The sixaxis in Call of Duty 3 is a joke. The use of the Wiimote in Raving Rabids is quite interesting. Especially when you want to run you move your hands like you're actually running.
And when I want to punch someone in the face in Call of Duty 3, I move my hands like I'm actually punching someone in the face.
Also in Excite Truck I can steer the vehicle regardless of how I tilt the controller on another axis. Unlike in Call of Duty 3 for the PS3 I would have to tilt it a certain way to control the vehicle.
I agree, the tilt steering in Call of Duty 3 is awful. But it's not clear whether this is because of the controller or because of the game.
Would you rather control your FPS games with a regular controller?
I mentioned the mouse capability already. It's nice, but not innovative. I can use a USB mouse on the PS3, for example. The only problem there is needing a flat surface to rest it on.
When it is difficult to hit two targets seperated on two sides of the screen with a mouse
I have no more problem doing that with a mouse than I would with a Wiimote.
Did you know you can use the wiimote to:
1. Throw a pass 2. Aim and Shoot 3. Slash, Parry, Defend 4. Run like mad 5. Throw punches 6. Steer a Car
Yeah. So? Except for #2 (which again can be done by a mouse) and #6 (which can be done by the Sixaxis, and done much better by an actual gaming steering wheel, which the PS3 also supports), how do any of those add to the game in the way they're currently implemented? Throwing a pass, for example, does the exact same thing that pressing a pass button does. The only difference is a minor enhancement of immersion, which I already said is a novelty.
The sixaxis is only used to steer a vehicle(poorly) in Call of Duty.
Incorrect. The best usage of it is to hit people with your weapon. It's also used in several minigames.
Now which controller is a novelty?
Presently, both of them. The difference is that no one is saying that the Sixaxis is anything else.
Super Mario Sunshine is similar enough to Super Mario 64 so as not to be considered revolutionary or innovative. Same thing with Twilight Princess or Wind Waker versus Ocarina of Time. As for Metroid Prime, it's a major change for the series but it still plays a lot like the other Metroid games, just with FPS elements added.
As for Halo, the GP never said that that was revolutionary or innovative (though it does have a remarkably good multiplayer mode from what I've heard). I don't know about him, but personally I don't think any of the three console manufacturers are particularly innovative when it comes to software any more. The problem is that while no one claims that Microsoft or Sony are innovative beyond the companies themselves, innovation is Nintendo's calling card.
Two reasons why the PS3 won't be like the PS2 in this regard:
1. $300 for the PS2 was thought of as a bit expensive. $600 for the PS3 is thought of as completely ridiculous. Sony's not going to be able to make money on the PS3 if no one is buying it.
2. While the PS2 was slightly expensive for a whole load of reasons, about a third of the cost of the PS3 is in one component, the BluRay drive. This is a new technology and like all new technologies, it will drop in cost very rapidly.
It's true that the price drop likely won't come until the next holiday season, but that's because of the way electronics sales work, not because Sony wants to hold off on it. And when it does come, it will likely be quite large.
No, the reason why there's not a ton of demand for the PS3 is because it costs $600 and doesn't have many games. Trust me when I say that despite ranting to the contrary, a lot of people are still impressed by the graphical difference between this generation and the last. Hell, I was impressed when I saw games like Gran Turismo HD on my brother's PS3, and I'm the exact opposite of a graphics whore.
As for the Wii, it hasn't revolutionized anything yet. From what I've heard, beyond being able to use it as a mouse (which is hardly innovative), the stuff that the Wiimote adds to games like Twilight Princess and Rayman Raving Rabbids is about as much as what the Sixaxis adds to Call of Duty 3. That is to say, not a whole lot. Sure, it's fun to wave your Wiimote around like a sword and see that translated on the screen, but it quickly becomes apparent as nothing more than a novelty. That's not to say that later games won't make ingenious use of the Wiimote, but it hasn't happened yet.
Anyone remember that episode of MST3K where they're making fun of one of the Gamera movies, and there's a little kid that's obsessed with the horrendous evil of traffic accidents? I was reminded of that when I read that list of primal emotions and concepts followed by "drug offenses." Didn't finish your point very well, Phil.
I wasn't aware that the games on XBox Live Arcade, for example, were $60 each. There are a lot of reasons why the market is on portable systems, but development costs don't factor in nearly as much as the fact that portables can be taken anywhere, or the fact that portables have traditionally been much weaker than consoles, making huge blockbuster games unfeasible.
When I come home from work, I rarely have time to justify sitting around and play console games, but handhelds are great because it's easy to sneak a bit of play time in between more 'pressing' events.
That's mainly a function of the portable games, not the portable systems. There's no reason why a "quickie" game can't be on a console, and in fact there are a few of them. They usually aren't seen on consoles, though, because the market for those games is on portable systems. By the same token, the market for epic console RPGs that are certainly not "pick up and play" is on the consoles. There's no reason to expect that DQ9 will have the same type of gameplay that games from series that were meant for portable systems have. And even if DQ9's gameplay will be like that, then that means that there will be massive differences between it and the rest of the series. (We already know about the whole "cooperative action-RPG" break from the other games.)
1. Including emulation? Probably a few hours a day, more or less depending on how interesting the game is.
2. However much free time I have at work that I don't feel like spending (or am unable to spend) on other things such as reading and surfing the Interwebs. I don't play portable games at home since I have no reason to, and I don't usually play them elsewhere outside of home because I tend to be busy doing other things.
3. If I wanted to, I could spend as much time as possible until I fell asleep. But that's not what you're asking, is it? The question is silly (and, quite frankly, insulting) because in context it implies that people who are unemployed and living on someone else's dime are in that situation simply because they're immature. (You also suggest that only immature people play console games and mature people play portable games, but that's not nearly as offensive.)
Gameplay is obviously the most important part to a game; that's why we call them "games." The fact that DQ9 will certainly have graphics of a lower quality than what is expected of a modern console RPG is not the crux of my complaint. The problem is the fact that Squenix has once again made a decision that short-sightedly looks to the bottom line without any consideration of how appropriate the decision is in context. Another example of this is making FFXI an MMORPG despite the fact that MMORPGs are very different stylistically from the rest of the series and are certainly not what people expect out of a mainline Final Fantasy game. And I don't even have to mention the FF7 spinoffs.
DQ9 is the next main-line game of one of their biggest franchises, one of the most popular video-game franchises in Japan, and they put it on a portable? I don't care how popular the DS is, it's still a portable, and it can't offer the same technical power of any of the new console systems. It'd be one thing if Dragon Quest was still known to have crappy graphics, but DQ8 changed that. This move just makes Squenix look opportunist, not caring about the continuity and reputation of its games as long as it can make a quick buck. (We already knew that to be the case, but still.)
If you've played the later games (SW and DW5 onwards), you can see why Koei started releasing them on the 360 rather than the XBox - when you play the PS2 version, having a lot of troops on screen really pushes it in a bad way. Enemies disappear but are still able to hit you, or the PS2 even crashes.
Putting the games on the PS3 should nullify that problem.
Bladestorm is/was one of the PS3 games that really interested me, apart from Devil May Cry 4. It's a new franchise, but it's the Hundred Years War version of the Warriors games so it's most probably in Koei's "million seller" genre.
I'm not sure if Medieval Warriors (if I may call it that) will have the same appeal among Koei's fanboys as the others do. But it's certainly possible.
Koei doesn't make RPGs to my knowledge. It's certainly not what they're known for, at any rate.
Anyway, the two exclusives that Sony lost are both new franchises. If Sony loses Dynasty/Samurai Warriors (or FF13 and DQ9 on the Squenix side), then there will be reason for worry. (Yeah, I know the Warriors games have almost always come out on the XBox, but the PS2 versions generally come out earlier and with expansions.)
OK, so let's say that Microsoft never promised complete backwards compatibility with the XBox. (Never mind the fact that "They did say that their goal was to get every game working" suggests that they made something very close to a promise.) How does that make the AC's bias against the PS3 any more valid? While the PS3 is compatible with thousands upon thousands of PSX and PS2 games, only having issues with a small fraction of them, the XBox 360 is only compatible with a few hundred XBox games (and even then only if it has a hard drive) and is totally incapable of playing the other thousand. The PS3 is the clear winner here, and Sony would only be hypocritical if it wasn't.
BTW, Phil Harrison said that the PS3 would not be fully compatible with games that did not follow the PS2's Technical Requirements Criteria without patching, and what we've learned since then has borne that out. I haven't found a quote where Sony said that there would be 100% backwards compatibility at launch. I'd say it won't take too long to get there, though, considering how only a year ago there were fears that the PS3 would only be compatible with half of the PS2 library due to the TRC problem. (There might be a couple of games that won't work with the PS3 no matter what, but hey, you can say the same thing about the PS2. Hell, the slim-line PS2 doesn't even play some PS2 games right.)
What you're saying is that people who have bought a product always like it, which obviously is not true. By your logic, Enter the Matrix is one of the most popular video games of the past few years.
Yes, a fact that he "heard on the radio" with no citation or supporting evidence given whatsoever. A fact that also disingenuously refers to "the PS3 lines" even though the statistic given is based on pre-orders.
You're looking at first-party games, which totally misses the point. People who like Nintendo first-party games enjoyed both the N64 and the GameCube regardless of exactly how good those first-party games were; in other words, first-party games didn't affect the popularity of the two systems much at all. You have to look at the reception of third-party exclusives to determine how popular each system was to the community at large, and the facts are that the GameCube was far better at drawing fans of Capcom, Sega (obviously), Konami, and so forth than the N64 was.
Excellent deduction, except for the fact that that's not what Nintendo said.
"Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime has stated that he expects the company will have sold 1 million units in the Americas by early December and 2 million by the second week in January." [Emphasis added.]
One thing that pops to mind is the fact that Microsoft has been far, far worse about keeping its promises of backwards compatibility than Sony has been thus far. That fact is mentioned nowhere in the article. Of course, the article is not an editorial and thus wouldn't be expected to mention such a thing, but it does reveal the biases of the AC who linked it.
I said "popular," not "successful." A lot of those N64 sales came relatively soon after launch, when Nintendo was still the 500-pound gorilla in the industry. (I got an N64 myself when it came out; a stupid mistake on my part.) There's also the fact that that generation was a two-system war; the Saturn might as well not even have existed, unlike the XBox.
As for the GameCube, not only was the media a lot better (being both cheaper and more spacious), but it nabbed more big third-party exclusives, like a couple of Resident Evil games (though not RE4, unfortunately for Nintendo) and the Metal Gear Solid remake. Not a lot, but still much more impressive than the weak showing that the N64 put out.
That system sold roughly 700K in its first two weeks. Considering the fact that the Gamecube is considerably more popular than the N64 was (thus generating more brand loyalty), going up to 1M would not be an unexpected boost.
Oh, and for the record, the Dreamcast sold about 500K in its first two weeks, and that was outside of the holiday season and limited by supply. As usual, launch figures don't prove much of anything.
Counterargument: You're in Seattle, which of course is a mere bike-ride away from the American headquarters of both Nintendo and Microsoft, while SCEA's headquarters are in a suburb of San Francisco. I would expect that Seattle citizens are exposed to much more hype from the two resident companies than from Sony, what with a large number of them being employed by said two companies and so forth.
I think the 360 threat has been overblown, at least a little bit. The big advantage to the 360 is XBox Live, and only a minority of gamers is really interested in a pay service when you can play online for free on the PS3, no matter how good that service may be. Combine that with the fact that the 360 is basically dead in Japan, and we'll probably see Microsoft stay in the second-place position, though probably not as distant as it was last generation.
As I understand it, what lowered supply does, though, is make Sony's sales numbers look better than they really are.
Not exactly. It does allow them to say that they sold out at lower numbers, but the numbers are still low. The reason why the Wii launch would be considered a "failure" if it only sold half of the units produced isn't because it didn't sell out, but because it didn't sell to expectations. It bears noting that the PS3 hasn't yet sold to expectations either, though for different reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
The sixaxis in Call of Duty 3 is a joke. The use of the Wiimote in Raving Rabids is quite interesting. Especially when you want to run you move your hands like you're actually running.
And when I want to punch someone in the face in Call of Duty 3, I move my hands like I'm actually punching someone in the face.
Also in Excite Truck I can steer the vehicle regardless of how I tilt the controller on another axis. Unlike in Call of Duty 3 for the PS3 I would have to tilt it a certain way to control the vehicle.
I agree, the tilt steering in Call of Duty 3 is awful. But it's not clear whether this is because of the controller or because of the game.
Would you rather control your FPS games with a regular controller?
I mentioned the mouse capability already. It's nice, but not innovative. I can use a USB mouse on the PS3, for example. The only problem there is needing a flat surface to rest it on.
When it is difficult to hit two targets seperated on two sides of the screen with a mouse
I have no more problem doing that with a mouse than I would with a Wiimote.
Did you know you can use the wiimote to:
1. Throw a pass
2. Aim and Shoot
3. Slash, Parry, Defend
4. Run like mad
5. Throw punches
6. Steer a Car
Yeah. So? Except for #2 (which again can be done by a mouse) and #6 (which can be done by the Sixaxis, and done much better by an actual gaming steering wheel, which the PS3 also supports), how do any of those add to the game in the way they're currently implemented? Throwing a pass, for example, does the exact same thing that pressing a pass button does. The only difference is a minor enhancement of immersion, which I already said is a novelty.
The sixaxis is only used to steer a vehicle(poorly) in Call of Duty.
Incorrect. The best usage of it is to hit people with your weapon. It's also used in several minigames.
Now which controller is a novelty?
Presently, both of them. The difference is that no one is saying that the Sixaxis is anything else.
Rob
Super Mario Sunshine is similar enough to Super Mario 64 so as not to be considered revolutionary or innovative. Same thing with Twilight Princess or Wind Waker versus Ocarina of Time. As for Metroid Prime, it's a major change for the series but it still plays a lot like the other Metroid games, just with FPS elements added.
As for Halo, the GP never said that that was revolutionary or innovative (though it does have a remarkably good multiplayer mode from what I've heard). I don't know about him, but personally I don't think any of the three console manufacturers are particularly innovative when it comes to software any more. The problem is that while no one claims that Microsoft or Sony are innovative beyond the companies themselves, innovation is Nintendo's calling card.
Rob
Two reasons why the PS3 won't be like the PS2 in this regard:
1. $300 for the PS2 was thought of as a bit expensive. $600 for the PS3 is thought of as completely ridiculous. Sony's not going to be able to make money on the PS3 if no one is buying it.
2. While the PS2 was slightly expensive for a whole load of reasons, about a third of the cost of the PS3 is in one component, the BluRay drive. This is a new technology and like all new technologies, it will drop in cost very rapidly.
It's true that the price drop likely won't come until the next holiday season, but that's because of the way electronics sales work, not because Sony wants to hold off on it. And when it does come, it will likely be quite large.
Rob
No, the reason why there's not a ton of demand for the PS3 is because it costs $600 and doesn't have many games. Trust me when I say that despite ranting to the contrary, a lot of people are still impressed by the graphical difference between this generation and the last. Hell, I was impressed when I saw games like Gran Turismo HD on my brother's PS3, and I'm the exact opposite of a graphics whore.
As for the Wii, it hasn't revolutionized anything yet. From what I've heard, beyond being able to use it as a mouse (which is hardly innovative), the stuff that the Wiimote adds to games like Twilight Princess and Rayman Raving Rabbids is about as much as what the Sixaxis adds to Call of Duty 3. That is to say, not a whole lot. Sure, it's fun to wave your Wiimote around like a sword and see that translated on the screen, but it quickly becomes apparent as nothing more than a novelty. That's not to say that later games won't make ingenious use of the Wiimote, but it hasn't happened yet.
Rob
Anyone remember that episode of MST3K where they're making fun of one of the Gamera movies, and there's a little kid that's obsessed with the horrendous evil of traffic accidents? I was reminded of that when I read that list of primal emotions and concepts followed by "drug offenses." Didn't finish your point very well, Phil.
Rob
I wasn't aware that the games on XBox Live Arcade, for example, were $60 each. There are a lot of reasons why the market is on portable systems, but development costs don't factor in nearly as much as the fact that portables can be taken anywhere, or the fact that portables have traditionally been much weaker than consoles, making huge blockbuster games unfeasible.
Rob
When I come home from work, I rarely have time to justify sitting around and play console games, but handhelds are great because it's easy to sneak a bit of play time in between more 'pressing' events.
That's mainly a function of the portable games, not the portable systems. There's no reason why a "quickie" game can't be on a console, and in fact there are a few of them. They usually aren't seen on consoles, though, because the market for those games is on portable systems. By the same token, the market for epic console RPGs that are certainly not "pick up and play" is on the consoles. There's no reason to expect that DQ9 will have the same type of gameplay that games from series that were meant for portable systems have. And even if DQ9's gameplay will be like that, then that means that there will be massive differences between it and the rest of the series. (We already know about the whole "cooperative action-RPG" break from the other games.)
Rob
1. Including emulation? Probably a few hours a day, more or less depending on how interesting the game is.
2. However much free time I have at work that I don't feel like spending (or am unable to spend) on other things such as reading and surfing the Interwebs. I don't play portable games at home since I have no reason to, and I don't usually play them elsewhere outside of home because I tend to be busy doing other things.
3. If I wanted to, I could spend as much time as possible until I fell asleep. But that's not what you're asking, is it? The question is silly (and, quite frankly, insulting) because in context it implies that people who are unemployed and living on someone else's dime are in that situation simply because they're immature. (You also suggest that only immature people play console games and mature people play portable games, but that's not nearly as offensive.)
Gameplay is obviously the most important part to a game; that's why we call them "games." The fact that DQ9 will certainly have graphics of a lower quality than what is expected of a modern console RPG is not the crux of my complaint. The problem is the fact that Squenix has once again made a decision that short-sightedly looks to the bottom line without any consideration of how appropriate the decision is in context. Another example of this is making FFXI an MMORPG despite the fact that MMORPGs are very different stylistically from the rest of the series and are certainly not what people expect out of a mainline Final Fantasy game. And I don't even have to mention the FF7 spinoffs.
Oh, and quit it with the teletype; it's ugly.
Rob
DQ9 is the next main-line game of one of their biggest franchises, one of the most popular video-game franchises in Japan, and they put it on a portable? I don't care how popular the DS is, it's still a portable, and it can't offer the same technical power of any of the new console systems. It'd be one thing if Dragon Quest was still known to have crappy graphics, but DQ8 changed that. This move just makes Squenix look opportunist, not caring about the continuity and reputation of its games as long as it can make a quick buck. (We already knew that to be the case, but still.)
Rob
If you've played the later games (SW and DW5 onwards), you can see why Koei started releasing them on the 360 rather than the XBox - when you play the PS2 version, having a lot of troops on screen really pushes it in a bad way. Enemies disappear but are still able to hit you, or the PS2 even crashes.
Putting the games on the PS3 should nullify that problem.
Bladestorm is/was one of the PS3 games that really interested me, apart from Devil May Cry 4. It's a new franchise, but it's the Hundred Years War version of the Warriors games so it's most probably in Koei's "million seller" genre.
I'm not sure if Medieval Warriors (if I may call it that) will have the same appeal among Koei's fanboys as the others do. But it's certainly possible.
Rob
Koei doesn't make RPGs to my knowledge. It's certainly not what they're known for, at any rate.
Anyway, the two exclusives that Sony lost are both new franchises. If Sony loses Dynasty/Samurai Warriors (or FF13 and DQ9 on the Squenix side), then there will be reason for worry. (Yeah, I know the Warriors games have almost always come out on the XBox, but the PS2 versions generally come out earlier and with expansions.)
Rob
To be completely blunt, most of the control problems I have seen people have with the Wii have been problems with the user, not the interface.
Isn't this the sort of statement that gets Sony in trouble?
Rob
OK, so let's say that Microsoft never promised complete backwards compatibility with the XBox. (Never mind the fact that "They did say that their goal was to get every game working" suggests that they made something very close to a promise.) How does that make the AC's bias against the PS3 any more valid? While the PS3 is compatible with thousands upon thousands of PSX and PS2 games, only having issues with a small fraction of them, the XBox 360 is only compatible with a few hundred XBox games (and even then only if it has a hard drive) and is totally incapable of playing the other thousand. The PS3 is the clear winner here, and Sony would only be hypocritical if it wasn't.
BTW, Phil Harrison said that the PS3 would not be fully compatible with games that did not follow the PS2's Technical Requirements Criteria without patching, and what we've learned since then has borne that out. I haven't found a quote where Sony said that there would be 100% backwards compatibility at launch. I'd say it won't take too long to get there, though, considering how only a year ago there were fears that the PS3 would only be compatible with half of the PS2 library due to the TRC problem. (There might be a couple of games that won't work with the PS3 no matter what, but hey, you can say the same thing about the PS2. Hell, the slim-line PS2 doesn't even play some PS2 games right.)
Rob
What you're saying is that people who have bought a product always like it, which obviously is not true. By your logic, Enter the Matrix is one of the most popular video games of the past few years.
Rob
Yes, a fact that he "heard on the radio" with no citation or supporting evidence given whatsoever. A fact that also disingenuously refers to "the PS3 lines" even though the statistic given is based on pre-orders.
Rob
You're looking at first-party games, which totally misses the point. People who like Nintendo first-party games enjoyed both the N64 and the GameCube regardless of exactly how good those first-party games were; in other words, first-party games didn't affect the popularity of the two systems much at all. You have to look at the reception of third-party exclusives to determine how popular each system was to the community at large, and the facts are that the GameCube was far better at drawing fans of Capcom, Sega (obviously), Konami, and so forth than the N64 was.
Rob
Excellent deduction, except for the fact that that's not what Nintendo said.
/. headline is all.
"Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime has stated that he expects the company will have sold 1 million units in the Americas by early December and 2 million by the second week in January."
[Emphasis added.]
Zonk just screwed up the
Rob
Has anyone called you a Nintendo astroturfer yet?
Cuz, you know, it's pretty obvious.
Rob
One thing that pops to mind is the fact that Microsoft has been far, far worse about keeping its promises of backwards compatibility than Sony has been thus far. That fact is mentioned nowhere in the article. Of course, the article is not an editorial and thus wouldn't be expected to mention such a thing, but it does reveal the biases of the AC who linked it.
Rob
I said "popular," not "successful." A lot of those N64 sales came relatively soon after launch, when Nintendo was still the 500-pound gorilla in the industry. (I got an N64 myself when it came out; a stupid mistake on my part.) There's also the fact that that generation was a two-system war; the Saturn might as well not even have existed, unlike the XBox.
As for the GameCube, not only was the media a lot better (being both cheaper and more spacious), but it nabbed more big third-party exclusives, like a couple of Resident Evil games (though not RE4, unfortunately for Nintendo) and the Metal Gear Solid remake. Not a lot, but still much more impressive than the weak showing that the N64 put out.
Rob
That system sold roughly 700K in its first two weeks. Considering the fact that the Gamecube is considerably more popular than the N64 was (thus generating more brand loyalty), going up to 1M would not be an unexpected boost.
Oh, and for the record, the Dreamcast sold about 500K in its first two weeks, and that was outside of the holiday season and limited by supply. As usual, launch figures don't prove much of anything.
Rob
Counterargument: You're in Seattle, which of course is a mere bike-ride away from the American headquarters of both Nintendo and Microsoft, while SCEA's headquarters are in a suburb of San Francisco. I would expect that Seattle citizens are exposed to much more hype from the two resident companies than from Sony, what with a large number of them being employed by said two companies and so forth.
And besides, Seattle is kind of weird.
Rob
Who do you think those businessmen are selling the PS3s to?
Rob
I think the 360 threat has been overblown, at least a little bit. The big advantage to the 360 is XBox Live, and only a minority of gamers is really interested in a pay service when you can play online for free on the PS3, no matter how good that service may be. Combine that with the fact that the 360 is basically dead in Japan, and we'll probably see Microsoft stay in the second-place position, though probably not as distant as it was last generation.
Rob
As I understand it, what lowered supply does, though, is make Sony's sales numbers look better than they really are.
Not exactly. It does allow them to say that they sold out at lower numbers, but the numbers are still low. The reason why the Wii launch would be considered a "failure" if it only sold half of the units produced isn't because it didn't sell out, but because it didn't sell to expectations. It bears noting that the PS3 hasn't yet sold to expectations either, though for different reasons.
Rob