Sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings are still a very good place to start. If a game gets less than 85% on these sites then it is pretty much going to be crap. So while you can't necessarily trust that a game deserves to be rated highly you can put a lot of trust into the fact that a game sucks. Not to say that if you are a fan of a particular license or game style you won't enjoy the game but if you are looking for an exceptional gaming experience you aren't going to get it from the lower ranked games.
Your advice is good but I just want to add that Gamerankings et al are good "shit filters" - they just don't filter all the shit.
It's not Microsoft's monopoly position in another market that enables them to lose $4 billion dollars in the console market, it's the fact that they are extremely profitable in another market. While in this instance we may be talking about a company that is a monopoly, as a general rule any company that has the cash reserves should be allowed to break into another market at a loss otherwise the barrier to entry would be too high. There is also a chance that this company will never turn a profit and end up losing in both markets. This could still happen to Microsoft.
I'm not in favour of monopolies and I'm not a Microsoft fan either but I think it's not easy to set up rules that specify who can and can't enter a new market and think the market should be able to decide itself. Especially for non-essential items. As far as I can see there are few companies that are sitting totally comfortable at the moment.
I don't really know what you are saying, should a company that is a monopoly in one market not be able to enter a new market? Should they not be allowed to make a loss at all in that new market? What is the difference between a company taking risks to establish itself in a new market and it trying to run the existing players into the ground? How can you tell the difference? Where do venture capitalists fit into this? Sometimes startups get money from companies that are in a monopoly position.
Not I'm not talking about Microsoft but companies in general.
If only startups or companies that can turn a profit from the start are allowed to compete, how are we ever going to get competition in markets where there are already established players? Like the console market.
It's not that simple. A company in a monopoly position can only charge what it likes when the product it is selling is a necessity. We are talking about a games console here, which is generally considered a luxury or non-essential item. Games are competing with other entertainment forms for your time and money so if the price is raised too high then people will find something else to do with their time and money, like watch TV for example. If the price is raised too high then not enough of the product gets sold and it ends up losing money, the market will still decide what it wants to pay; of course the price may be higher than if there were competition but a lower price can still be attractive to the monopoly company.
The console business is also a very expensive business to get into so Microsoft makins a loss to enter it is good because they have the money to be able to compete in the first place. Other big companies could of course also try to compete but then you would also think that it's an anti-trust issue, or is it only Microsoft that is capabably of anti-trust violations?
Not to mention that anti-trust is a complete farse anyway, it's a law that you don't know you've broken until it goes to court so a company is under constant threat of anti-trust as soon as they get to a certain size. Any law that is not clear as to when you are an offender should be abolished.
There are actually many games that are exclusive to each of the consoles. If you are interested in the complete list for each system then I have one here.
There are some on each of the lists that are not entirely exclusive due the the basic algorithm I've used but the overwhelming majority are.
If that's the case then why does Linux run slower on the same hardware. For me anyway. Gnome is less responsive than Windows and I have about as much free memory left over after both OSs boot. There is no conspiracy, applications just grow to the available resources.
You seem pretty pissed off that consoles don't have a mouse and keyboard, there's a reason for that and it doesn't have to do with console makers thinking that a gamepad is better for FPSs.
Anyway, I find it interesting that the claim is usually keyboard and mouse is better. A keyboard is a crappy input device for games, FPSs included. When it comes to moving - a thumbstick is "better" because it's analog and provides 360 degree precision. On the other hand, a mouse is better than a thumbstick for aiming.
So it should be "a mouse is better than a thumbstick for aiming your reticule". Leave the crappy keyboard out of the argument.
Re:Gamers never know what's good for them
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
I think the key point here is that a game should have inherent save points built in even if it does let you save anywhere. Half-Life is a good example of this, you can actually play the game without quicksaving because the difficulty and autosave points are very well balanced. Relying on quicksave to get you through a game can really ruin the excitement of a game. Halo is a good example of a game that doesn't let you save anywhere - thus giving the designers better control over the challenge level they intend.
There's nothing wrong with giving the user a choice but even some of the games you mention (e.g. Thief) would be better if they were designed around the idea of checkpoints rather than relying on quicksave. Pacing is what I think I'm getting at here. On the other hand, a 10 minute walk to a rock hard boss is really crap pacing and totally ruins the flow.
I think J Allard made a mistake when he said that. In later interviews he just says 100 million, which is a lot more realistic, if highly ambitious.
His maths is probably crap and he thought that 100,000,000 is a billion. Think about it, could anyone in his position be some dumb as to think that going from selling 40,000,000 (or was it 60,000,000) in this generation to selling 1,000,000,000 consoles in the next generation was even remotely possible.
I'd like to see your figures backing this up. The last issue of OXM claimed that Xbox outsold PS2 last month. I also remember early on after it's launch that Microsoft said that Australia had the highest Xbox ownership per capita in the world. Both consoles sell for around the same price and Xboxen seem to be selling better than PS2 in cashies - people are trading their PS2 in to get an Xbox.
GameCube is unfortunately not very popular here, but then I haven't bought one yet either...
Slashdot Mirror
Sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings are still a very good place to start. If a game gets less than 85% on these sites then it is pretty much going to be crap. So while you can't necessarily trust that a game deserves to be rated highly you can put a lot of trust into the fact that a game sucks. Not to say that if you are a fan of a particular license or game style you won't enjoy the game but if you are looking for an exceptional gaming experience you aren't going to get it from the lower ranked games. Your advice is good but I just want to add that Gamerankings et al are good "shit filters" - they just don't filter all the shit.
This article is quite interesting reading on the whole predatory pricing issue.
It's not Microsoft's monopoly position in another market that enables them to lose $4 billion dollars in the console market, it's the fact that they are extremely profitable in another market. While in this instance we may be talking about a company that is a monopoly, as a general rule any company that has the cash reserves should be allowed to break into another market at a loss otherwise the barrier to entry would be too high. There is also a chance that this company will never turn a profit and end up losing in both markets. This could still happen to Microsoft. I'm not in favour of monopolies and I'm not a Microsoft fan either but I think it's not easy to set up rules that specify who can and can't enter a new market and think the market should be able to decide itself. Especially for non-essential items. As far as I can see there are few companies that are sitting totally comfortable at the moment.
I don't really know what you are saying, should a company that is a monopoly in one market not be able to enter a new market? Should they not be allowed to make a loss at all in that new market? What is the difference between a company taking risks to establish itself in a new market and it trying to run the existing players into the ground? How can you tell the difference? Where do venture capitalists fit into this? Sometimes startups get money from companies that are in a monopoly position. Not I'm not talking about Microsoft but companies in general.
If only startups or companies that can turn a profit from the start are allowed to compete, how are we ever going to get competition in markets where there are already established players? Like the console market.
It's not that simple. A company in a monopoly position can only charge what it likes when the product it is selling is a necessity. We are talking about a games console here, which is generally considered a luxury or non-essential item. Games are competing with other entertainment forms for your time and money so if the price is raised too high then people will find something else to do with their time and money, like watch TV for example. If the price is raised too high then not enough of the product gets sold and it ends up losing money, the market will still decide what it wants to pay; of course the price may be higher than if there were competition but a lower price can still be attractive to the monopoly company. The console business is also a very expensive business to get into so Microsoft makins a loss to enter it is good because they have the money to be able to compete in the first place. Other big companies could of course also try to compete but then you would also think that it's an anti-trust issue, or is it only Microsoft that is capabably of anti-trust violations? Not to mention that anti-trust is a complete farse anyway, it's a law that you don't know you've broken until it goes to court so a company is under constant threat of anti-trust as soon as they get to a certain size. Any law that is not clear as to when you are an offender should be abolished.
There are actually many games that are exclusive to each of the consoles. If you are interested in the complete list for each system then I have one here. There are some on each of the lists that are not entirely exclusive due the the basic algorithm I've used but the overwhelming majority are.
If that's the case then why does Linux run slower on the same hardware. For me anyway. Gnome is less responsive than Windows and I have about as much free memory left over after both OSs boot. There is no conspiracy, applications just grow to the available resources.
You seem pretty pissed off that consoles don't have a mouse and keyboard, there's a reason for that and it doesn't have to do with console makers thinking that a gamepad is better for FPSs. Anyway, I find it interesting that the claim is usually keyboard and mouse is better. A keyboard is a crappy input device for games, FPSs included. When it comes to moving - a thumbstick is "better" because it's analog and provides 360 degree precision. On the other hand, a mouse is better than a thumbstick for aiming. So it should be "a mouse is better than a thumbstick for aiming your reticule". Leave the crappy keyboard out of the argument.
I think the key point here is that a game should have inherent save points built in even if it does let you save anywhere. Half-Life is a good example of this, you can actually play the game without quicksaving because the difficulty and autosave points are very well balanced. Relying on quicksave to get you through a game can really ruin the excitement of a game. Halo is a good example of a game that doesn't let you save anywhere - thus giving the designers better control over the challenge level they intend. There's nothing wrong with giving the user a choice but even some of the games you mention (e.g. Thief) would be better if they were designed around the idea of checkpoints rather than relying on quicksave. Pacing is what I think I'm getting at here. On the other hand, a 10 minute walk to a rock hard boss is really crap pacing and totally ruins the flow.
I think J Allard made a mistake when he said that. In later interviews he just says 100 million, which is a lot more realistic, if highly ambitious. His maths is probably crap and he thought that 100,000,000 is a billion. Think about it, could anyone in his position be some dumb as to think that going from selling 40,000,000 (or was it 60,000,000) in this generation to selling 1,000,000,000 consoles in the next generation was even remotely possible.
I'd like to see your figures backing this up. The last issue of OXM claimed that Xbox outsold PS2 last month. I also remember early on after it's launch that Microsoft said that Australia had the highest Xbox ownership per capita in the world. Both consoles sell for around the same price and Xboxen seem to be selling better than PS2 in cashies - people are trading their PS2 in to get an Xbox. GameCube is unfortunately not very popular here, but then I haven't bought one yet either...