I think there's a lot of creativity left. I just think that no one has taken one of those creative ideas and proven it can make money. With the cost of creating some of today's games, the people that put up the money want to bet on something tried and true, with just a new twist and better graphics.
The other issue is that as soon as someone does something completely new, everyone piles on the bandwagon. In two years there's 10 games like the first, it's now considered a genre, and we're back to complaining no one makes anything new.
I think there's a lot of creativity left. I just think the big issue is that no one's taken the chance to prove one of those innovative ideas can make money. With the cost of creating a game these days, everyone wants to make something proven, and just try to give it a different twist with better graphics.
Well, it's good to see at least one judge get it right. Now if you can just find the one politician, and the one leader of a parent group, you'll have the whole ultra rare "have a clue" set.
Both sides are correct. Each of them is trying to push an agenda for the DVD releases that benefits them the most. Theaters want it pushed back so people will be less likely to wait on the DVD, and see it in the theater. The Movie studio wants to release as soon as possible, hoping to circumvent piracy (yeah, right), and try to get people to just buy the DVD. In most places you can buy the DVD for the cost of two tickets at the theater. For a family of four, it would be cheaper to just buy the movie and watch it at home. We won't even add in the small loan you would have to take out to get drinks and popcorn.
Bottom line though is that the theaters will lose out on this battle unless they get creative. The studios make the product, and they want to make the most money possible off of it. If they feel theaters are not the best way to do that anymore, tough luck for the theaters.
First I'd like the basic infrastructure set up so that I can add/upgrade/remove technology as I see fit to any room. I think two network connections, and audio/video in every room should do it. Though I would like audio speakers in every room also. This would all need to be tied into a central wiring closet.
Second is that I would love to have the house inteligent enough to know who and where I am. A small wireless handset that I could carry around would do the trick. I would want that handheld to run everything such as the stero in one room, and the TV/Tivo in the next, to the satalite radio set up. Also all of the extra things like lights.
This would allow the unit to turn on the lights as I enter the living room, turn on the TV, and change it to the same channel I was just watching in my bedroom.
From there, the handheld should have a host of features. Start the oven, and let me know when it's ready. Ring me when someone's at the front door, and let me see who it is by the wireless camera. Double as a phone whould be nice. Move music from room to room as I walk around would be nice. At as an intercom if I need to speak to someone when I'm upstairs and their in the basement. And several other things i can't think of right off the top of my head.
Yes EA makes their sports games for both the PC and the XBox/360/PS2. If your like most of the people I know who play both PC and console games, you play the sports games on the console, and your online games on the PC. Though I might be wrong, I would bet that EA sells the majority of their games on the console systems, and those that have consoles seem to be very slow to jump online with them.
I think the main issue is that most console games don't need to be played online. If you can play with friends, or play through most of your games by yourself, why pay for or try to get your parents to pay for, a broadband connection for only a few games? Especially if there an extra fee for something like XBoxLive.
Say you do get all of that, what are you really getting out of it? Usually only a few other people to play with, or maybe an opponent in a sports game. So the question then is, is it really worth the money?
I agree with you that everyone is trying to produce an Everquest clone. Though I would argue that WoW is the game to beat at the moment.
I would put out the question though, is the lack of an online games explosion because it's a fad, or is it because everyone is just making Everquest/WoW clones?
Actually, I think it might do very well in the beginning. Longevity though is going to be based on how well they can add in new content. I very much agree with you in that they have the rules down pretty well. That being said, they are doing the exact same thing as the PnP game does, giving you the basic rules and making them work well.
In the PnP game, you take those rules and do whatever you want with them. In DDO, they are presenting you the material. Now that they have the rules down, if they can produce new material, that's fun to play, I think the game will last a long time.
This game is built for those people that want to go through an adventure, rather than the traditional carrot and stick approach of getting to the next level or area, or killing this mob for the cool armor/sword/whatever.
The key to this game, exactly like the PnP game, is how well of a story the DM tells. If Turbine (makers of the game) turns out to be a good DM, then I think the game is going to go very well. There is 30 years of D&D out there, that they can convert into the game. This gives them a huge pool of things to pull from. Hopefully they do it well.
Will it have WoW numbers? No, I don't think it will unless they can really generate a lot of content very quickly. There are just too many power players that will be able to eat through the current content in a month or two, and then become bored. Those more concerned about journey, rather than the destination, will enjoy the game. For how long they enjoy it, as with any PnP game, all depends on how good the DM turns out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there's a lot of creativity left. I just think that no one has taken one of those creative ideas and proven it can make money. With the cost of creating some of today's games, the people that put up the money want to bet on something tried and true, with just a new twist and better graphics. The other issue is that as soon as someone does something completely new, everyone piles on the bandwagon. In two years there's 10 games like the first, it's now considered a genre, and we're back to complaining no one makes anything new.
I think there's a lot of creativity left. I just think the big issue is that no one's taken the chance to prove one of those innovative ideas can make money. With the cost of creating a game these days, everyone wants to make something proven, and just try to give it a different twist with better graphics.
Well, it's good to see at least one judge get it right. Now if you can just find the one politician, and the one leader of a parent group, you'll have the whole ultra rare "have a clue" set.
Both sides are correct. Each of them is trying to push an agenda for the DVD releases that benefits them the most. Theaters want it pushed back so people will be less likely to wait on the DVD, and see it in the theater. The Movie studio wants to release as soon as possible, hoping to circumvent piracy (yeah, right), and try to get people to just buy the DVD. In most places you can buy the DVD for the cost of two tickets at the theater. For a family of four, it would be cheaper to just buy the movie and watch it at home. We won't even add in the small loan you would have to take out to get drinks and popcorn. Bottom line though is that the theaters will lose out on this battle unless they get creative. The studios make the product, and they want to make the most money possible off of it. If they feel theaters are not the best way to do that anymore, tough luck for the theaters.
First I'd like the basic infrastructure set up so that I can add/upgrade/remove technology as I see fit to any room. I think two network connections, and audio/video in every room should do it. Though I would like audio speakers in every room also. This would all need to be tied into a central wiring closet.
Second is that I would love to have the house inteligent enough to know who and where I am. A small wireless handset that I could carry around would do the trick. I would want that handheld to run everything such as the stero in one room, and the TV/Tivo in the next, to the satalite radio set up. Also all of the extra things like lights.
This would allow the unit to turn on the lights as I enter the living room, turn on the TV, and change it to the same channel I was just watching in my bedroom.
From there, the handheld should have a host of features. Start the oven, and let me know when it's ready. Ring me when someone's at the front door, and let me see who it is by the wireless camera. Double as a phone whould be nice. Move music from room to room as I walk around would be nice. At as an intercom if I need to speak to someone when I'm upstairs and their in the basement. And several other things i can't think of right off the top of my head.
Yes EA makes their sports games for both the PC and the XBox/360/PS2. If your like most of the people I know who play both PC and console games, you play the sports games on the console, and your online games on the PC. Though I might be wrong, I would bet that EA sells the majority of their games on the console systems, and those that have consoles seem to be very slow to jump online with them. I think the main issue is that most console games don't need to be played online. If you can play with friends, or play through most of your games by yourself, why pay for or try to get your parents to pay for, a broadband connection for only a few games? Especially if there an extra fee for something like XBoxLive. Say you do get all of that, what are you really getting out of it? Usually only a few other people to play with, or maybe an opponent in a sports game. So the question then is, is it really worth the money?
I agree with you that everyone is trying to produce an Everquest clone. Though I would argue that WoW is the game to beat at the moment. I would put out the question though, is the lack of an online games explosion because it's a fad, or is it because everyone is just making Everquest/WoW clones?
Actually, I think it might do very well in the beginning. Longevity though is going to be based on how well they can add in new content. I very much agree with you in that they have the rules down pretty well. That being said, they are doing the exact same thing as the PnP game does, giving you the basic rules and making them work well. In the PnP game, you take those rules and do whatever you want with them. In DDO, they are presenting you the material. Now that they have the rules down, if they can produce new material, that's fun to play, I think the game will last a long time. This game is built for those people that want to go through an adventure, rather than the traditional carrot and stick approach of getting to the next level or area, or killing this mob for the cool armor/sword/whatever. The key to this game, exactly like the PnP game, is how well of a story the DM tells. If Turbine (makers of the game) turns out to be a good DM, then I think the game is going to go very well. There is 30 years of D&D out there, that they can convert into the game. This gives them a huge pool of things to pull from. Hopefully they do it well. Will it have WoW numbers? No, I don't think it will unless they can really generate a lot of content very quickly. There are just too many power players that will be able to eat through the current content in a month or two, and then become bored. Those more concerned about journey, rather than the destination, will enjoy the game. For how long they enjoy it, as with any PnP game, all depends on how good the DM turns out to be.