased out, and while I'd love to see a nice close fight next round, I'm pesimistic that PS3 dominance is a foregone conclusion.
The PSP software lineup also feels very familiar, of course, but there is the saving grace that many of these titles are seeing their first handheld iteration, and might gain some novelty points that way. A portable Metal Gear sounds and looks wonderful, if a little antisocial...
Oh but we have seen a portable Metal Gear already (on the Gameboy Colour I believe). Sure, not a fully 3D one, but we haven't seen a portable 3D Mario or portable 3D Metroid either.
I'll agree that most of those look like rehashes. The big exception I've seen is Warioware, where the gameplay is largely through the touch screen which changes the dynamic dramatically from the first one allowing for several different gameplay options.
Then again, name means little; tell me Super Mario Bros 2 is just a Super Mario Bros 1 rehash. (Given that it wasn't even a Mario game to start with, but repackaged as one...).
There's also that little fact where guess which games make headlines in the previews? The big name stuff--cheap sequels to games that turned out really popular. You have to sift through the garbage if you want to find anything. PSP games people are excited about are Metal Gear, Gran Turismo, Viewtiful Joe, and Devil May Cry. XBox games people are excited about are Halo 2, Half Life 2, and Doom 3. GC games people are excited about include various things with Zelda, Resident Evil, Metroid, and Mario in the title.
In terms of "ooh pretty" it'd be the Zelda pictures. I was also impressed by the overal quality of handheld graphivs.
In terms of gameplay quite clearly Warioware DS. After the innovation with the original, I wasn't sure what more they could add (the GC Warioware didn't seem worth it) but the kind of stuff I'm reading about Warioware with a touch screen...yeah, that's going to be totally new gameplay.
Nintendo's gotta get some new ideas.. I am sick of playing the same games over and over again.
In that case, enjoy your almighty PSP games consisting of...
Metal Gear Acid
Gran Turismo 4
Tales of Eternia (already released on PS1 incidentally)
Devil May Cry (or was it DMC3?)
Viewtiful Joe
Frogger!
What seem to be a bunch of other PS1 ports
I'm also guessing you haven't played the original Warioware (a new fresh idea, incidentally) since the gameplay in the parent's description sounds totally different (given that you only used the A-button and D-pad in the first one; compare that to a touch screen).
I think you're confusing what the 14-year-old thinks is mature, and what the 30-year-old thinks is mature.
To a 14 year old killing zombies and Ninjas while racing out of a burning building (which takes an unrealistic amount of time to burn down) complete with lots of blood and preferably guts is mature. DoA XTreme Beach volleyball also counts as mature.
A 30 year old sees something like Majora's Mask as a very dark game (whereas the 14 year old does not because you're playing as a kid) and would prefer deep plots instead of flash.
Now these aren't totally true; I've known 16 year olds to be very intelligent in their tastes, and 30 year olds who act like horny kids. Perhaps in 20 years the videogame industry will truely grow up, but then looking at the big blockbuster movies and bestselling novels these days, my hopes aren't that high.
Actually, the Wars series goes back further than that. There were NES Wars games, they just never got brought over from Japan. So...most likely it will be DS Wars.
You had to buy the SP and the GBA? You do realize that they're the same system, yes? Also, last I heard they were planning to at most push the release of the N5 up to 2006 instead of 2007 so that they'd release a new system at the same time as Sony; i.e. not being released next year.
The only break from this pattern is releasing the DS and running it alongside the GBA. And...well if it revolutionizes gameplay then I'm happy they did it. If the second screen is just a cheap gimick then I'll be angry at them for spreading their games over three systems.
Slashdot Mirror
CNN: Friday, November 5, 2004 Posted: 4:15 PM EST (2115 GMT)
Friday November 05, @04:23PM (#10737909)
a) Too new a story to be picked up.
So there you have it: you heard it on Slashdot first! (And yes, I do take more than seven minutes to write my posts...).
I certainly agree. The question is why a story is not in the mainstream media. In the event of corporate censorship, that's a very serious concern which extends beyond the scope of a mere election. In the event that it's "not newsworthy" then I'd question their judgement and search for a different news source more in line with my interests. In the event that the news station did background checks that debunked the story, that's certainly worth knowning as well. (And when they're just slow to report it, then it doesn't mean much of anything).
Okay, turned on the news wondering what kind of spin CNN would have on this. Didn't come up. So I started doing searches....
CNN
Foxnews
BBC
CBC
Aljzeera's search engine is not working properly today; oh well.
Ohio News Now
Anyone care to tell me why this simply isn't being reported at all? I've never heard of the Columbus Dispatch. Nor have I heard of the Washington Dispatch (one other place I've seen run the story).
Is it too new to be picked up?
Is it not considered newsworthy as just correcting a routine error?
Is it being censored? And if so then why by every news company including those outside of US juristiction?
Forgive me for being a bit skeptical on this story, but I do tend to assume that vote talliers can spot an order of magnitude error.
Neither is Bush, For all that to be blunt 120-125 IQ does NOT impress me at all; I've TAed math classes in university where that apparently qualifies as below average...and when I think of the bottom half of my classes...oi.
Now please give me back the 20 minutes of my life I just wasted on searching Google.
Maybe it was just a rumor, but I do remember hearing reports of kids jumping on their cats and wondering why they didn't respawn after leaving and reentering the room....
Of course, these reports were back in the early 90s when there were fewer FPSs to blame everything on.
Basically, if you could scrap the overworld or at least the annoying bits, then the game would easily be the best Zelda I've played.
Horribly difficult? It's an NES game--what did you expect? The first NES game in a series is very frequently the hardest; in fact Zelda 2 is the only exception I can think of, being harder than the first, and that's only if you don't count the second quest from the original.
Actually movie production prices tend to be much higher than game production prices (about a factor of 10). Real life props, and actors who want seven-figure salaries tend to do that.
This then results in a product that is much more expensive in terms of time and money to the game player, but perhaps wont give you much more than an average film would at the theater in terms of storyline and content (which supposedly is the games focus).
Wait, films still have plot these days? I mean once you filter out all the explosions there's about 10 minutes left for actual character development.... Don't get me wrong, RPGs have worse plot than books, but provided the writer is decent (and sadly many suck) you will tend to get much better plot development than a movie, if only because you have more than 2 hours and replace explosions with gameplay.
Don't get me wrong, movies still have a purpose, but this has to do with acting, pacing, and cinematography. Movies that try to have actual depth...well I experienced something like that when I watched the Space Channel version of Dune in one sitting; high quality, but the whole way through it was obvious that it could be pulled off better as a book.
PSP and DS have a largely different target audience, which is why I dislike comparing them. Evidence suggests that the DS will have higher economic success (though still too many unknown variables to be sure). Hence, "PSP will beat the DS" claims bother me because I'm not sure they're competing in the first place, and because I don't see the evidence behind the prediction, assuming they are competing.
Of course, I've just written this post even later at night, so this should be a fun experiment!
Second, "PSP will have more games" seems like BS. Last I checked (and correct me if I'm wrong) there were about 100 third parties working on each system, and about equal number of third party games announced for each. (And then Nintendo wins the first party, of course).
Historically, poor battery life and high price is downright DEATH in the portable world. Other than Sony being stronger than Atari/Sega, what's different this time?
I'm going to paraphrase the analysis of a GameFAQs user (HoratioQHornblower) who owns a shop and so seems to know more about what will sell than I do. Here's the thing: handheld gaming is different than home console gaming. For instance, while racing games sell just fine on big consoles, they sell poorly on handelds. Who's going to buy the PSP version of GT4 when they can buy the PS2 version and play it properly on a big screen? Handheld gaming (according to him) is more centered around platformers (Marios, Metroids) and strategy games (Fire Emblem, FFTA). Roughly speaking, the list of DS games seem more suited to a handheld, whereas the PSP games are mostly scaled down console games, often literally ports of PS1 games.
Again, I'm not really doing HoratioQHornblower's argument justice, but his prediction for his store was that people woud buy the PSP first (better marketing) but return it after a couple of weeks when they find out Metal Gear Acid is a card RPG and the battery life is low. On the other hand, the DS, even ignoring the innovation, has a library which guarantees a certain level of success as a handheld, even if initial hype is lower.
Yep, such exciting characterization and dialogue as...
Master using it, and you can have THIS.
It's a secret to everybody.
Dodongo dislikes smoke.
Buy something will you?
I haven't played Super Mario Sunshine, but I'm willing to bet it never once uses the line "We're sorry Mario, but our Princess is in another castle" and that line has far more popularity.
Legend of Zelda was about the innovative gameplay, positively massive world, and being the first NES game to have a save file, NOT the characters and plot. Link's an elf-like character with a sword (just like the rest). Gannon is a loser blobby pig with no lines. Zelda is a Pauline ripoff. Nobody else is really worth mentioning.
RtS games? The Sims? Civilization? Heck, SimCity did come out before Doom, after all. Notice the general lack of pure Adventure games on consoles? Notice the difference between computer RPGs and console RPGs?
Maybe I'm biased since I'm one of those rare cases that never got into Doom in the first place, but it wasn't the original first person shooter, and heck, from all I hear it's not the original deathmatch either!
Do you seriously think that if deathmatches had been invented on consoles (and they may well have been--see above link) that they would not be transferred to PC with online and LAN capabilities, quickly becomming more popular than the corresponding console equivalents?
Though yes, I'll agree that Doom deserves credit for popularizing it...the same way FF7 deserves credit for making RPGs more mainstream than niche.
Look at how well the war in Afganistan went. Rebuilding is going well as far as I know, and the new government regime seems to be fine, and international support is posititve about that war. If it's so hard to win such a war, how did he win so thoroughly in Afganistan?
I agree: this article does miss the point, in that wars are not all lose-lose situations. On the flip side, not playing the game should always be a strategic option, which was his point I guess.
Second, why is Rare news and not a bigger developer like Square-Enix, or Konami? It is widely known that the talented development team left Rare several years ago (hence talk of "the Goldeneye team" making games for various non-Rare studios). Look at the big console games Rare released this generation; Star Fox Adventures and Grabbed by the Ghoulies. Two poorly-regarded titles total (one of which was a pushed back N64 title IIRC) from a developer who used to pump out a title every few months (10 N64 games from 1997 to 2000, and the N64 was much harder to program...).
Haven't played it myself, though watched it in action and it looks very fast-paced. At any rate, it's made by the same team that made Goldeneye, and seems to be highly regarded by those who played it.
Now, Halo 2, which will not be a rushed game as near as I can tell, ought to be fairly good. Bungie, after all, has shown us that they can make groundbreaking games with the Marathon series, so I think it's premature to condemn Halo 2.
GMR magazine (yeah trashy I know) had an article about what PS3 games might look like, including a few screenshots.
Randomly overheard some conversations in an Electronics Boutique.
I know people online who work in a game store, and claimed casual customers asked about the PS3, but basically never about the N5/XB2/DS/PSP. This is when I thought back to my own experiences, and noticed a correspondence. Of course I have to trust he's telling the truth--don't know him *that* well.
There's my data. None of it was based of people I know personally. I myself have a PS1, but no PS2 yet, so could be accused of being marginally anti-Sony if anything. Judge how you will.
Oh, and the DS is a reasonable step above the N64 (I've heard it called partway between the GC and N64, but I'm no expert).
Exclusive games also get free press from the so-called "system fanboys"; would Monkey Ball get as much attention if it were multiplatform? What about Ninja Gaiden?
So...I doubt exclusivity will be phased out, and while I'd love to see a nice close fight next round, I'm pesimistic that PS3 dominance is a foregone conclusion.
I'll second that. We've been hearing hints about really revolutionary gameplay for a while, and I'm getting rather curious.
Oh but we have seen a portable Metal Gear already (on the Gameboy Colour I believe). Sure, not a fully 3D one, but we haven't seen a portable 3D Mario or portable 3D Metroid either.
Then again, name means little; tell me Super Mario Bros 2 is just a Super Mario Bros 1 rehash. (Given that it wasn't even a Mario game to start with, but repackaged as one...).
There's also that little fact where guess which games make headlines in the previews? The big name stuff--cheap sequels to games that turned out really popular. You have to sift through the garbage if you want to find anything. PSP games people are excited about are Metal Gear, Gran Turismo, Viewtiful Joe, and Devil May Cry. XBox games people are excited about are Halo 2, Half Life 2, and Doom 3. GC games people are excited about include various things with Zelda, Resident Evil, Metroid, and Mario in the title.
In terms of gameplay quite clearly Warioware DS. After the innovation with the original, I wasn't sure what more they could add (the GC Warioware didn't seem worth it) but the kind of stuff I'm reading about Warioware with a touch screen...yeah, that's going to be totally new gameplay.
In that case, enjoy your almighty PSP games consisting of...
Metal Gear Acid
Gran Turismo 4
Tales of Eternia (already released on PS1 incidentally)
Devil May Cry (or was it DMC3?)
Viewtiful Joe
Frogger!
What seem to be a bunch of other PS1 ports
I'm also guessing you haven't played the original Warioware (a new fresh idea, incidentally) since the gameplay in the parent's description sounds totally different (given that you only used the A-button and D-pad in the first one; compare that to a touch screen).
To a 14 year old killing zombies and Ninjas while racing out of a burning building (which takes an unrealistic amount of time to burn down) complete with lots of blood and preferably guts is mature. DoA XTreme Beach volleyball also counts as mature.
A 30 year old sees something like Majora's Mask as a very dark game (whereas the 14 year old does not because you're playing as a kid) and would prefer deep plots instead of flash.
Now these aren't totally true; I've known 16 year olds to be very intelligent in their tastes, and 30 year olds who act like horny kids. Perhaps in 20 years the videogame industry will truely grow up, but then looking at the big blockbuster movies and bestselling novels these days, my hopes aren't that high.
Actually, the Wars series goes back further than that. There were NES Wars games, they just never got brought over from Japan. So...most likely it will be DS Wars.
The only break from this pattern is releasing the DS and running it alongside the GBA. And...well if it revolutionizes gameplay then I'm happy they did it. If the second screen is just a cheap gimick then I'll be angry at them for spreading their games over three systems.