Even assuming that your fanboy delusions are correct, what does that have to do with the success of the games? All of the SP games on your list sold plenty of copies.
No, just FFXI. As long as they're not stupid enough to go online-only, they'll be fine. Especially if they've learned their lesson and decided to keep the main FF series single-player, as it's supposed to be.
Over the past decade, Nintendo has lost their grasp on the two major gaming markets: the casual gamer (who would rather play games like most of those in the EA library, and online too) and the hardcore gamer (Sony and Microsoft both have much greater third-party support than Nintendo, therefore the Gamecube tends to get bought last if at all, and not many games get bought for it either). Therefore, Nintendo has to consolidate itself around the audience it has left. No, not kids; most of them fit in one of the previous two categories. I'm talking about the nostalgic gamers.
Nintendo is already pretty popular with them to begin with, seeing as how they rely on a few old franchises and don't make many unnecessary innovations. (About the only major change I can think of in any of the Nintendo franchises is the inevitable move to 3D.) And, of course, a big chunk of the GBA's popularity comes from the fact that it has so many ports of old games on it (as well as games like Warioware that are reminiscent of those games). But offering all of their old games for free is an obvious beacon in the dark to all of those people who have more fun playing the short, uncomplicated games of the past. This is the obvious decision for Nintendo to make.
It's unfortunate for Nintendo that the likelihood of many free third-party games is low, though. Not all of the nostalgic gamers are huge fans of the Nintendo franchises, after all. But I don't think that would hurt them too much. And I don't think Nintendo itself will charge for the service either, like some people who have mentioned the original interview have said. That would just be shooting themselves in the foot. (Though Nintendo does have a track record for doing that, so maybe I'm wrong.)
It will be interesting to see how the nostalgic gamers react to the Revolution. It's entirely possible that this offer could revitalize their ailing console marketshare, and thus be the first really smart move they've made in years. Only time can tell.
[S]ome people are still against Wind Waker's highly animated visual style despite having never played the game.
What does not having played the game have to do with it? Will playing the game somehow make the graphics different? I've never played the game, and in fact, it could have the best gameplay of all of the Zelda games (though I hear that it doesn't). But even that would only cause me to tolerate (or at least to attempt to tolerate) the glaringly ugly cel-shading in Wind Waker, not to actually like it. The simple fact of the matter is that this is the Zelda game we should've gotten, at least graphically, especially after being teased with that technical demo years ago.
Just a reminder to the many Nintendo fanboys here: You don't have to play a game to critique its overarching graphical style. Oh, and BTW, since some people have already said it, Wind Waker does not look like the pre-N64 Zelda games, so stop trying to use that as an argument.
...is that the series has been going downhill since FFX, and that this somehow means that FF is heading for imminent doom. Hey, buddy, don't you think you're being a bit quick on the draw here?
Really, though, he might be right that FF's glory days are over. But not because the recent games are bad (which is debatable; even he admits that he dislikes FFX-2 despite its gameplay).
We have the first sequel in a series of games that was never supposed to have sequels. We have a bunch of compilation discs where Square simply adds a couple of FMVs to an old game and puts a $20 price tag on it. We have an MMORPG in the main series, which makes about as much sense as putting an FPS in the main series. And now we have a myriad of sequels to FF7, a game that should never, ever have had a sequel, in our near future.
If the glory days of FF are over, it's because Square has left behind everything that it used to stand for in the name of profit.
Nice attempt at revisionist history, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on it. At least in North America, console RPGs were popularized by FF7. FF6 sold around 750,000 in NA during its entire lifespan; FF7 sold that many in less than three months. Nobody outside of hardcore gaming circles was talking about Final Fantasy until the seventh game came out.
It's actually valid to give Redundant mods to a first post that repeats something that's in the article and/or blurb without adding anything. Your post didn't do that, though, so it's just another case of some mods not knowing what they're doing.
This is the same old song-and-dance as before. Anybody remember what the full name of the PS2 is? That's right: "Sony PlayStation 2 Computer Entertainment System." Calling the PS3 a computer will be just as meaningless as calling the PS2 was then.
If the first amendment is versatile enough to "shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll," Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569, we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection. The mere fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence. Our review of the record convinces us that these "violent" video games contain stories, imagery, "ageold themes of literature," and messages, "even an 'ideology,' just as books and movies do."
--8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Doesn't look like the courts agree with you, does it, Senator? And seeing as how the courts determine whether or not the laws you make are constitutional and valid, that should concern you quite a bit.
If anything like this ever passes, whether or not it's art (or speech) is a matter that the courts will have to decide on.
Which has already happened. Interesting factoid: In Missouri, some district judge named Limbaugh (ha!) said that video games are not protected speech, but the appellate court responded basically by pointing out that believing that opinion would be really stupid and/or ignorant. This all led to a St. Louis ordinance against violent video games being declared unconstitutional. Which, BTW, means that this will also likely be declared unconstitutional if it passes.
How about how we're restricting the sale of "Parental Adviory" CD's to minors, or 'R' Rated movies. I know if I go down to my local Hastings and try to buy an 'M' Rated video game, they'll card me (and I'm 24).
You mean voluntary decisions by retailers? That is, not mandatory decrees by the government?
That's the big difference between being carded at the theater and what would happen in Illinois if this bill were to pass.
I believe that Prey was actually cancelled for quite a few years and just recently resurrected, unlike DNF, but I may be wrong. But regardless, it looks really silly for them to be talking about Prey when DNF isn't even finished yet.
Their excuse for not picking a best fighting game is weak, since in any group of games, there's always a "best" game even if the whole group of games is horrible. Apparently they acknowledge this, since shortly afterwards they give the Best MMORPG award to Jump to Lightspeed.
Of course, it was pretty obvious that this list was crap when they picked X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter as the best space sim.
I'm as orthodox a PC gamer as can be, so much so that I find myself immediately frustrated by the mere fact of not being able to easily hack and mod a console game, but I refuse to believe that console games are dumbing down gaming in general simply because when I see a simpler action game, based on an original PC RPG or RTS license, reinterpreted for console with simpler mechanics, I don't critique it as a PC RTS or PC RPG. I critique it as an action game, which has long been moreso the domain of the console than the PC.
The problem isn't with those games (I assume you're talking about Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and such), but with games that were originally designed for the PC but "consolified" so they would meet with the bigger console demographic. Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3, for example.
That said, this article is still stunningly elitist. Casual gamers don't dumb down games; the developers who want to cater to casual gamers by removing interesting gameplay (instead of simply making the gameplay easier to learn, as seen in Half Life 2) do. Casual gamers have been around for a very long time; for the past ten years, EA has made most of its money off of them. Yet there are still plenty of games that don't cater to them at all.
This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase.
The logical conclusion to this rationale is that children shouldn't be able to buy anything.
There's a difference between good parenting and pointless totalitarianism.
If he can manage to keep his ownership of a violent game a secret from you for longer than a couple of days, then either you're a terribly inattentive parent or he deserves praise for his cleverness.
This is all irrelevant anyway; theaters voluntarily restrict R-rated movies from minors, so why can't retailers voluntarily restrict M-rated games from minors?
This would make sense if everything in EQ2 wasn't Sony's property to begin with. An EQ2 player owns absolutely nothing about his character; he's paying Sony for the right to play a game using Sony's property. Similarly, players who are trading items aren't really trading items, they're just shifting Sony's property around the server. Therefore, saying that Sony is somehow "restraining trade" by reserving the right to profit off of its own property is ridiculous.
You would be right if this "character advancement" you speak of actually had more to do with learning and growing than spending most of your time sitting around and waiting for a spawn with a rare item to pop up.
Slashdot Mirror
Even assuming that your fanboy delusions are correct, what does that have to do with the success of the games? All of the SP games on your list sold plenty of copies.
Rob
Face it, pal, Squeenix is dead.
No, just FFXI. As long as they're not stupid enough to go online-only, they'll be fine. Especially if they've learned their lesson and decided to keep the main FF series single-player, as it's supposed to be.
Rob
Over the past decade, Nintendo has lost their grasp on the two major gaming markets: the casual gamer (who would rather play games like most of those in the EA library, and online too) and the hardcore gamer (Sony and Microsoft both have much greater third-party support than Nintendo, therefore the Gamecube tends to get bought last if at all, and not many games get bought for it either). Therefore, Nintendo has to consolidate itself around the audience it has left. No, not kids; most of them fit in one of the previous two categories. I'm talking about the nostalgic gamers.
Nintendo is already pretty popular with them to begin with, seeing as how they rely on a few old franchises and don't make many unnecessary innovations. (About the only major change I can think of in any of the Nintendo franchises is the inevitable move to 3D.) And, of course, a big chunk of the GBA's popularity comes from the fact that it has so many ports of old games on it (as well as games like Warioware that are reminiscent of those games). But offering all of their old games for free is an obvious beacon in the dark to all of those people who have more fun playing the short, uncomplicated games of the past. This is the obvious decision for Nintendo to make.
It's unfortunate for Nintendo that the likelihood of many free third-party games is low, though. Not all of the nostalgic gamers are huge fans of the Nintendo franchises, after all. But I don't think that would hurt them too much. And I don't think Nintendo itself will charge for the service either, like some people who have mentioned the original interview have said. That would just be shooting themselves in the foot. (Though Nintendo does have a track record for doing that, so maybe I'm wrong.)
It will be interesting to see how the nostalgic gamers react to the Revolution. It's entirely possible that this offer could revitalize their ailing console marketshare, and thus be the first really smart move they've made in years. Only time can tell.
Rob
And no one _within_ hardcore gaming circles was talking about them prior to FF6.
Certainly, at least not within North America. How did that make FF6 popular, though?
Notice the large number of FF6 imitators on the Playstation and PS2?
No.
Rob
[S]ome people are still against Wind Waker's highly animated visual style despite having never played the game.
What does not having played the game have to do with it? Will playing the game somehow make the graphics different? I've never played the game, and in fact, it could have the best gameplay of all of the Zelda games (though I hear that it doesn't). But even that would only cause me to tolerate (or at least to attempt to tolerate) the glaringly ugly cel-shading in Wind Waker, not to actually like it. The simple fact of the matter is that this is the Zelda game we should've gotten, at least graphically, especially after being teased with that technical demo years ago.
Just a reminder to the many Nintendo fanboys here: You don't have to play a game to critique its overarching graphical style. Oh, and BTW, since some people have already said it, Wind Waker does not look like the pre-N64 Zelda games, so stop trying to use that as an argument.
Rob
...is that the series has been going downhill since FFX, and that this somehow means that FF is heading for imminent doom. Hey, buddy, don't you think you're being a bit quick on the draw here?
Really, though, he might be right that FF's glory days are over. But not because the recent games are bad (which is debatable; even he admits that he dislikes FFX-2 despite its gameplay).
We have the first sequel in a series of games that was never supposed to have sequels. We have a bunch of compilation discs where Square simply adds a couple of FMVs to an old game and puts a $20 price tag on it. We have an MMORPG in the main series, which makes about as much sense as putting an FPS in the main series. And now we have a myriad of sequels to FF7, a game that should never, ever have had a sequel, in our near future.
If the glory days of FF are over, it's because Square has left behind everything that it used to stand for in the name of profit.
Rob
FF6, not 7, was the game that popularized RPGs
Nice attempt at revisionist history, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on it. At least in North America, console RPGs were popularized by FF7. FF6 sold around 750,000 in NA during its entire lifespan; FF7 sold that many in less than three months. Nobody outside of hardcore gaming circles was talking about Final Fantasy until the seventh game came out.
Rob
Or Final Fantasy VIII for the PS1, for that matter.
Rob
It's actually valid to give Redundant mods to a first post that repeats something that's in the article and/or blurb without adding anything. Your post didn't do that, though, so it's just another case of some mods not knowing what they're doing.
Rob
This is the same old song-and-dance as before. Anybody remember what the full name of the PS2 is? That's right: "Sony PlayStation 2 Computer Entertainment System." Calling the PS3 a computer will be just as meaningless as calling the PS2 was then.
Rob
If the first amendment is versatile enough to "shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll," Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569, we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection. The mere fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence. Our review of the record convinces us that these "violent" video games contain stories, imagery, "ageold themes of literature," and messages, "even an 'ideology,' just as books and movies do."
--8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Doesn't look like the courts agree with you, does it, Senator? And seeing as how the courts determine whether or not the laws you make are constitutional and valid, that should concern you quite a bit.
Rob
If anything like this ever passes, whether or not it's art (or speech) is a matter that the courts will have to decide on.
7 0
Which has already happened. Interesting factoid: In Missouri, some district judge named Limbaugh (ha!) said that video games are not protected speech, but the appellate court responded basically by pointing out that believing that opinion would be really stupid and/or ignorant. This all led to a St. Louis ordinance against violent video games being declared unconstitutional. Which, BTW, means that this will also likely be declared unconstitutional if it passes.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=13262
Rob
That said, the decision to ban violent video games should be a local one.
I agree 100%.
By "local," you do mean "within one's own home," right?
Rob
How about how we're restricting the sale of "Parental Adviory" CD's to minors, or 'R' Rated movies. I know if I go down to my local Hastings and try to buy an 'M' Rated video game, they'll card me (and I'm 24).
You mean voluntary decisions by retailers? That is, not mandatory decrees by the government?
That's the big difference between being carded at the theater and what would happen in Illinois if this bill were to pass.
Rob
I believe that Prey was actually cancelled for quite a few years and just recently resurrected, unlike DNF, but I may be wrong. But regardless, it looks really silly for them to be talking about Prey when DNF isn't even finished yet.
Rob
So we agree that they both suck equally, then.
Rob
Their excuse for not picking a best fighting game is weak, since in any group of games, there's always a "best" game even if the whole group of games is horrible. Apparently they acknowledge this, since shortly afterwards they give the Best MMORPG award to Jump to Lightspeed.
Of course, it was pretty obvious that this list was crap when they picked X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter as the best space sim.
Rob
I'm as orthodox a PC gamer as can be, so much so that I find myself immediately frustrated by the mere fact of not being able to easily hack and mod a console game, but I refuse to believe that console games are dumbing down gaming in general simply because when I see a simpler action game, based on an original PC RPG or RTS license, reinterpreted for console with simpler mechanics, I don't critique it as a PC RTS or PC RPG. I critique it as an action game, which has long been moreso the domain of the console than the PC.
The problem isn't with those games (I assume you're talking about Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and such), but with games that were originally designed for the PC but "consolified" so they would meet with the bigger console demographic. Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3, for example.
That said, this article is still stunningly elitist. Casual gamers don't dumb down games; the developers who want to cater to casual gamers by removing interesting gameplay (instead of simply making the gameplay easier to learn, as seen in Half Life 2) do. Casual gamers have been around for a very long time; for the past ten years, EA has made most of its money off of them. Yet there are still plenty of games that don't cater to them at all.
Rob
This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase.
The logical conclusion to this rationale is that children shouldn't be able to buy anything.
There's a difference between good parenting and pointless totalitarianism.
Rob
If he can manage to keep his ownership of a violent game a secret from you for longer than a couple of days, then either you're a terribly inattentive parent or he deserves praise for his cleverness.
This is all irrelevant anyway; theaters voluntarily restrict R-rated movies from minors, so why can't retailers voluntarily restrict M-rated games from minors?
Rob
Man, I hope Bandai mostly stays out of Namco's affairs. Considering Bandai's track record with video games, this could be really bad.
Rob
Is there a place amid the witches, warlocks and diabolical monsters for Christian video games?
No. Why? Because unlike Christian music, Christian video games actually have to compete against stuff that's good.
Rob
Well, the description you just gave for Evil Genius would work really well for Republic as well.
Rob
This would make sense if everything in EQ2 wasn't Sony's property to begin with. An EQ2 player owns absolutely nothing about his character; he's paying Sony for the right to play a game using Sony's property. Similarly, players who are trading items aren't really trading items, they're just shifting Sony's property around the server. Therefore, saying that Sony is somehow "restraining trade" by reserving the right to profit off of its own property is ridiculous.
Rob
You would be right if this "character advancement" you speak of actually had more to do with learning and growing than spending most of your time sitting around and waiting for a spawn with a rare item to pop up.
Rob