Of course, the commercial games industry hasn't been very interested in making arguments with games, in taking strong positions on topics of any sort, let alone controversial ones like politics. We have begun to see some efforts to push harder at this boundary COD:MW2 is one example, but so are Deus Ex, Homefront, Farcry 2, Bioshock. I'm glad to see this progress, but of course I'd like to see more. In particular, we only seem to get the very faintest sense of an argument or position in these games. It's almost like it's just there for the publicity, but not too much publicity, because that might turn some players off.
It seems this guy doesn't know Killer7. That game was a compendium of these topics. The games he mentions here are quite childish by comparison.
Well, here in Spain at least it's in fact impossible to go bankrupt due to medical issues, because healthcare here is free, public, universal and guaranteed to everyone, even if you're not Spanish. It's just basic humanity. Society is there for those types of issues. It may sound alien to you, but it has obvious advantages that the average greedy, absurdly individualistic American is unable to see.
The "only" problem with this "system", is the artists don't receive a dime of these earnings.
It goes directly to the SGAE executives, mediocre ex-musicians that live only stealing money from people and working artists.
That's a mafia for you.
While I do not agree that this is necessarily true. The fact is, society is not an entity, but a collection of entities. And, sometimes when the worse of these entities is eliminated many of the remainder are affected positively.
-Game development started shortly after E3 2005. Ubisoft saw and demoed the controller before E3 2005. -Ubisoft Paris took their idea directly to Iwata and Miyamoto, and were given the go ahead. After that meeting they were given prototype controllers. The article states that Ubisoft worked "closely" with Nintendo's engineers in Japan on the title -Game Informer mentions that while conducting the interviews with Ubisoft, they were handed the "latest version" of the controller
-During the beginning of the game, you are encouraged to use your weapons ruthlessly, but as the game progresses you become more proficient and strategic. This gameplay idea led Ubisoft to decide to give the game a martial arts setting. "Enter the Yakuza" -The first third of the game will be all about being "brutal by necessity" -You will be less precise and favor more devastating weapons (machine guns) -As you progress and become more precise, smaller guns will be used -"The goal...is to use five bullets to kill five enemies" -"When fighting with this level of skill, the music and sound effects will reflect it, remaining calm and peaceful" -"When you fight brutally, the sounds around you grow increasingly more intense" -"Audio feedback"
-Freeze shot: by fighting effciently you fill the Freeze Shot gauge...fighting chaotically causes to decreases -When the gauge is filled you can hit a button to momentarily stop time, and then target specific locations on enemy bodies -Headshots thus are tempting, but non lethal shots, such as shooting guns out of enemy hand, can be more beneficial -By defeating high ranking leaders who command others and sparing their lives, you will be rewarded. He will offer you respect and help (guns, help, new weapons, alternate paths, etc) -Respect plays a MAJOR part in the game
-Flailing your sword isn't a smart idea -Specific motions with the controller will trigger combos (in the final game) -Tracing an X in the air, for instance, will unleash a devastating attack -You can stop these combos at any time by simply pausing your own movement. So if you do something that leaves you open to attack, you won't be screwed -New moves will be taught to you by two mentors in the game -One will teach you gun tactics, and another will teach sword tactics -If you don't show the proper respect to them, they won't help you -Friendly/respectful interaction is tied to the controller -You signal "yes/no" answers by nodding the controller up or down or shaking it from side to side -You show extra respect by bowing to the masters -Ubisoft is still coming up with other interactions -"You can act disrespectively as well: there are no cut scenes in the game - all conversations take place in game, as in Half Life 2. However unlike that game, characters wont keep prattling on if you walk away from them. They will react angrily to your imputent behavior" -Staying in the master's good graces is key: they give you missions that can be tackled in any order -You track down the gang leaders and try to turn them to your side. If you don't, they will join Tokai's (the main villian) gang -You have to prove you are worthy to them by battling them and sparing their lives. -You will need as many of them with you as possible to face Tokai. Without their help, you'll have a rough time when you finally face him -You turn gang leaders to your side by besting them in battle and stopping a deadly blow miliseconds before it strikes -Training sessions are offered by the two masters so you can hone your skills
Multiplayer:
-Split screen multiplayer with traditional deathmatches -Totally original multiplayer modes Ubisoft is not revealing yet. Wait until E3 -They didn't talk about Nintendo Wi Fi (NDAs). Full details haven
Peter Jackson used traditional storyboads, models, and real life actors for previsualization in addition to the CG ones.
It's good taste, not computers.
They all are discounting the Revolution, but I think Nintendo will be laughing all the way to the bank in a year or so when Revolution does the same that the DS is doing to the PSP right now, at less than half the cost. It's insane to ignore the potential of the Revolution, no matter what 95% of the industry and press thinks. All the general buzz in the net points towards a success, and a lot of naysayers changed opinion with the DS. I would say Sony is dangerously (for them) approaching to the N64 situation.
?????
Taking in account that Halo2, Half-Life 2, PD, aren't out yet, they can't add anything right now.
If these games are more FUN that their predecessors, it has nothing to do about the graphics. If these games are the same with better graphics and physics, they are simply the same game with better coating. They would be better, yes. Only graphically. That's the main reason for the slowing of the market.
Look at Hitman as an example
Open ended games have nothing to do with shaders or realistic physics.(Doh!)
Ok. You can always say that physics are a set of rules. But, the question really is that if realistic physics and lighting make a game better. I would say not, except in the case of simulations (cars, planes, sports). Of course the game would look better, but all of us know examples of good looking games that are crap. I'm not against pixel shaders, or tech that enhances visually the games, but the tech should be adding beauty to the game, not the game adding beauty to the tech. In the mouth of Rob Pardo (Blizzard designer): "Realism and fun don't match". Technology and realism must be second!
It could mean less stress is on the CPU, meaning the physics can be more realistic and funner and the AI can be smarter, giving a better gaming experience.
While I agree with the better AI improving the overall experience, I fail to see where the connection of physics and fun is. It would bring good details, but for all purposes physics is against fun (except simulations).
Games are based in rules, not physics, and that is what makes them fun.
Better graphics and better physics don't make a game great. Better design does.
While developers continue to fail understand this simple fact, the games market will be shrinking .
More imagination, less fireworks.
This game looks very different to classic Resident Evil. It has almost a Doom 3, arcade-like style. And the graphics are incredible.
I never was interested in RE after RE2, but this has changed my mind. A LOT.
I've played FF 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. If FF6 had cliched characters, at least they were differenced. Lately the characters are a bunch of odd teenagers with the same pre-rendered face and different hair, all of them perfectly beautiful. Maybe a teenager can relate to them, but I can't anymore.
I would add that combat FF6 was a lot faster than FF7. In FF8 was ridiculous, watching that damned GFs over and over (Square strutting their graphics). And FF8 was very very very very easy. Hey, let's give you from the start two summonings that destroy every enemy including bosses, don't cost you mana, only a little time, and give you 1200 extra HP each while you are using them. WTF? FF9 was a step in the right direction, but I couldn't enjoy it the same. It lacked something.
The best game Square has made is Chrono Trigger. That was a game. Since I've played CT, I never enjoyed FF the same. I felt it was very limited.
IMHO Final fantasy went downhill since FF7.
The characters are N-sync clones, perfectly beautiful and cliched, and the story is ever stranger than the previous one. Remake FF5,6,7 with nowadays technology and you will win a customer here.
You haven't bought the correct games then. Play Eternal Darkness. Or Wario Ware.
Some of your arguments are hollow, in the sense that you mention only games that favor your line of reasoning, and ignoring the true innovation. That innovation can come from more than one aspect of the game:
- A different controller is innovation (shoulder buttons, analog stick, analog shoulder buttons, camera stick, EyeToy, rumble). - A different control scheme (a GOOD one that WORKS) is innovation (Zelda: Z-lock, auto jump; Metroid Prime: target lock, visors, morph ball) . - The atmosphere of a game can be innovation. Some gameplay twist is innovation (Eternal Darkness: Sanity effects; Viewtiful Joe: VFX;)
For example, oversimplifying the vast amount of work that has been done to translate franchises from 2D to 3D (including control mechanics, or keeping the feeling of the game) is underestimating the creative capacity of their developers, exactly what you are doing.You make it sound like a lot of developers have done these things successfully and that's not true (and that's the core of innovation: do new things or adding new elements to game mechanics and being successful doing them). Play Metroid Prime (for example) and you'll notice it's different enough to every other FPS. If you can't see it by playing it, you are blind. It PLAYS different.
If you think that a change of control system isn't innovative, well, that's up to you. The reality is that controls change games. It can be graphically the same game, but that does not make it less innovative. Why are PC games so different of Console games? Because the controls.
Using the new hardware to explore new methods of control IS innovative. Like the Eye Toy.
Most developers are praising the touch screen for a reason. The game is different if it's controlled different because it affects the core feature of a game: gameplay. It doesn't matter if is Mario, Boogerman or Cloud Strife.
Nintendo generally innovates in gameplay with the same franchises. Others generally innovate in franchises with the same gameplay. I care about the former more than the latter.
You are right in some points. Nintendo milks its franchises to an extent (Mario Party, Pokemon, being the most blatant ones), but you must take in account that Nintendo created them in the first place and made them successful and high quality (like Mario Kart, or Zelda). Others followed with mixed results (Fuzion Fenzy, Digimon, Crash Bandicoot Racing,... the list of Nintendo rip-offs is unlimited), but is understandable.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the commercial games industry hasn't been very interested in making arguments with games, in taking strong positions on topics of any sort, let alone controversial ones like politics. We have begun to see some efforts to push harder at this boundary COD:MW2 is one example, but so are Deus Ex, Homefront, Farcry 2, Bioshock. I'm glad to see this progress, but of course I'd like to see more. In particular, we only seem to get the very faintest sense of an argument or position in these games. It's almost like it's just there for the publicity, but not too much publicity, because that might turn some players off.
It seems this guy doesn't know Killer7. That game was a compendium of these topics. The games he mentions here are quite childish by comparison.
Well, here in Spain at least it's in fact impossible to go bankrupt due to medical issues, because healthcare here is free, public, universal and guaranteed to everyone, even if you're not Spanish.
It's just basic humanity. Society is there for those types of issues. It may sound alien to you, but it has obvious advantages that the average greedy, absurdly individualistic American is unable to see.
The "only" problem with this "system", is the artists don't receive a dime of these earnings. It goes directly to the SGAE executives, mediocre ex-musicians that live only stealing money from people and working artists. That's a mafia for you.
R. Daneel Olivaw?
Yes, because the light guns allowed 3D motion.
While I do not agree that this is necessarily true. The fact is, society is not an entity, but a collection of entities. And, sometimes when the worse of these entities is eliminated many of the remainder are affected positively.
Let's begin with you.
Nintendo already has won in the hype department. Everybody will be watching.
This is what you are looking for:
0 -1849&dauid=d7c1e618-40a4-4896-a5a9-f154ebe65826&p age=3
http://www.nintendo.com/gamedev?gameid=m-Game-000
Realism vs. Reality, from Miyamoto himself.
Details (from http://theboard.zogdog.com/index.php?automodule=bl og&blogid=11&showentry=920):
-Game development started shortly after E3 2005. Ubisoft saw and demoed the controller before E3 2005.
-Ubisoft Paris took their idea directly to Iwata and Miyamoto, and were given the go ahead. After that meeting they were given prototype controllers. The article states that Ubisoft worked "closely" with Nintendo's engineers in Japan on the title
-Game Informer mentions that while conducting the interviews with Ubisoft, they were handed the "latest version" of the controller
-During the beginning of the game, you are encouraged to use your weapons ruthlessly, but as the game progresses you become more proficient and strategic. This gameplay idea led Ubisoft to decide to give the game a martial arts setting. "Enter the Yakuza"
-The first third of the game will be all about being "brutal by necessity"
-You will be less precise and favor more devastating weapons (machine guns)
-As you progress and become more precise, smaller guns will be used
-"The goal...is to use five bullets to kill five enemies"
-"When fighting with this level of skill, the music and sound effects will reflect it, remaining calm and peaceful"
-"When you fight brutally, the sounds around you grow increasingly more intense"
-"Audio feedback"
-Freeze shot: by fighting effciently you fill the Freeze Shot gauge...fighting chaotically causes to decreases
-When the gauge is filled you can hit a button to momentarily stop time, and then target specific locations on enemy bodies
-Headshots thus are tempting, but non lethal shots, such as shooting guns out of enemy hand, can be more beneficial
-By defeating high ranking leaders who command others and sparing their lives, you will be rewarded. He will offer you respect and help (guns, help, new weapons, alternate paths, etc)
-Respect plays a MAJOR part in the game
-Flailing your sword isn't a smart idea
-Specific motions with the controller will trigger combos (in the final game)
-Tracing an X in the air, for instance, will unleash a devastating attack
-You can stop these combos at any time by simply pausing your own movement. So if you do something that leaves you open to attack, you won't be screwed
-New moves will be taught to you by two mentors in the game
-One will teach you gun tactics, and another will teach sword tactics
-If you don't show the proper respect to them, they won't help you
-Friendly/respectful interaction is tied to the controller
-You signal "yes/no" answers by nodding the controller up or down or shaking it from side to side
-You show extra respect by bowing to the masters
-Ubisoft is still coming up with other interactions
-"You can act disrespectively as well: there are no cut scenes in the game - all conversations take place in game, as in Half Life 2. However unlike that game, characters wont keep prattling on if you walk away from them. They will react angrily to your imputent behavior"
-Staying in the master's good graces is key: they give you missions that can be tackled in any order
-You track down the gang leaders and try to turn them to your side. If you don't, they will join Tokai's (the main villian) gang
-You have to prove you are worthy to them by battling them and sparing their lives.
-You will need as many of them with you as possible to face Tokai. Without their help, you'll have a rough time when you finally face him
-You turn gang leaders to your side by besting them in battle and stopping a deadly blow miliseconds before it strikes
-Training sessions are offered by the two masters so you can hone your skills
Multiplayer:
-Split screen multiplayer with traditional deathmatches
-Totally original multiplayer modes Ubisoft is not revealing yet. Wait until E3
-They didn't talk about Nintendo Wi Fi (NDAs). Full details haven
Peter Jackson used traditional storyboads, models, and real life actors for previsualization in addition to the CG ones.
It's good taste, not computers.
They all are discounting the Revolution, but I think Nintendo will be laughing all the way to the bank in a year or so when Revolution does the same that the DS is doing to the PSP right now, at less than half the cost. It's insane to ignore the potential of the Revolution, no matter what 95% of the industry and press thinks. All the general buzz in the net points towards a success, and a lot of naysayers changed opinion with the DS.
I would say Sony is dangerously (for them) approaching to the N64 situation.
Super Metroid.
Eternal Darkness
A big black hole would suck.
Taking in account that no game is officially announced yet, I don't know why the article says that.
?????
Taking in account that Halo2, Half-Life 2, PD, aren't out yet, they can't add anything right now.
If these games are more FUN that their predecessors, it has nothing to do about the graphics. If these games are the same with better graphics and physics, they are simply the same game with better coating.
They would be better, yes. Only graphically. That's the main reason for the slowing of the market.
Look at Hitman as an example
Open ended games have nothing to do with shaders or realistic physics.(Doh!)
Ok. You can always say that physics are a set of rules. But, the question really is that if realistic physics and lighting make a game better. I would say not, except in the case of simulations (cars, planes, sports).
Of course the game would look better, but all of us know examples of good looking games that are crap. I'm not against pixel shaders, or tech that enhances visually the games, but the tech should be adding beauty to the game, not the game adding beauty to the tech.
In the mouth of Rob Pardo (Blizzard designer): "Realism and fun don't match". Technology and realism must be second!
It could mean less stress is on the CPU, meaning the physics can be more realistic and funner and the AI can be smarter, giving a better gaming experience.
While I agree with the better AI improving the overall experience, I fail to see where the connection of physics and fun is. It would bring good details, but for all purposes physics is against fun (except simulations).
Games are based in rules, not physics, and that is what makes them fun.
Better graphics and better physics don't make a game great. Better design does.
While developers continue to fail understand this simple fact, the games market will be shrinking .
More imagination, less fireworks.
This game looks very different to classic Resident Evil. It has almost a Doom 3, arcade-like style. And the graphics are incredible.
I never was interested in RE after RE2, but this has changed my mind. A LOT.
I've played FF 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. If FF6 had cliched characters, at least they were differenced. Lately the characters are a bunch of odd teenagers with the same pre-rendered face and different hair, all of them perfectly beautiful. Maybe a teenager can relate to them, but I can't anymore.
I would add that combat FF6 was a lot faster than FF7. In FF8 was ridiculous, watching that damned GFs over and over (Square strutting their graphics). And FF8 was very very very very easy. Hey, let's give you from the start two summonings that destroy every enemy including bosses, don't cost you mana, only a little time, and give you 1200 extra HP each while you are using them. WTF?
FF9 was a step in the right direction, but I couldn't enjoy it the same. It lacked something.
The best game Square has made is Chrono Trigger. That was a game. Since I've played CT, I never enjoyed FF the same. I felt it was very limited.
IMHO Final fantasy went downhill since FF7.
The characters are N-sync clones, perfectly beautiful and cliched, and the story is ever stranger than the previous one.
Remake FF5,6,7 with nowadays technology and you will win a customer here.
If there is something absolutely freaking fvck1ngly impressive is this!!!
Watch this trailer for the sake of god!!
Surprisingly, the guys at IGN are very very pleasantly surprised with this .
Who would had thought that?
You haven't bought the correct games then. Play Eternal Darkness. Or Wario Ware.
... the list of Nintendo rip-offs is unlimited), but is understandable.
Some of your arguments are hollow, in the sense that you mention only games that favor your line of reasoning, and ignoring the true innovation. That innovation can come from more than one aspect of the game:
- A different controller is innovation (shoulder buttons, analog stick, analog shoulder buttons, camera stick, EyeToy, rumble).
- A different control scheme (a GOOD one that WORKS) is innovation (Zelda: Z-lock, auto jump; Metroid Prime: target lock, visors, morph ball) .
- The atmosphere of a game can be innovation. Some gameplay twist is innovation (Eternal Darkness: Sanity effects; Viewtiful Joe: VFX;)
For example, oversimplifying the vast amount of work that has been done to translate franchises from 2D to 3D (including control mechanics, or keeping the feeling of the game) is underestimating the creative capacity of their developers, exactly what you are doing.You make it sound like a lot of developers have done these things successfully and that's not true (and that's the core of innovation: do new things or adding new elements to game mechanics and being successful doing them). Play Metroid Prime (for example) and you'll notice it's different enough to every other FPS. If you can't see it by playing it, you are blind. It PLAYS different.
If you think that a change of control system isn't innovative, well, that's up to you. The reality is that controls change games. It can be graphically the same game, but that does not make it less innovative. Why are PC games so different of Console games? Because the controls.
Using the new hardware to explore new methods of control IS innovative. Like the Eye Toy.
Most developers are praising the touch screen for a reason. The game is different if it's controlled different because it affects the core feature of a game: gameplay. It doesn't matter if is Mario, Boogerman or Cloud Strife.
Nintendo generally innovates in gameplay with the same franchises. Others generally innovate in franchises with the same gameplay. I care about the former more than the latter. You are right in some points. Nintendo milks its franchises to an extent (Mario Party, Pokemon, being the most blatant ones), but you must take in account that Nintendo created them in the first place and made them successful and high quality (like Mario Kart, or Zelda). Others followed with mixed results (Fuzion Fenzy, Digimon, Crash Bandicoot Racing,