> Not every SUV driver is out to earn status points.
No, but it's become a vast majority. SUVs have gone from being useful tools to a way for Dad to save face. It's the new minivan. Notice how they've changed over time? More cargo for your sports gear has rapidly turned into more room for the kids. It seems like every SoccerMom/Dad has one. Hell, there was a recent commercial that showed the two rugged outdoorsmen passed by a Mom carting around three kids.
Not only that, but it draws the "I'm important, so I need a big truck" crowd. It's similar to the folk who don't need huge amounts of towing capicity buying the big Fords with the extra wheels. Except, SUVs are more popular, so there are a lot more of them.
Sure, there are some people who actually need a four-wheel drive vehicle - and you sound like one of them. Hell, there's a guy in the DC area who owns a Hummer... and he only drives it in the winter to pull idiots (who freak out over a couple snowflakes) out of ditches on the side of the road.
It's the same thing with the wanna-be sports cars. But at least those are lower to the ground, are slightly less of a hazard, and don't make it impossible to see traffic around them.
There's a couple things that go into copy protection - CD keys for one, anti-disc copying for another. Unfortunately, those anti-copying measures can severely interfere in performance. Some companies don't care. Companies like Rockstar/Take-Two Interactive who, when finding out that SafeDisc was lowering framerats by significant margins, removed the copy protection check from the PC version of GTA3, clearly care about their customers.
I think your idea is pretty darn great. I'm currently playing BF1942, and I think what you promosed would fit right in - unlock the cd-check for the "older" games, and just require it for the "latest" expansion.
On the other hand, games like BF1942 don't need the help. I never have a problem finding a mostly full game with the options I like (Conquest/Objective mode, full friendly fire). I think UT2k3 lost mainly because it didn't offer anything really "good", while BF might be the next Tribes.
First off, thanks a whole lot for your reply - this is the first time I've gotten a well written and clearly thought out reply to any of my SWG questions.
Yeah, Sullust rings a bell =) I didn't pick up on the '|'s at first - and a great little trivia thing, I can only think of one Sullustian in the classic Trilogy (Nien Nunb [sp?]), and Vader's quote doesn't even link him to that planet.
Well, I'll just jump right in. I was thrilled when I got into the beta earlier this year, but was really disappointed by the time it was over. There's a couple reasons, and they'll get covered.
Part of the way I see the Star Wars universe is "in conflict". Since, in general, stories center around some type of conflict, I think that makes sense. In the classic Trilogy - the setting of SWG - the Empire is a xenophobic, malevolent force crushing freedom throughout the universe.
The Rebellion is the universe's response: we don't want your tyrannical fist here.
The "gritty important stuff" I mentioned pretty much falls into this category: the Empire is evil. Not everyone in it, specifically, but it is not a benevolent ruling organization. As I pointed out, they (almost wihtout exception) don't allow non-humans into their ranks, and they treat them as second-class (if that) citizens.
That's the chief thing I feel is missing from SWG. Despite the beautifully created planets, and the wonderful atmosphere provided, it doesn't feel like a galaxy ruled by a cold-hearted, iron-fisted Emperor.
The GCW is a thing on the periphery; 'neutrals' can't be harmed by either faction, and while I understand that many people don't want to be forced into PvP, it takes a lot of the bite out of the Empire.
Also, there's a missing "third" faction from the game; the Hutts Faction (Crime & Criminals) was supposed to play an important part. Slicing and Sumgglers were *just* added in the last week or so of beta (Smugglers were in for a couple weeks), and unless things changed greatly, they had almost no impact (in fact, Smugglers were said by SoE to not be useful until the space expansion).
When I played, I never felt threatened by anyone or anything; the galaxy never felt in turmoil, I never felt the iron first of the Empire, so I never felt the Freedom cry of the Rebellion. Hell, the Empire wasn't even intolerant; any race could join, and could advance to even the highest ranks.
Even participating in what little of the GCW there was, it had no point. It was just running around shooting at each other, hoping you had more hits land than the other guy. No bases could be stormed, no vehicles could be used to assault...
Hell, the vast majority of the troops in the War are Joe Schmos - those are the guys flying on Luke and Wedge's wing on the Death Star assault, they're the memebers of Han Solo's commando squad during the Endor raid.
They're all those little guys on the ground during the Battle of Hoth.
I don't need to be the hero of the main story; but as an episode of ST:tNG pointed out, for every story of the Bridge Crew (the "main characters"), there are a thousand "minor heroes" that are affected by everything the main characters do.
Yeah, KotOR was an absolutely amazing game, but I understand MOGs can't be exactly like that.
SWG, lacking the negative impact of the Empire, and the overall impact of the GCW, had no positive impact on me. I suppose that during this time period there were millions of people who went about their daily lives - exterminating infestations or being musicians or whatnot - but that's not what Star Wars is to me.
West End made a SW RPG before it was bought by WotC. I had the privilege of being a part of a couple really good sessions. Chiefly, they were about the "other guys" - Imperials and Rebels of all stations, and what went on behind the scenes and around the movies. I was just really hoping for something like that.
Right and wrong are no more immutable than legal and illegal. Both can - and do - change over time. Just because we feel guilt or remorse over something today doesn't mean that people felt that way 50, 100, or N years ago.
Also, the distinction between "right" and "wrong" was exactly what I was trying to imply by using quotes, and following it with "modify our set of laws".
Judging actions in the past are incredibly easy to do - "hindsight is 20/20" - and because of this, we have an incredible chance to learn from our mistakes. And change what we punish people for accordingly.
Not to mention that "right" and "wrong" can often fall into a morally gray area. Was it "right" to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? I imagine you'll get two different answers if you ask a Pacific Allied WWII vet compared with a Japanese citizen - or even compare that with some of the peoples conquered by Japan in their surrounding area (not being known for their humanitarian treatment of such conquered people).
Heck, even compare the changes that take place during a change in the Presidency - when a Republican takes power, he repeals Democratic legislation and furthers Right-wing agenda; just the opposite that a Democrat would do if the situations were reversed.
I'm of the opinion that abortion is "wrong" - and the vast majority of the population disagrees with me. Despite my belief, I don't believe it should be made illegal - chiefly because the majority of the population disagrees with me.
Right and wrong are personal beliefs, which can vary drastically from person to person. Hence, law - in theory, common beliefs or rules necessary for the operation of soceity. "Common", because (try as we might) you can't legislate morality.
Come talk after one year. You'll notice that MMORPGs that don't do well have dropoffs at (roughly) two month, five month, seven month, and thirteen month intervals. Why? Because that's when subscriptions runs out. It will reach a peak, and it will start to decline. Eventually, equilibrium will be reached.
To give you an example, Dark Age of Camelot had "more than 220,000 paying subscribers" ( http://mythicentertainment.com/press/atlantis.html ) back in May of 2003. That's down from a peak of 500,000. However, the game has been out since October of 2001 - nearly two years.
If SWG has at least 50% of its peak population two years later, I'll be stunned. The game isn't Star Wars; it's EQ-lite with a SW skin. NONE of the Star Wars fans I know play the game; I'm a Star Wars nut (I own *Force Commander*), and I refuse to touch it.
Hell, it's not even the Star Wars universe. The Empire is kind, gentle, and not xenophobic in any way. There's no reason for the Galactic Civil War - the Empire isn't doing anything mean!
Yeah, I'm leaning towards the fanboy, but you think Lucas would at least MADE THEM STICK TO THE STORYLINE. For example, the Empire views Wookies as barely sentient beasts of burden. They have a blockade around Kashyyyk (the Wookie homeworld), and sell 'em off to work as slave labor. Any Wookie they see roaming free off Kashyyyk is a cause for concern.
And yet, in SWG, there are an infinite number of free Wookies - and they can achieve the highest ranks in the Imperial Army!
Ok, so you play the game - maybe you can answer me something:
Where the hell did the Star Wars universe go, and what is being represented in SWG?
After beta testing and playing during the stress test, I was so sick of how VI totally ignored the basic foundation of the Star Wars universe and "dumbed down" all of the gritty important stuff, I just couldn't fathom *anyone* wanting to play this game.
I guess my questions are more like this: are you a Star Wars fan? How big of a fan would you rate yourself? Do you know somewhat obscure Star Wars trivia?
Are you playing SWG because it's a good representation of the Star Wars universe, or because of something else?
Part of the reasoning behind the player races was how the target audience reacted when they were asked about which races they'd like to play. A bunch of polls were at swg.station.sony.com during development, and most of the races that did well are represented as PCs.
Also, part of the race's popularity in the myriad of books helped. Bothans, for example, feature heavily in the Star Wars universe, but they're never on screen in any of the movies. Trandoshans and Zabraks are only feature briefly in the movies (Ep 5 had the Trandoshan - a bounty hunter hired to get Solo (it makes a comment to one of the Imperial Officers), and Ep 1 had Darth Maul (a Zabrak)), but Trandoshans in particular are popular in the books and games (I could detail for you their religious beliefs).
Another of the considerations would be "adventurousness" of the race. Jawas (and I assume Gungans) are a very secretive race, very attached to their desert and their sand crawlers, and highly unlikely to leave Tatooine or live with Outsiders.
"...the vast majority of people posting on a game's forum will be very angry, very vocal, very rude and somewhat-obsessive."
Then why host forums at all? If they are the negative situation you proclaim them to be, what are the positive reasons for having one?
Very simply put, there *must* be a good reason for having these forums, or else they wouldn't exist. If it's about image management, then it's about "keeping things quiet" by not letting the public in. Is that a smart business decision? Possibly - but it also states that you've got something to hide.
Moreso, it hinders the usefulness of those boards. SWG/Verant/SoE is basically saying they want as little noise about what is going on as possible - meaning they don't value the buzz that's being generated by their players. If they were properly handling negative situations, and dealing with issues as they arose, would they be so quick to close to forums?
I think not.
Verant (VI) is, bluntly put, bad with customers. EQ, their crown royale, is a conglomeration of people who hate VI as much as they like EQ. On one hand, that's good for the community (to rally against the 'enemy') - on the other, it's bad for VI; it creates an endless stream of headaches and PR problems. Early on, they created a volunteer-only system to help handle the problems (the "Guide" program); when the Guides started to get treated like 2nd class citizens and got uppity, VI cancelled the program.
"If you want to blame someone for this decision then blame them, because they have created the situation that is now being addressed."
Why not blame the company that created a game with so many problems instead? What you said makes about as much sense as blaming cell phones and the internet for poor movie sales. "Negative word gets out faster" - well, duh! If the movie is crap - or, better put, if your target audience doesn't like the movie - you're not going to have blockbuster sales.
It's not the fault of technology, or the critics, or "public" messageboards - it's the fault of the creators of the content, and saying otherwise is just passing the buck.
And if he's getting prosecuted for an unjust law? Or if he's getting prosecuted for something he didn't do? Or if he's found guilty, he will face cruel and unusual punishment? Or punishment not commensurate with his crime? I'm not saying this is how it is, just giving examples why someone could be upset over a prosecution.
There are many, many reasons to be upset over "this guy [] getting prosecuted". You say it's "wrong", that "it's cut and dried". I say it's not as simple as you make it out to be - "law" isn't inherently "right". Further, there's a very real possibility that the plantiffs are looking to make a profit off this rather than reimbursement for damages. That seems pretty wrong to me - does it seem right to you?
/--- Do you want to come home to your house, turn on the lights only to find someone sitting on your sofa waiting to explain to you how insecure your house is because he was easily able to pick the locks? \--- I lock my doors with a deadbolt. I have an alarm that I activate anytime I'm not home or asleep. I have a dog that barks at strangers. I have a number of swords scattered about the house for just such an occasion.
I have made reasonable attempts to prevent and discourage burglars. Your typical burglar looks for quick, easy marks, and wishes to spend no more than 2-5min in a location. If this atypical burglar is so intent on robbing me that none of this discourages him, and is not intent on violence, then he's welcome to what he can get away with before the police arrive.
The swords are there in case one is intent on doing violence.
Had I left the doors/windows not only unlocked but open, not activated the alarm and made it clear it was not able to be activated, had no dog, and left valuables in plain sight - then yes, I would *expect* to either find my valuables missing, or come home to an unwanted visitor / angry neighbors perturbed by my lack of responsibility.
See, being irresponsible affects more than just yourself. This is why we can take children away from their parents when they display gross negligence. Unfortunately, there is no similar law for cybercrimes at this time - we have no law stating that you must take reasonable steps to ensure the security of all your sensitive information.
Because of this, we get corporations with intentionally lax security, an operation system full of security flaws, and children facing significant fines and potentially jail time instead of a slap on the wrist for what amounts to trespassing.
>...IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO SO. > END OF STORY! It's not that simple.
One of the founding principles of the USA is that "right" and "wrong" can change over time - hence the ability to modify our set of laws. As another poster pointed out, slavery was legal for quite some time - that didn't make it right, and people were forced to take action to make it illegal.
Free speech is one of the methods given to US Citizens to let the government know how we think they're doing. However, as has been shown innumerable times over, sometimes doing something "illegal" is necessary in part of the protest. There are times when people won't see how silly a law or rule is until it is broken repeatedly in front of their noses.
We're living in a time when more and more of our information is becoming more and more accessible. There are people out there whose intentions (good or ill) are not being backed by reasonable security. Accessible personal information and light or no security do not mix well.
I'd greatly prefer it if we could live in a world where everyone could be trusted "to behave". If we could trust people not to break into each other's homes, we wouldn't need door locks. Sure, it's illegal to break into another person's home - but does that mean that you don't need to lock your door?
Or that you should never check your door to be sure it's locked?
Most importantly, are you willing to take the risk of leaving personal, private, or otherwise valuable information or things laying around, in plain view, behind an unlocked glass case (alarmed though it may be)?
Every time a case like this gets into the newspapers, it is a bold reminder to corporations that they are at risk. Without a threat of loss, security grows lax. Be greatful this person did not act with a significant malicious intent, and learn from it.
It's called System Shock 2: Rebirth, and while there's a release that already works very well, he's still making upgrades.
(WARNING: link contains material that could be deemed inappropriate for minors - it would likely receive an 'R'/PG-18 rating [if it was a US film] for graphic violence, partial nudity, and "disturbing images") System Shock 2: Rebirth
When I played through, they didn't have the new monkey or rumbler models (which both look great, imho) - and let me tell you, it added a lot =) While the original game had plenty of atmosphere to make me jumpy before, the new additions keep it fresh enough that I hope never to get complacent =)
The only way to agree to the EULA is to lie. It asks you to read all the licensing agreements for the software on the computer, and agree to them, before accepting this EULA.
Can't read 'em, because the EULA is in the way. Can't agree to the EULA, because you haven't read the licenses. Goto 10
Not to mention that Dell support told them to "just accept it", and they were unable to provide them with the documentation to which they were supposed to agree.
I go back and play SS2 after every time I upgrade my computer. Recently, I played through with my new top-of-the-line kick-me-in-the-wallet comp... I'm continually impressed on how it looks, even now.
True classics never die.
And yeah, my biggest wish is for another SShock game.
"Just get a gamecube, 150 bucks and it'll come with metroid prime. Thats less than half what you probably payed for the 9800, and well worth it." i do most of my gaming on the PC. there are only a couple console titles i'd really like to play, and most of them (PS2/XBox) come out for the PC eventually (GTA3/VC, i will live to see halo on the PC!!!). metroid prime being a "prime" (heh) example of one that doesn't, though.
yeah, the 9800 set me back quite a bit, but it's compatible with all the games i play and improves some of the older ones. this is funny, but i can't justify shelling out $150 for one game on a console i know i'm not going to use that much. maybe $100 when the price comes down later;)
what's also funny is that i own an xbox. i was lucky enough that my wife won it in a gaming competition (rofl, she won on a GC playing monkey ball, smash bros, and tony hawk 3 - and she got an xbox, we laughed all the way home), and it came with halo and the dvd thing. i haven't bought many games... five, i think? - and i'll be exchanging DoA3 with $35 for SC2 when it comes out next week (EB's offering a deal).
i've gotten a fair amount of gameplay out of it, but that's mainly because of KotOR (big SW fan) and BG:DA. though i expect SC2, D&D Heroes, and Ninja Gaiden will lengthen that considerably =)
> IQ != fun... no, of course not, or i wouldn't be playing Deus Ex for the 5th time =) but i do appreciate the better IQ my 9800 can force on it (mmm, 4xAA + 16xAF). i still fire up the snes for the occasional bout of mario kart, and played through FF2(e) back when the FF movie came out.
i watch DVDs on my PC, but that's because my PC has a better sound system... it's what i've invested in, instead of a good TV setup.
and that's exactly your point, and a good one - people will play what's fun. i'd really like to see more cross-platform games, so i can enjoy Metroid Prime the same as a GC owner.
Games like CounterStrike, Tribes, and (to a lesser extent) Battlefield 1942 has brought FPSes ahead by leaps and bounds. CS brought accuracy and fairly realistic weapons into the mix, Tribes added complex team dynamics and vehicular combat, while BF1942 refined both (sacrificing realism for approachability).
Sure, they're still "First Person Shooters", but they've added significant layers of complexity to an already established game style.
And in a lot of ways, the advancement of the gaming industry is basically about adding levels of complexity.
That's one place where i think consoles always will miss the ball: complexity. RTS games, for example, will never completely bridge the console gap until consoles have decently complex controls available. There's just no good way to manage 200 units with only 16 buttons.
As for consoles always having the edge, that really depends on what you mean by such an ambiguous term.
Comparing image quality between a PS2, GameCube, or XBox with a moderate- to high-end PC makes me laugh. The difference between 320x240 (to 640x480 on HQ TVs) with 2xAA and 1600x1200, 4xAA, and 16xAF isn't even close. It's not a "fair" comparison by any means, since the PS2 is a three-year-old system, but good PCs are capable of graphic detail several orders of magnitude better than any available console.
And depending on how quickly TVs advance, it might stay that way for a while - since consoles are primarily used on TVs, and the vast majority of TVs in circulation are 640x480 with scan lines (hence only needing to render 320x240). There are some that don't have the scan lines (forgot what they're called), and I'm pretty sure all three consoles support the higher resolution (hence including 640x480)... and thus it's likely that the 'next gen' of consoles will have support of whatever HDTV format is finally decided upon, but until your television is capable of displaying an image more complex (in pixel resolution) than your computer monitor, how can consoles catch up (in this area - i'm pretty sure they'll always be simpler to maintain)?
I have to say "Thank God" to any game that offers co-op. It's the only thing that's made me notice LotR:RotK as a game. So many games with amazing Co-Op potential drop the ball that it makes me weep.
I'd like to point out that I didn't call you an alcoholic, only that some people would consider the damaging of one's own liver as a less-fulfilling way to spend time than gaming.
Consoles are cheaper, and more cost-effective for the casual gamer. But I spend a lot more time gaming than the casual gamer. The ratio of time spent playing to cost is probably better for me than it is for the casual console gamer.
Regardless, you're arguing the same point I am ("some people would rather spend their time differently that you").
"You are looking at the specs, not how the hardware is integrated." The systems specifications tell me how the hardware is integrated.
The PS2's layout is significantly different from the PC of 2000 (not that has changed a whole lot, but bear with me). Instead of having a large on-chip cache, it has a 10-channel Direct Memory Access Controller (DMAC) that quickly access the PS2's two 128MB RDRAM main memory banks with its "high speed" (quotes because I don't have a number for this) 16-bit bus.
The PS2 also has two 128-bit SIMD floating-point vector units, as well as its MIPS III CPU core (which can do 128-bit integer SIMD by locking together its two 64-bit integer pipes). These three processors (as well as the display mechanism) are conected to the core memory (256MB RDRAM) via the aforementioned 10-channel DMAC.
This breaks down to a system that, while extremely light on cache, has the memory bandwidth and processor power to significantly outperform the Pentium 3s/TNT2 Ultras the PC was using at the time.
PCs aren't set up that way. It has a smaller pipe between the CPU, RAM, and Video Card - but it tries to make up for it with a larger on-chip cache (for the CPU), decreasing memory access times while increasing memory bandwidth (RAM), and significantly more powerful video cards (along with significantly faster memory bandwidth from the RAM to the video card [AGP 2/4/8x]).
A lot has changed in three years. Unfortunately, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the PS2 to the modern PC, because I don't have a lot of the gut speed information about the PS2 (just architecture). I can't even give you a fairly accurate rough estimate, because I can't find a common benchmark between the two.
Things have changed so much, they aren't even measured in the same way.
"You would be pretty disappointed with how it performed with Quake 3." Quake 3 isn't used as a benchmark anymore. Most fairly cheap, off-the-shelf cards do pretty well (if not extremely well) with it now. A GeForceFX 5200 (less than $100) gets better than 33fps in 1280x1024 with 4xAA.
And that's exactly my point. Budget cards render better than the PS2 does.
I understand that the PS2 has specialized hardware. I understand that the PS2's software is going to be optimized for this specialized hardware, and that because of this, won't perform as well as software optimized for the PC.
However, when you use the phrase "...play games faster and better than your system", you've got to realize that this is just not true. The PS2 renders graphics at 320x240 - 640x480 for high quality TVs. A moderately priced PC (with a 'budget' video card) today can achievable playable framerates at more than twice the resolution, with at least twice the anti-aliasing.
Performance PCs just blow the PS2's image quality and performance out of the water. There's no contest. But we're also talking about a comparison between current technology and three-year-old technology.
As for the DMCA, consider which is harder - to stop a large group of people from using something that already exists (and that is widely available), or to stop a small group of people from creating something that doesn't exist?
It's easier to stop developers writing emulators (in most countries) now. It would be virtually impossible to wipe out every trace of already existing, wide-spread emulators - emulators for systems that aren't even in production anymore (ie, the companies aren't making a profit off them, so why should they care as much?).
I think the biggest problem with emulating a PS2/GC is that a straight emulation wouldn't be the ideal solution - you'd get crappy image quality. No one on the PC wants 320x240 or even 640x480 resolution, we want high image quality (1600x1200, etc). So you'd basically need a system that can translate the PS2-optimized instructions to PC-usable format (OpenGL or D3D for display, and that's just the rendering part of the problem).
"Don't argue with Ondo...he is absolutely right." So... I should just take your word for it and shut up? Naw, don't think so. It doesn't make sense to me.
Take a look at this 3 year old article detailing the specs of a PS2:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc- 1. html
Take a good, hard look at those 3 year old numbers. Now compare those with current specs (yeah, I'm in a rush, so I don't have those links yet). That comparison was with a P3 (550?) and TNT2 Ultra. In my rig, I have a 3ghz P4 and a Radeon 9800 w/ 512mb vid mem.
Tell me again why you think the now-paltry specs of the PS2 are preventative? And what level of emulation are we talking about? 100% software? Emulators are only as good as they're written - if they're not trying to take advantage of *ANY* of the power available to the PC (P4 instructions, Dx9/video card hardware, etc) - you're gimping the contest before it ever started.
When were those Game Boy, NES, and SNES emulators written? I'll give you a hint: it was before the DMCA.
It's amazing how quickly the discussion of PC vs. Console degenerates into personal attacks.
So you do other things that fill your time rather than gaming. Big deal. How is what you do in your spare time "better" than gaming? Should I take up your hobbies just because you find them more fulfilling? Like the consumption of alcohol, I suppose.
As hard as it is for you to believe, gamers aren't the jobless, unwashed loners you make us out to be. I've got a full time job (that pays quite well - thanks to my interest in computers), a loving wife, two sets of parents that I see every couple of weeks, and compulsively wash my hands./shrug, we've all got our faults. Some people are judgemental and intolerant.
I fire up my PC as more than just a pleasant alternative to darts or poker for me, my wife, and my friends (with whom I don't consume copious quantities of alcohol) - I engage in various challenging activities, by myself or with others, in co-operative and competetive environments.
My wife and I played EQ together for years, until we moved on to different games. I think you'll find that more marriages are ruined by alcoholism than the inability to communicate associted with divorces over a video game.
Though it may fall on deaf ears, I'd suggest you consider the hubris it takes to judge another person you know nearly nothing about - "better things", indeed.
"No effort required by the game publisher, and totally impossible right now." Then ask the question, why is it impossible? Is it because the console manufacturers aren't interested in seeing their "console specifc" games played on another system? They shut down anyone who tries.
The PC has superior hardware available. We're not talking about attemping to run UT2k3 on an Apple IIe.
Effort is being expended by the publisher (console manufacturer), explicitly trying to prevent this. It's counterintuitive. They'd reach a much larger audience by embracing emulation. Larger audience == more money.
It's not impossible to emulate these systems - the only reason we can't do it right now is the the omnipresent threat of the DMCA.
Regardless, we wouldn't want to emulate those systems anyway. A combination emulatot/translator would be much more efficient - console hardware not being as demanding and all.
Ok, this is a little off-topic - but Anarchy Online and World War II Online are two great examples of how *NOT* to release MOGs. And while there wasn't the same sort of problems with Rubies of Eventide (that I know of; does anyone play this game? I gave the trial a shot, but it was just... flat), it's not exactly expected to be wildly popular.
So why ask these people what they think? Their products are riddled with problems - not the ideal place from which to draw knowledge, unless you're asking them what they think went wrong (ie, benefiting from their experience dealing with problems).
Back on topic: since I agree with Bartle's concept on why MOGs shouldn't have voice yet, I don't think consoles are very receptive to the MOG style. Most of these games rely heavily on player interaction, and a pop-up menu of oft-said phrases will only get you so far.
You basically *need* a keyboard to type rapidly - does each console system have one available (I've seen one for the PS2)? Would bundling it with the game help? Is it even a good idea to bring console gamers into the MOG mix?
Slashdot Mirror
> Not every SUV driver is out to earn status points.
No, but it's become a vast majority. SUVs have gone from being useful tools to a way for Dad to save face. It's the new minivan. Notice how they've changed over time? More cargo for your sports gear has rapidly turned into more room for the kids. It seems like every SoccerMom/Dad has one. Hell, there was a recent commercial that showed the two rugged outdoorsmen passed by a Mom carting around three kids.
Not only that, but it draws the "I'm important, so I need a big truck" crowd. It's similar to the folk who don't need huge amounts of towing capicity buying the big Fords with the extra wheels. Except, SUVs are more popular, so there are a lot more of them.
Sure, there are some people who actually need a four-wheel drive vehicle - and you sound like one of them. Hell, there's a guy in the DC area who owns a Hummer... and he only drives it in the winter to pull idiots (who freak out over a couple snowflakes) out of ditches on the side of the road.
It's the same thing with the wanna-be sports cars. But at least those are lower to the ground, are slightly less of a hazard, and don't make it impossible to see traffic around them.
-lw
There's a couple things that go into copy protection - CD keys for one, anti-disc copying for another. Unfortunately, those anti-copying measures can severely interfere in performance. Some companies don't care. Companies like Rockstar/Take-Two Interactive who, when finding out that SafeDisc was lowering framerats by significant margins, removed the copy protection check from the PC version of GTA3, clearly care about their customers.
I think your idea is pretty darn great. I'm currently playing BF1942, and I think what you promosed would fit right in - unlock the cd-check for the "older" games, and just require it for the "latest" expansion.
On the other hand, games like BF1942 don't need the help. I never have a problem finding a mostly full game with the options I like (Conquest/Objective mode, full friendly fire). I think UT2k3 lost mainly because it didn't offer anything really "good", while BF might be the next Tribes.
-lw
First off, thanks a whole lot for your reply - this is the first time I've gotten a well written and clearly thought out reply to any of my SWG questions.
Yeah, Sullust rings a bell =) I didn't pick up on the '|'s at first - and a great little trivia thing, I can only think of one Sullustian in the classic Trilogy (Nien Nunb [sp?]), and Vader's quote doesn't even link him to that planet.
Well, I'll just jump right in. I was thrilled when I got into the beta earlier this year, but was really disappointed by the time it was over. There's a couple reasons, and they'll get covered.
Part of the way I see the Star Wars universe is "in conflict". Since, in general, stories center around some type of conflict, I think that makes sense. In the classic Trilogy - the setting of SWG - the Empire is a xenophobic, malevolent force crushing freedom throughout the universe.
The Rebellion is the universe's response: we don't want your tyrannical fist here.
The "gritty important stuff" I mentioned pretty much falls into this category: the Empire is evil. Not everyone in it, specifically, but it is not a benevolent ruling organization. As I pointed out, they (almost wihtout exception) don't allow non-humans into their ranks, and they treat them as second-class (if that) citizens.
That's the chief thing I feel is missing from SWG. Despite the beautifully created planets, and the wonderful atmosphere provided, it doesn't feel like a galaxy ruled by a cold-hearted, iron-fisted Emperor.
The GCW is a thing on the periphery; 'neutrals' can't be harmed by either faction, and while I understand that many people don't want to be forced into PvP, it takes a lot of the bite out of the Empire.
Also, there's a missing "third" faction from the game; the Hutts Faction (Crime & Criminals) was supposed to play an important part. Slicing and Sumgglers were *just* added in the last week or so of beta (Smugglers were in for a couple weeks), and unless things changed greatly, they had almost no impact (in fact, Smugglers were said by SoE to not be useful until the space expansion).
When I played, I never felt threatened by anyone or anything; the galaxy never felt in turmoil, I never felt the iron first of the Empire, so I never felt the Freedom cry of the Rebellion. Hell, the Empire wasn't even intolerant; any race could join, and could advance to even the highest ranks.
Even participating in what little of the GCW there was, it had no point. It was just running around shooting at each other, hoping you had more hits land than the other guy. No bases could be stormed, no vehicles could be used to assault...
Hell, the vast majority of the troops in the War are Joe Schmos - those are the guys flying on Luke and Wedge's wing on the Death Star assault, they're the memebers of Han Solo's commando squad during the Endor raid.
They're all those little guys on the ground during the Battle of Hoth.
I don't need to be the hero of the main story; but as an episode of ST:tNG pointed out, for every story of the Bridge Crew (the "main characters"), there are a thousand "minor heroes" that are affected by everything the main characters do.
Yeah, KotOR was an absolutely amazing game, but I understand MOGs can't be exactly like that.
SWG, lacking the negative impact of the Empire, and the overall impact of the GCW, had no positive impact on me. I suppose that during this time period there were millions of people who went about their daily lives - exterminating infestations or being musicians or whatnot - but that's not what Star Wars is to me.
West End made a SW RPG before it was bought by WotC. I had the privilege of being a part of a couple really good sessions. Chiefly, they were about the "other guys" - Imperials and Rebels of all stations, and what went on behind the scenes and around the movies. I was just really hoping for something like that.
Thanks for your time!
-lw
Right and wrong are no more immutable than legal and illegal. Both can - and do - change over time. Just because we feel guilt or remorse over something today doesn't mean that people felt that way 50, 100, or N years ago.
Also, the distinction between "right" and "wrong" was exactly what I was trying to imply by using quotes, and following it with "modify our set of laws".
Judging actions in the past are incredibly easy to do - "hindsight is 20/20" - and because of this, we have an incredible chance to learn from our mistakes. And change what we punish people for accordingly.
Not to mention that "right" and "wrong" can often fall into a morally gray area. Was it "right" to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? I imagine you'll get two different answers if you ask a Pacific Allied WWII vet compared with a Japanese citizen - or even compare that with some of the peoples conquered by Japan in their surrounding area (not being known for their humanitarian treatment of such conquered people).
Heck, even compare the changes that take place during a change in the Presidency - when a Republican takes power, he repeals Democratic legislation and furthers Right-wing agenda; just the opposite that a Democrat would do if the situations were reversed.
I'm of the opinion that abortion is "wrong" - and the vast majority of the population disagrees with me. Despite my belief, I don't believe it should be made illegal - chiefly because the majority of the population disagrees with me.
Right and wrong are personal beliefs, which can vary drastically from person to person. Hence, law - in theory, common beliefs or rules necessary for the operation of soceity. "Common", because (try as we might) you can't legislate morality.
-lw
275k after one month?
l ) back in May of 2003. That's down from a peak of 500,000. However, the game has been out since October of 2001 - nearly two years.
That's so cute!
Come talk after one year. You'll notice that MMORPGs that don't do well have dropoffs at (roughly) two month, five month, seven month, and thirteen month intervals. Why? Because that's when subscriptions runs out. It will reach a peak, and it will start to decline. Eventually, equilibrium will be reached.
To give you an example, Dark Age of Camelot had "more than 220,000 paying subscribers" ( http://mythicentertainment.com/press/atlantis.htm
If SWG has at least 50% of its peak population two years later, I'll be stunned. The game isn't Star Wars; it's EQ-lite with a SW skin. NONE of the Star Wars fans I know play the game; I'm a Star Wars nut (I own *Force Commander*), and I refuse to touch it.
-lw
Hell, it's not even the Star Wars universe. The Empire is kind, gentle, and not xenophobic in any way. There's no reason for the Galactic Civil War - the Empire isn't doing anything mean!
Yeah, I'm leaning towards the fanboy, but you think Lucas would at least MADE THEM STICK TO THE STORYLINE. For example, the Empire views Wookies as barely sentient beasts of burden. They have a blockade around Kashyyyk (the Wookie homeworld), and sell 'em off to work as slave labor. Any Wookie they see roaming free off Kashyyyk is a cause for concern.
And yet, in SWG, there are an infinite number of free Wookies - and they can achieve the highest ranks in the Imperial Army!
ARGH!!!
-lw
Ok, so you play the game - maybe you can answer me something:
Where the hell did the Star Wars universe go, and what is being represented in SWG?
After beta testing and playing during the stress test, I was so sick of how VI totally ignored the basic foundation of the Star Wars universe and "dumbed down" all of the gritty important stuff, I just couldn't fathom *anyone* wanting to play this game.
I guess my questions are more like this: are you a Star Wars fan? How big of a fan would you rate yourself? Do you know somewhat obscure Star Wars trivia?
Are you playing SWG because it's a good representation of the Star Wars universe, or because of something else?
Thanks,
-lw
Part of the reasoning behind the player races was how the target audience reacted when they were asked about which races they'd like to play. A bunch of polls were at swg.station.sony.com during development, and most of the races that did well are represented as PCs.
Also, part of the race's popularity in the myriad of books helped. Bothans, for example, feature heavily in the Star Wars universe, but they're never on screen in any of the movies. Trandoshans and Zabraks are only feature briefly in the movies (Ep 5 had the Trandoshan - a bounty hunter hired to get Solo (it makes a comment to one of the Imperial Officers), and Ep 1 had Darth Maul (a Zabrak)), but Trandoshans in particular are popular in the books and games (I could detail for you their religious beliefs).
Another of the considerations would be "adventurousness" of the race. Jawas (and I assume Gungans) are a very secretive race, very attached to their desert and their sand crawlers, and highly unlikely to leave Tatooine or live with Outsiders.
-lw
Nonsense!
"...the vast majority of people posting on a game's forum will be very angry, very vocal, very rude and somewhat-obsessive."
Then why host forums at all? If they are the negative situation you proclaim them to be, what are the positive reasons for having one?
Very simply put, there *must* be a good reason for having these forums, or else they wouldn't exist. If it's about image management, then it's about "keeping things quiet" by not letting the public in. Is that a smart business decision? Possibly - but it also states that you've got something to hide.
Moreso, it hinders the usefulness of those boards. SWG/Verant/SoE is basically saying they want as little noise about what is going on as possible - meaning they don't value the buzz that's being generated by their players. If they were properly handling negative situations, and dealing with issues as they arose, would they be so quick to close to forums?
I think not.
Verant (VI) is, bluntly put, bad with customers. EQ, their crown royale, is a conglomeration of people who hate VI as much as they like EQ. On one hand, that's good for the community (to rally against the 'enemy') - on the other, it's bad for VI; it creates an endless stream of headaches and PR problems. Early on, they created a volunteer-only system to help handle the problems (the "Guide" program); when the Guides started to get treated like 2nd class citizens and got uppity, VI cancelled the program.
"If you want to blame someone for this decision then blame them, because they have created the situation that is now being addressed."
Why not blame the company that created a game with so many problems instead? What you said makes about as much sense as blaming cell phones and the internet for poor movie sales. "Negative word gets out faster" - well, duh! If the movie is crap - or, better put, if your target audience doesn't like the movie - you're not going to have blockbuster sales.
It's not the fault of technology, or the critics, or "public" messageboards - it's the fault of the creators of the content, and saying otherwise is just passing the buck.
-lw
And if he's getting prosecuted for an unjust law? Or if he's getting prosecuted for something he didn't do? Or if he's found guilty, he will face cruel and unusual punishment? Or punishment not commensurate with his crime? I'm not saying this is how it is, just giving examples why someone could be upset over a prosecution.
There are many, many reasons to be upset over "this guy [] getting prosecuted". You say it's "wrong", that "it's cut and dried". I say it's not as simple as you make it out to be - "law" isn't inherently "right". Further, there's a very real possibility that the plantiffs are looking to make a profit off this rather than reimbursement for damages. That seems pretty wrong to me - does it seem right to you?
-lw
/---
Do you want to come home to your house, turn on the lights only to find someone sitting on your sofa waiting to explain to you how insecure your house is because he was easily able to pick the locks?
\---
I lock my doors with a deadbolt.
I have an alarm that I activate anytime I'm not home or asleep.
I have a dog that barks at strangers.
I have a number of swords scattered about the house for just such an occasion.
I have made reasonable attempts to prevent and discourage burglars. Your typical burglar looks for quick, easy marks, and wishes to spend no more than 2-5min in a location. If this atypical burglar is so intent on robbing me that none of this discourages him, and is not intent on violence, then he's welcome to what he can get away with before the police arrive.
The swords are there in case one is intent on doing violence.
Had I left the doors/windows not only unlocked but open, not activated the alarm and made it clear it was not able to be activated, had no dog, and left valuables in plain sight - then yes, I would *expect* to either find my valuables missing, or come home to an unwanted visitor / angry neighbors perturbed by my lack of responsibility.
See, being irresponsible affects more than just yourself. This is why we can take children away from their parents when they display gross negligence. Unfortunately, there is no similar law for cybercrimes at this time - we have no law stating that you must take reasonable steps to ensure the security of all your sensitive information.
Because of this, we get corporations with intentionally lax security, an operation system full of security flaws, and children facing significant fines and potentially jail time instead of a slap on the wrist for what amounts to trespassing.
-lw
> ...IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO SO.
> END OF STORY!
It's not that simple.
One of the founding principles of the USA is that "right" and "wrong" can change over time - hence the ability to modify our set of laws. As another poster pointed out, slavery was legal for quite some time - that didn't make it right, and people were forced to take action to make it illegal.
Free speech is one of the methods given to US Citizens to let the government know how we think they're doing. However, as has been shown innumerable times over, sometimes doing something "illegal" is necessary in part of the protest. There are times when people won't see how silly a law or rule is until it is broken repeatedly in front of their noses.
We're living in a time when more and more of our information is becoming more and more accessible. There are people out there whose intentions (good or ill) are not being backed by reasonable security. Accessible personal information and light or no security do not mix well.
I'd greatly prefer it if we could live in a world where everyone could be trusted "to behave". If we could trust people not to break into each other's homes, we wouldn't need door locks. Sure, it's illegal to break into another person's home - but does that mean that you don't need to lock your door?
Or that you should never check your door to be sure it's locked?
Most importantly, are you willing to take the risk of leaving personal, private, or otherwise valuable information or things laying around, in plain view, behind an unlocked glass case (alarmed though it may be)?
Every time a case like this gets into the newspapers, it is a bold reminder to corporations that they are at risk. Without a threat of loss, security grows lax. Be greatful this person did not act with a significant malicious intent, and learn from it.
-lw
It's called System Shock 2: Rebirth, and while there's a release that already works very well, he's still making upgrades.
(WARNING: link contains material that could be deemed inappropriate for minors - it would likely receive an 'R'/PG-18 rating [if it was a US film] for graphic violence, partial nudity, and "disturbing images")
System Shock 2: Rebirth
When I played through, they didn't have the new monkey or rumbler models (which both look great, imho) - and let me tell you, it added a lot =) While the original game had plenty of atmosphere to make me jumpy before, the new additions keep it fresh enough that I hope never to get complacent =)
-lw
The only way to agree to the EULA is to lie. It asks you to read all the licensing agreements for the software on the computer, and agree to them, before accepting this EULA.
Can't read 'em, because the EULA is in the way.
Can't agree to the EULA, because you haven't read the licenses.
Goto 10
Not to mention that Dell support told them to "just accept it", and they were unable to provide them with the documentation to which they were supposed to agree.
-lw
I go back and play SS2 after every time I upgrade my computer. Recently, I played through with my new top-of-the-line kick-me-in-the-wallet comp... I'm continually impressed on how it looks, even now.
True classics never die.
And yeah, my biggest wish is for another SShock game.
-lw
"Just get a gamecube, 150 bucks and it'll come with metroid prime. Thats less than half what you probably payed for the 9800, and well worth it."
;)
i do most of my gaming on the PC. there are only a couple console titles i'd really like to play, and most of them (PS2/XBox) come out for the PC eventually (GTA3/VC, i will live to see halo on the PC!!!). metroid prime being a "prime" (heh) example of one that doesn't, though.
yeah, the 9800 set me back quite a bit, but it's compatible with all the games i play and improves some of the older ones. this is funny, but i can't justify shelling out $150 for one game on a console i know i'm not going to use that much. maybe $100 when the price comes down later
what's also funny is that i own an xbox. i was lucky enough that my wife won it in a gaming competition (rofl, she won on a GC playing monkey ball, smash bros, and tony hawk 3 - and she got an xbox, we laughed all the way home), and it came with halo and the dvd thing. i haven't bought many games... five, i think? - and i'll be exchanging DoA3 with $35 for SC2 when it comes out next week (EB's offering a deal).
i've gotten a fair amount of gameplay out of it, but that's mainly because of KotOR (big SW fan) and BG:DA. though i expect SC2, D&D Heroes, and Ninja Gaiden will lengthen that considerably =)
-lw
> IQ != fun...
no, of course not, or i wouldn't be playing Deus Ex for the 5th time =) but i do appreciate the better IQ my 9800 can force on it (mmm, 4xAA + 16xAF). i still fire up the snes for the occasional bout of mario kart, and played through FF2(e) back when the FF movie came out.
i watch DVDs on my PC, but that's because my PC has a better sound system... it's what i've invested in, instead of a good TV setup.
and that's exactly your point, and a good one - people will play what's fun. i'd really like to see more cross-platform games, so i can enjoy Metroid Prime the same as a GC owner.
Cheers,
-lw
Games like CounterStrike, Tribes, and (to a lesser extent) Battlefield 1942 has brought FPSes ahead by leaps and bounds. CS brought accuracy and fairly realistic weapons into the mix, Tribes added complex team dynamics and vehicular combat, while BF1942 refined both (sacrificing realism for approachability).
Sure, they're still "First Person Shooters", but they've added significant layers of complexity to an already established game style.
And in a lot of ways, the advancement of the gaming industry is basically about adding levels of complexity.
That's one place where i think consoles always will miss the ball: complexity. RTS games, for example, will never completely bridge the console gap until consoles have decently complex controls available. There's just no good way to manage 200 units with only 16 buttons.
As for consoles always having the edge, that really depends on what you mean by such an ambiguous term.
Comparing image quality between a PS2, GameCube, or XBox with a moderate- to high-end PC makes me laugh. The difference between 320x240 (to 640x480 on HQ TVs) with 2xAA and 1600x1200, 4xAA, and 16xAF isn't even close. It's not a "fair" comparison by any means, since the PS2 is a three-year-old system, but good PCs are capable of graphic detail several orders of magnitude better than any available console.
And depending on how quickly TVs advance, it might stay that way for a while - since consoles are primarily used on TVs, and the vast majority of TVs in circulation are 640x480 with scan lines (hence only needing to render 320x240). There are some that don't have the scan lines (forgot what they're called), and I'm pretty sure all three consoles support the higher resolution (hence including 640x480)... and thus it's likely that the 'next gen' of consoles will have support of whatever HDTV format is finally decided upon, but until your television is capable of displaying an image more complex (in pixel resolution) than your computer monitor, how can consoles catch up (in this area - i'm pretty sure they'll always be simpler to maintain)?
-lw
I have to say "Thank God" to any game that offers co-op. It's the only thing that's made me notice LotR:RotK as a game. So many games with amazing Co-Op potential drop the ball that it makes me weep.
-lw
I'd like to point out that I didn't call you an alcoholic, only that some people would consider the damaging of one's own liver as a less-fulfilling way to spend time than gaming.
Consoles are cheaper, and more cost-effective for the casual gamer. But I spend a lot more time gaming than the casual gamer. The ratio of time spent playing to cost is probably better for me than it is for the casual console gamer.
Regardless, you're arguing the same point I am ("some people would rather spend their time differently that you").
-lw
"You are looking at the specs, not how the hardware is integrated."
The systems specifications tell me how the hardware is integrated.
The PS2's layout is significantly different from the PC of 2000 (not that has changed a whole lot, but bear with me). Instead of having a large on-chip cache, it has a 10-channel Direct Memory Access Controller (DMAC) that quickly access the PS2's two 128MB RDRAM main memory banks with its "high speed" (quotes because I don't have a number for this) 16-bit bus.
The PS2 also has two 128-bit SIMD floating-point vector units, as well as its MIPS III CPU core (which can do 128-bit integer SIMD by locking together its two 64-bit integer pipes). These three processors (as well as the display mechanism) are conected to the core memory (256MB RDRAM) via the aforementioned 10-channel DMAC.
This breaks down to a system that, while extremely light on cache, has the memory bandwidth and processor power to significantly outperform the Pentium 3s/TNT2 Ultras the PC was using at the time.
PCs aren't set up that way. It has a smaller pipe between the CPU, RAM, and Video Card - but it tries to make up for it with a larger on-chip cache (for the CPU), decreasing memory access times while increasing memory bandwidth (RAM), and significantly more powerful video cards (along with significantly faster memory bandwidth from the RAM to the video card [AGP 2/4/8x]).
A lot has changed in three years. Unfortunately, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the PS2 to the modern PC, because I don't have a lot of the gut speed information about the PS2 (just architecture). I can't even give you a fairly accurate rough estimate, because I can't find a common benchmark between the two.
Things have changed so much, they aren't even measured in the same way.
"You would be pretty disappointed with how it performed with Quake 3."
Quake 3 isn't used as a benchmark anymore. Most fairly cheap, off-the-shelf cards do pretty well (if not extremely well) with it now. A GeForceFX 5200 (less than $100) gets better than 33fps in 1280x1024 with 4xAA.
And that's exactly my point. Budget cards render better than the PS2 does.
I understand that the PS2 has specialized hardware. I understand that the PS2's software is going to be optimized for this specialized hardware, and that because of this, won't perform as well as software optimized for the PC.
However, when you use the phrase "...play games faster and better than your system", you've got to realize that this is just not true. The PS2 renders graphics at 320x240 - 640x480 for high quality TVs. A moderately priced PC (with a 'budget' video card) today can achievable playable framerates at more than twice the resolution, with at least twice the anti-aliasing.
Performance PCs just blow the PS2's image quality and performance out of the water. There's no contest. But we're also talking about a comparison between current technology and three-year-old technology.
As for the DMCA, consider which is harder - to stop a large group of people from using something that already exists (and that is widely available), or to stop a small group of people from creating something that doesn't exist?
It's easier to stop developers writing emulators (in most countries) now. It would be virtually impossible to wipe out every trace of already existing, wide-spread emulators - emulators for systems that aren't even in production anymore (ie, the companies aren't making a profit off them, so why should they care as much?).
I think the biggest problem with emulating a PS2/GC is that a straight emulation wouldn't be the ideal solution - you'd get crappy image quality. No one on the PC wants 320x240 or even 640x480 resolution, we want high image quality (1600x1200, etc). So you'd basically need a system that can translate the PS2-optimized instructions to PC-usable format (OpenGL or D3D for display, and that's just the rendering part of the problem).
I also do
"Don't argue with Ondo...he is absolutely right."
- 1. html
So... I should just take your word for it and shut up? Naw, don't think so. It doesn't make sense to me.
Take a look at this 3 year old article detailing the specs of a PS2:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc
Take a good, hard look at those 3 year old numbers. Now compare those with current specs (yeah, I'm in a rush, so I don't have those links yet). That comparison was with a P3 (550?) and TNT2 Ultra. In my rig, I have a 3ghz P4 and a Radeon 9800 w/ 512mb vid mem.
Tell me again why you think the now-paltry specs of the PS2 are preventative? And what level of emulation are we talking about? 100% software? Emulators are only as good as they're written - if they're not trying to take advantage of *ANY* of the power available to the PC (P4 instructions, Dx9/video card hardware, etc) - you're gimping the contest before it ever started.
When were those Game Boy, NES, and SNES emulators written? I'll give you a hint: it was before the DMCA.
-lw
It's amazing how quickly the discussion of PC vs. Console degenerates into personal attacks.
/shrug, we've all got our faults. Some people are judgemental and intolerant.
So you do other things that fill your time rather than gaming. Big deal. How is what you do in your spare time "better" than gaming? Should I take up your hobbies just because you find them more fulfilling? Like the consumption of alcohol, I suppose.
As hard as it is for you to believe, gamers aren't the jobless, unwashed loners you make us out to be. I've got a full time job (that pays quite well - thanks to my interest in computers), a loving wife, two sets of parents that I see every couple of weeks, and compulsively wash my hands.
I fire up my PC as more than just a pleasant alternative to darts or poker for me, my wife, and my friends (with whom I don't consume copious quantities of alcohol) - I engage in various challenging activities, by myself or with others, in co-operative and competetive environments.
My wife and I played EQ together for years, until we moved on to different games. I think you'll find that more marriages are ruined by alcoholism than the inability to communicate associted with divorces over a video game.
Though it may fall on deaf ears, I'd suggest you consider the hubris it takes to judge another person you know nearly nothing about - "better things", indeed.
-lw
"No effort required by the game publisher, and totally impossible right now."
Then ask the question, why is it impossible? Is it because the console manufacturers aren't interested in seeing their "console specifc" games played on another system? They shut down anyone who tries.
The PC has superior hardware available. We're not talking about attemping to run UT2k3 on an Apple IIe.
Effort is being expended by the publisher (console manufacturer), explicitly trying to prevent this. It's counterintuitive. They'd reach a much larger audience by embracing emulation. Larger audience == more money.
It's not impossible to emulate these systems - the only reason we can't do it right now is the the omnipresent threat of the DMCA.
Regardless, we wouldn't want to emulate those systems anyway. A combination emulatot/translator would be much more efficient - console hardware not being as demanding and all.
-lw
Ok, this is a little off-topic - but Anarchy Online and World War II Online are two great examples of how *NOT* to release MOGs. And while there wasn't the same sort of problems with Rubies of Eventide (that I know of; does anyone play this game? I gave the trial a shot, but it was just... flat), it's not exactly expected to be wildly popular.
So why ask these people what they think? Their products are riddled with problems - not the ideal place from which to draw knowledge, unless you're asking them what they think went wrong (ie, benefiting from their experience dealing with problems).
Back on topic: since I agree with Bartle's concept on why MOGs shouldn't have voice yet, I don't think consoles are very receptive to the MOG style. Most of these games rely heavily on player interaction, and a pop-up menu of oft-said phrases will only get you so far.
You basically *need* a keyboard to type rapidly - does each console system have one available (I've seen one for the PS2)? Would bundling it with the game help? Is it even a good idea to bring console gamers into the MOG mix?
-lw