I was so disappointed by the DS and lack of titles I had any interest in
I own a GBA SP. Both my kids have a DS, actually SAVED their allowance for months prior to launch to buy them. But between them they only own one DS game. I agree that the software, until recently, was very dismal - ESPECIALLY to a small kid. But man, that DS screen (either one, take your pick) is SO MUCH BETTER than my SP! Just as a step up from their old GBAs, my kids are very pleased with the DS. And I like using it too, when I can get my hands on one of theirs.
I have barely used the unit's special features (touchscreen, microphone, both screens at once, etc). But we are eagerly looking forward to Animal Crossing DS, Nintendogs, AoK, and the recently released Wario Ware Touched also looks good. Personally, I think they should've waited for a few more titles to be ready before launch (reminds me of the dearth of titles we saw in the first six months of the Jaguar's life). But as an improved GBA-SP, the DS rocks!
The problem is that many games rated T contain gratuitous sex and violence, M contains straight out sex acts and A (Adults) isn't used at all.
Define "many". For that matter, define terms like "sex" and "violence". Does a kiss or embrace qualify as gratuitous sex? Does Mario jumping on a turtle qualify as violence? These are blanket terms that are bandied about without any explanation of how they are being used. They idea that a child should not be exposed to an in-game kiss, when they certainly see their parents kiss every day, is simply absurd.
In addition MOST kids are buying and playing M titles.
This is like saying "4 out of 5 dentists"... you look long enough, and you can find the group that will statistically prove the point you want to make.
When it comes to kids buying games, it is RARE that I see a child purchase a game without adult supervision. And I am yet to see a parent ignorant and unaware of the ratings system when they buy a game. I know the cliche is that retailers just want to sell product at any cost, but in fact I have seen clerks of all ages ask parents if they really want to buy game X for their kids. I don't want to use statistics for my arguments because they are so often manipulated by both sides to prove whatever they please. I go by my personal experience, and in my opinion there really is no problem.
The big money makers ARE M rated games
And yet sports titles like Madden and the ESPN line sell millions of copies as well. What were they rated again? An M rating does not make a game a cash cow.
Personally, I (like all parents I know) use the ESRB ratings as a guideline. For the most part, I do not allow my children to play T or M rated games. However, there are some games that, once I had played them, I decided their content did NOT warrant their ratings and I allowed my kids to play. My kids know right from wrong, they are taught everyday the difference between the fantasy of media (music, TV, and games) and the reality of the world.
I think that there is a pretty negative stigma attached to being a gamer. It's very difficult to overcome.
Really? I've never been singled out and mistreated because I enjoy playing videogames. Nobody has ever pointed at me as I walked out of the local EB Games and shouted "frag lover!" I haven't been forced to sit in the back of the bus, or in any other way felt I have suffered the brunt of a negative stigma.
This negative image we talk about is in fact attached to a faceless, nonexistant media cliche of the videogame fanatic. I am yet to meet anyone that fits this image. Difficult to overcome? There's nobody to persecute!
Of course I am speaking in terms of the gamers themselves. I will concede that game developers, publishers, and retailers have been targetted with unfair accusations and absurd lawsuits; and the financial burdens associated with this treatment is very real.
The problem is that people like scapegoats for the way our society is.
This is absolutely true. But how could the gamer media solve this? That would only be preaching to the choir. It is the mainstream media that has created this stereotype, based not on actual people but on the hype generated by special interest groups (and lawyers) laying blame for society's ills on the game industry. Correcting this image can only be done through PR campaigns that will draw attention to evidence that refutes the hyperbole that has already been published. (And published so often that it has accepted by the public as established fact, when in truth it is nothing more than assumptions, theories, and conjecture.)
Do you have multiple accelerator pedals on your car, one for each direction you can go? No, you have one, and when you need to turn you steer the wheel left or right.
Yes, that is true. But by the same token, I do not use the steering wheel and accelerator to turn on the windshield wipers, choose a radio station, change gears, or switch on the high beams.
I have plenty of experience with multiple GUIs (Windows, Mac OS, AIX, and even GEM). The Mac approach is certainly elegant, clean, and simple. But I don't think it is really any easier to learn than any of the others I have used. The concept of right-click vs left click is no more daunting to neophytes then dragging and dropping.
In my experience, it is often difficult for people with even minimal Windows experience to adapt to the Mac's mouse. It's funny to watch Windows users attempting to right click, only to press the right side of the Mac's single button and not even realise they are performing the VERY SAME ACTION that their "left" click does!
I rarely find myself defending Sony in any matter. But this time, at least Mr. Kutaragi is willing to admit the PSP has a problem, and can offer a logical explanation for the engineering compromises that led to this design.
Now I'm looking forward to his explanation about the UMD launching mechanism "feature".
"It keeps those "R-rated" and "Mature" games out of the hands of children who shouldn't be playing them."
What? Are you kidding me?
Let's consider this. First of all, how do kids get these games? Well, there are three ways:
1 - A parent buys the games.
2 - Child buys the game for himself/herself.
3 - Child steals game or buys it 'on the street' (i.e., not at retail).
Personally, I believe #1 is by far the most common way that children obtain 'T' and 'M' rated games. I have met many fools in my day, many of which were parents, but none of which did not understand the game rating system or were unwilling to spend a few seconds to read the game rating label on the box. The typical parent is quite capable of of making an intelligent decision about what sort of content is appropriate for their child.
There are probably many games purchased in example #2 that are perfectly legit, by this I mean the purchase is approved by the parent. How else does the kid get that much cash? Besides, any parent worth their salt will discover any games (or other contraband) they do not approve of in their child's possession.
Games obtained via #3 won't even be covered by the law anyway. But any kid determined enough to get an M rated game will resort to these methods. And let's be honest here - plenty of other things we don't want kids to get into (such as drugs, alcohol, porn, and so on) are all obtained in just such a manner. So the next logical step is to outlaw the possession of said games by children, just as those other things have been.
As a parent, I do insulate my children from media that I feel is too violent, too sexual, or too graphic in some way or another. But I've already found myself in disagreement with the established ratings as to what my children may play.
A law such as the one proposed in Illinois will have no influence on me. I already allow my children to play "forbidden" games, though only when I approve them on a title by title basis. My kids do not have the opportunity to buy games without my knowledge. I frequently check on what my kids are playing/watching/hearing, and I am aware of what they hide in their rooms. But I am still opposed to it. It is another step in the wrong direction, a step toward the further regulation of free speech and the control of the flow of ideas.
The Amiga version was actually a port from the Atari ST. Though he didn't really go with the Atari because he preferred the hardware. Truth is, at the time he couldn't afford an Amiga. So he bought an ST, and his love affair with underdog platforms began.
Port Unity to a NextGen console after a GC release? I see your point, but you need to remember this is Jeff Minter we are talking about here. He does not do ports. When he brings an existing game to a new console, he does a total rewrite. And he takes a LONG time to write games for modern consoles. Jeff does a lot of the work himself. IIRC from his Atari days, he did all the work (on T2k & D2K) himself with only a pool artist for support.
As for why he chose the Gamecube... just look at his track record! He hasn't developed games for a market leading platform since his C64 days. After that, he chose the Atari ST instead of Amiga, then the Jaguar, then the Nuon. Jeff seems to get off on developing for underdog platforms.
Personally, I expect we'll see him adapt much of his work on Unity to another platform (unless he feels the game just isn't coming together with enough of a fun factor). But if the game does make the jump to another platform, then it will probably be at least three years before we finally get to play Unity.
I can't believe some of the comments I am hearing here.
"early adopters can afford extra batteries" "the battery life is sufficient" "simply buy extra battery packs"
Dang, people. You're living in denial. I said similair things back when I thought the Jaguar would be Atari's second coming.
"Just wait for the next game!" "There are over 250 developers making games right now!" "Club Drive is gonna be AWESOME!"
Yeah, you might eventually get a better battery life. Someday. Just don't hold your breath like I did - it's real embarassing when you pass out.
BTW, how many people remember the big horkin' D-cell power pack for the Lynx? Woohoo! 10 hours of full color backlit gaming goodness, on just $25 worth of batteries!
Well, yes and no. Typically, most cartridge based region locks have been based on the physical shape of the cartridge. In some cases (NES and TG-16) they actually changed the pinout of the cartridge slot. But both of these are easily defeated with adapters.
However one regional lockout that wasn't defeated for YEARS was the Atari 7800. To enforce licensing, Atari implemented an encryption scheme. But the U.S. Gov't forbade the exportation of encryption devices, so the European model had no encryption. As a result, the two regions were locked out. If it worked on the 7800, surely modern consoles could do the same, just use a different encryption key for each region.
To the best of my knowledge, the only region locked handhelds were the TurboExpress and the Nomad. But it should be pointed out that both these units were actually handheld versions of home game consoles (TurboGrafx-16 and Genesis, respectfully), and as such inherited their regional locks.
I've never understood why regional locks seem to be so crucial to the software models of home game consoles, and yet so undesirable in the portable market. The only reason I can see for the difference is to cater to international travellers. Are the sales to inter-region travels really that significant?
Well, I've been wrong about a great many things, but the information I have found online (via Google) all seems to say that the video processor (Hu6270) was a 16 bit device, with both internal 16 bit registers as well as an external 16 bit bus. Perhaps the confusion arose from the existance of the Hu6260 which, as odd as it sounds, is the color processor. I haven't found info regarding the bit width of this chip, though I did confirm that the TG-16's CPU (Hu6280) is an 8-bit device.
Why do I always feel compelled to respond to these trivial bits of misinformation on obsolete consoles?
The Jaguar did indeed contain a Motorola 68000, but it even though it was the only CISC chip in the system it was not the CPU. The system did not have a single CPU, rather any of five processors (two of which were in fact 64 bit devices) could take over the system bus and thus function as CPU. It was this flexible hierarchy that made the Jaguar so difficult to program, resulting in many developers relying on the familair 68000 as the system workhorse (even though it was actually intended originally for housekeeping and to handle controller input), which resulted in the common misconception that the Jag was a 16 bit machine.
The "bitness" of any given system is arguable anyway, and of less significance with each passing generation. NEC first blurred the lines by claiming the TurboGrafx-16 was a 16 bit console based on it's video chip, and the waters have become muddier with each generation. IMHO the Jaguar was the system to finally prove such labels had become worthless. There are three common definitions used to describe a systems "bitness": CPU register width, GPU register width, and system bus width. But more and more it is the overall system efficiency that produces impressive performance, something better measured by standardized benchmarks than the PR hype attached to just one of a system's specifications.
BTW, just for grins, the first console with a 16-bit CPU was the Intellivision. If only George Plimpton had known!
In reading many of these comments, I see a lot of people complaining "nothing new here." Duh! Chances are if you're even a semi-regular reader of the slashdot gaming forums, than you already know everything this show is going to cover.
What I found disappointing was the fact that this show tried to cover all the bases (in a mere two hours) and failed to cover any adequately. As a classic gamer and collector I was really hoping for a well-done history of gaming. Well, for the first 30 or 40 minutes I got a half-assed convoluted history that confused the facts more than setting them down. The rest of it was a muddled look at a myriad of gaming controversy that did nothing to put any topic into perspective.
Of course the producers felt a need to have a social conscience (this is PBS after all), so there was a bunch of crap about the potentially damaging impact of video games. Personally, I got pretty tired of hearing all the personal opinions whining about game content without really touching on the parent's responsibility to monitor their own children. They also neglected to mention any studies that run contrary to the popular belief "game violence creates real world violence."
They also made the mistake of lumping computer gaming and console gaming into one show. The two gaming scenes have diverged to the point where they really have become two different cultures, especially when you cover such topics as LAN conventions and pimp-rig CPUs. They also tried to throw some arcade gaming into the mix, but all they ended up really doing was talking to some guy that owned a bunch of machines on a route. I'm sure any arcade collectors / aficionados out there feel especially let down.
And the way they just glossed over the whole Tetris debacle! What a travesty.
They had some very interesting people on tap, such as Steve Kent, Nolan Bushnell, Sid Meijer, and MANY others, but boiled their contributions down to the point where they came across as little more than a sound bite. God I would have loved to see an entire hour dedicated to just talking to Sid!
PBS shouldn't feel bad about such a lackluster effort, though. This show is indicative of what EVERYBODY does wrong when they try to do a TV show about video gaming. They need to either narrow their focus, or better yet create a weekly program that can touch on many different topics. Hell, you could do a full season of one hour per week episodes just covering game history. But I'd rather see a show that touches a different perspective each week. One week you could talk about the founding of Atari, the next you could discuss anti-gaming legislation, and another week you could interview a high profile designer or programmer. This is such a HUGE topic, with such a rich history of controversy and adversity. Talk about drama! (Maybe somebody should call TNT. Hmmm...)
Fad? I disagree. I've been involved in the classic gaming community (what we called it before the term 'retro' became common with the kids) for several years now, and many more people have been doing this for at least 15 years or more. Some guys I talk to got started back when Pong was new and simply never lost interest in their early consoles.
And in the retail mainstream, emu packages have been available for about ten years now. This is not a fad, just a way for people to play the games from the past on modern platforms.
Besides, most (dare I say all?) of the people attending this expo or going to be enthusiasts and collectors, not the Average Joe consumer that gets sucked into the latest fads. The CGE convention itself has been an annual event for about 5 years now, in addition to several regional shows.
A few of the posts have pointed out that randomization doesn't work so well with certain genres or within certain game frameworks. Some games, after all, are built completely around the idea that it is the level design itself that provides the challenge.
But many old games had total randomization and did it well. I think a great example would be the Intellivision game Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The entire world was totally randomized - right down to where the mountains were and where the rivers flowed.
I think a good strategy would be to add a randomization feature to most games. For example, how about after you beat a level in an FPS game, a "random" option is unlocked? Then next time you play, you can click this option to randomize item locations and enemy locations. And to level the playfield in a multiplayer match, perhaps play in a completely randomly generated arena?
Randomization works with any game, but some people will not enjoy it as much as others. So designers should consider ways to incorporate different levels of randomization. Another FPS example - a user who only wants little randomization could choose to randomize which objects are at which locations, but not change those locations. So let's say this means there is always an item located at the top of the stairs, you just don't know what it will be until you get there. Now with total randomization of item locations, you don't know if there will be on object waiting at the top of the stairs. Hell, to make it truly total randomization, the item could in fact be floating in the air 15 feet above the staircase - or even embedded inside the staircase. This is a little TOO random for me, but it certainly does enhance the challenge. Randomizing the locations of enemies and certain obstacle (such as drone guns) can be done in much the same way - you know there is an enemy in the next room, but which enemy? Or for that matter, how many?
It is fairly obvious how FPS and strategy titles can benefit from randomization. But how about other genres? How about replaying an RPG in which all the characters have been randomly regenerated? Or the world map has been scrambled, so you no longer know where anything is? (Much like the first time you played!) If the game experience is rigidly bolted to a series of pre-rendered cut-scenes, then you're kinda stuck here. But if not, then you have room to twist things up a bit.
Remember "Typing Of The Dead"? That bizarre Dreamcast game in which players used the keyboard to type a series of characters fatal to the oncoming zombies?
On the DS, the top screen would be the normal first person view of the oncoming baddies (zombies, aliens, fluffy bunnies, whatever). The lower screen would feature 2 or 3 rows of icons. The player would have to tap out the correct sequence of icons to defeat his enemies. Perhaps the icons would represent magical items or symbopls to cast a spell? (Nostalgia attack - visions of the use of heiroglyphics in Desert Falcon on the Atari 7800.)
The icons disappear after they are used - even if the player tries the wrong sequence. New icons slide in from queues on the left and right edges to replace those used. To further enhance gameplay, perhaps the user could also navigate through the dungeon/base/whatever with the D-pad, evading baddies when possible?
There are also some cool multiplayer possibilites of such a title. Such as a co-op mode that has the players standing side-by-side (or back-to-back?) fighting of the onslaught until they are overwhelmed. Or maybe a competetive mode in which all players enter the enemy stronhold from different points and attempt to be the first to reach a particular goal. Or how about a deathmatch mode in which the players not only fight off the ususal oncoming bad guys, but by tapping out certain icon combos they can send beasties to attack the other players, or perhaps even interfere with the other players the inserting dummy icons into their queues.
Slashdot Mirror
I was so disappointed by the DS and lack of titles I had any interest in
I own a GBA SP. Both my kids have a DS, actually SAVED their allowance for months prior to launch to buy them. But between them they only own one DS game. I agree that the software, until recently, was very dismal - ESPECIALLY to a small kid. But man, that DS screen (either one, take your pick) is SO MUCH BETTER than my SP! Just as a step up from their old GBAs, my kids are very pleased with the DS. And I like using it too, when I can get my hands on one of theirs.
I have barely used the unit's special features (touchscreen, microphone, both screens at once, etc). But we are eagerly looking forward to Animal Crossing DS, Nintendogs, AoK, and the recently released Wario Ware Touched also looks good. Personally, I think they should've waited for a few more titles to be ready before launch (reminds me of the dearth of titles we saw in the first six months of the Jaguar's life). But as an improved GBA-SP, the DS rocks!
The problem is that many games rated T contain gratuitous sex and violence, M contains straight out sex acts and A (Adults) isn't used at all.
Define "many". For that matter, define terms like "sex" and "violence". Does a kiss or embrace qualify as gratuitous sex? Does Mario jumping on a turtle qualify as violence? These are blanket terms that are bandied about without any explanation of how they are being used. They idea that a child should not be exposed to an in-game kiss, when they certainly see their parents kiss every day, is simply absurd.
In addition MOST kids are buying and playing M titles.
This is like saying "4 out of 5 dentists"... you look long enough, and you can find the group that will statistically prove the point you want to make.
When it comes to kids buying games, it is RARE that I see a child purchase a game without adult supervision. And I am yet to see a parent ignorant and unaware of the ratings system when they buy a game. I know the cliche is that retailers just want to sell product at any cost, but in fact I have seen clerks of all ages ask parents if they really want to buy game X for their kids. I don't want to use statistics for my arguments because they are so often manipulated by both sides to prove whatever they please. I go by my personal experience, and in my opinion there really is no problem.
The big money makers ARE M rated games
And yet sports titles like Madden and the ESPN line sell millions of copies as well. What were they rated again? An M rating does not make a game a cash cow.
Personally, I (like all parents I know) use the ESRB ratings as a guideline. For the most part, I do not allow my children to play T or M rated games. However, there are some games that, once I had played them, I decided their content did NOT warrant their ratings and I allowed my kids to play. My kids know right from wrong, they are taught everyday the difference between the fantasy of media (music, TV, and games) and the reality of the world.
I think that there is a pretty negative stigma attached to being a gamer. It's very difficult to overcome.
Really? I've never been singled out and mistreated because I enjoy playing videogames. Nobody has ever pointed at me as I walked out of the local EB Games and shouted "frag lover!" I haven't been forced to sit in the back of the bus, or in any other way felt I have suffered the brunt of a negative stigma.
This negative image we talk about is in fact attached to a faceless, nonexistant media cliche of the videogame fanatic. I am yet to meet anyone that fits this image. Difficult to overcome? There's nobody to persecute!
Of course I am speaking in terms of the gamers themselves. I will concede that game developers, publishers, and retailers have been targetted with unfair accusations and absurd lawsuits; and the financial burdens associated with this treatment is very real.
The problem is that people like scapegoats for the way our society is.
This is absolutely true. But how could the gamer media solve this? That would only be preaching to the choir. It is the mainstream media that has created this stereotype, based not on actual people but on the hype generated by special interest groups (and lawyers) laying blame for society's ills on the game industry. Correcting this image can only be done through PR campaigns that will draw attention to evidence that refutes the hyperbole that has already been published. (And published so often that it has accepted by the public as established fact, when in truth it is nothing more than assumptions, theories, and conjecture.)
Do you have multiple accelerator pedals on your car, one for each direction you can go? No, you have one, and when you need to turn you steer the wheel left or right.
Yes, that is true. But by the same token, I do not use the steering wheel and accelerator to turn on the windshield wipers, choose a radio station, change gears, or switch on the high beams.
I have plenty of experience with multiple GUIs (Windows, Mac OS, AIX, and even GEM). The Mac approach is certainly elegant, clean, and simple. But I don't think it is really any easier to learn than any of the others I have used. The concept of right-click vs left click is no more daunting to neophytes then dragging and dropping.
In my experience, it is often difficult for people with even minimal Windows experience to adapt to the Mac's mouse. It's funny to watch Windows users attempting to right click, only to press the right side of the Mac's single button and not even realise they are performing the VERY SAME ACTION that their "left" click does!
I rarely find myself defending Sony in any matter. But this time, at least Mr. Kutaragi is willing to admit the PSP has a problem, and can offer a logical explanation for the engineering compromises that led to this design.
Now I'm looking forward to his explanation about the UMD launching mechanism "feature".
"It keeps those "R-rated" and "Mature" games out of the hands of children who shouldn't be playing them."
What? Are you kidding me?
Let's consider this. First of all, how do kids get these games? Well, there are three ways:
1 - A parent buys the games.
2 - Child buys the game for himself/herself.
3 - Child steals game or buys it 'on the street' (i.e., not at retail).
Personally, I believe #1 is by far the most common way that children obtain 'T' and 'M' rated games. I have met many fools in my day, many of which were parents, but none of which did not understand the game rating system or were unwilling to spend a few seconds to read the game rating label on the box. The typical parent is quite capable of of making an intelligent decision about what sort of content is appropriate for their child.
There are probably many games purchased in example #2 that are perfectly legit, by this I mean the purchase is approved by the parent. How else does the kid get that much cash? Besides, any parent worth their salt will discover any games (or other contraband) they do not approve of in their child's possession.
Games obtained via #3 won't even be covered by the law anyway. But any kid determined enough to get an M rated game will resort to these methods. And let's be honest here - plenty of other things we don't want kids to get into (such as drugs, alcohol, porn, and so on) are all obtained in just such a manner. So the next logical step is to outlaw the possession of said games by children, just as those other things have been.
As a parent, I do insulate my children from media that I feel is too violent, too sexual, or too graphic in some way or another. But I've already found myself in disagreement with the established ratings as to what my children may play.
A law such as the one proposed in Illinois will have no influence on me. I already allow my children to play "forbidden" games, though only when I approve them on a title by title basis. My kids do not have the opportunity to buy games without my knowledge. I frequently check on what my kids are playing/watching/hearing, and I am aware of what they hide in their rooms. But I am still opposed to it. It is another step in the wrong direction, a step toward the further regulation of free speech and the control of the flow of ideas.
The Amiga version was actually a port from the Atari ST. Though he didn't really go with the Atari because he preferred the hardware. Truth is, at the time he couldn't afford an Amiga. So he bought an ST, and his love affair with underdog platforms began.
Port Unity to a NextGen console after a GC release? I see your point, but you need to remember this is Jeff Minter we are talking about here. He does not do ports. When he brings an existing game to a new console, he does a total rewrite. And he takes a LONG time to write games for modern consoles. Jeff does a lot of the work himself. IIRC from his Atari days, he did all the work (on T2k & D2K) himself with only a pool artist for support.
As for why he chose the Gamecube... just look at his track record! He hasn't developed games for a market leading platform since his C64 days. After that, he chose the Atari ST instead of Amiga, then the Jaguar, then the Nuon. Jeff seems to get off on developing for underdog platforms.
Personally, I expect we'll see him adapt much of his work on Unity to another platform (unless he feels the game just isn't coming together with enough of a fun factor). But if the game does make the jump to another platform, then it will probably be at least three years before we finally get to play Unity.
Sigh.
I can't believe some of the comments I am hearing here.
"early adopters can afford extra batteries"
"the battery life is sufficient"
"simply buy extra battery packs"
Dang, people. You're living in denial. I said similair things back when I thought the Jaguar would be Atari's second coming.
"Just wait for the next game!"
"There are over 250 developers making games right now!"
"Club Drive is gonna be AWESOME!"
Yeah, you might eventually get a better battery life. Someday. Just don't hold your breath like I did - it's real embarassing when you pass out.
BTW, how many people remember the big horkin' D-cell power pack for the Lynx? Woohoo! 10 hours of full color backlit gaming goodness, on just $25 worth of batteries!
Well, yes and no. Typically, most cartridge based region locks have been based on the physical shape of the cartridge. In some cases (NES and TG-16) they actually changed the pinout of the cartridge slot. But both of these are easily defeated with adapters.
However one regional lockout that wasn't defeated for YEARS was the Atari 7800. To enforce licensing, Atari implemented an encryption scheme. But the U.S. Gov't forbade the exportation of encryption devices, so the European model had no encryption. As a result, the two regions were locked out. If it worked on the 7800, surely modern consoles could do the same, just use a different encryption key for each region.
Thankfully, nobody has tried it since.
To the best of my knowledge, the only region locked handhelds were the TurboExpress and the Nomad. But it should be pointed out that both these units were actually handheld versions of home game consoles (TurboGrafx-16 and Genesis, respectfully), and as such inherited their regional locks.
I've never understood why regional locks seem to be so crucial to the software models of home game consoles, and yet so undesirable in the portable market. The only reason I can see for the difference is to cater to international travellers. Are the sales to inter-region travels really that significant?
Well, I've been wrong about a great many things, but the information I have found online (via Google) all seems to say that the video processor (Hu6270) was a 16 bit device, with both internal 16 bit registers as well as an external 16 bit bus. Perhaps the confusion arose from the existance of the Hu6260 which, as odd as it sounds, is the color processor. I haven't found info regarding the bit width of this chip, though I did confirm that the TG-16's CPU (Hu6280) is an 8-bit device.
Why do I always feel compelled to respond to these trivial bits of misinformation on obsolete consoles?
The Jaguar did indeed contain a Motorola 68000, but it even though it was the only CISC chip in the system it was not the CPU. The system did not have a single CPU, rather any of five processors (two of which were in fact 64 bit devices) could take over the system bus and thus function as CPU. It was this flexible hierarchy that made the Jaguar so difficult to program, resulting in many developers relying on the familair 68000 as the system workhorse (even though it was actually intended originally for housekeeping and to handle controller input), which resulted in the common misconception that the Jag was a 16 bit machine.
The "bitness" of any given system is arguable anyway, and of less significance with each passing generation. NEC first blurred the lines by claiming the TurboGrafx-16 was a 16 bit console based on it's video chip, and the waters have become muddier with each generation. IMHO the Jaguar was the system to finally prove such labels had become worthless. There are three common definitions used to describe a systems "bitness": CPU register width, GPU register width, and system bus width. But more and more it is the overall system efficiency that produces impressive performance, something better measured by standardized benchmarks than the PR hype attached to just one of a system's specifications.
BTW, just for grins, the first console with a 16-bit CPU was the Intellivision. If only George Plimpton had known!
In reading many of these comments, I see a lot of people complaining "nothing new here." Duh! Chances are if you're even a semi-regular reader of the slashdot gaming forums, than you already know everything this show is going to cover.
What I found disappointing was the fact that this show tried to cover all the bases (in a mere two hours) and failed to cover any adequately. As a classic gamer and collector I was really hoping for a well-done history of gaming. Well, for the first 30 or 40 minutes I got a half-assed convoluted history that confused the facts more than setting them down. The rest of it was a muddled look at a myriad of gaming controversy that did nothing to put any topic into perspective.
Of course the producers felt a need to have a social conscience (this is PBS after all), so there was a bunch of crap about the potentially damaging impact of video games. Personally, I got pretty tired of hearing all the personal opinions whining about game content without really touching on the parent's responsibility to monitor their own children. They also neglected to mention any studies that run contrary to the popular belief "game violence creates real world violence."
They also made the mistake of lumping computer gaming and console gaming into one show. The two gaming scenes have diverged to the point where they really have become two different cultures, especially when you cover such topics as LAN conventions and pimp-rig CPUs. They also tried to throw some arcade gaming into the mix, but all they ended up really doing was talking to some guy that owned a bunch of machines on a route. I'm sure any arcade collectors / aficionados out there feel especially let down.
And the way they just glossed over the whole Tetris debacle! What a travesty.
They had some very interesting people on tap, such as Steve Kent, Nolan Bushnell, Sid Meijer, and MANY others, but boiled their contributions down to the point where they came across as little more than a sound bite. God I would have loved to see an entire hour dedicated to just talking to Sid!
PBS shouldn't feel bad about such a lackluster effort, though. This show is indicative of what EVERYBODY does wrong when they try to do a TV show about video gaming. They need to either narrow their focus, or better yet create a weekly program that can touch on many different topics. Hell, you could do a full season of one hour per week episodes just covering game history. But I'd rather see a show that touches a different perspective each week. One week you could talk about the founding of Atari, the next you could discuss anti-gaming legislation, and another week you could interview a high profile designer or programmer. This is such a HUGE topic, with such a rich history of controversy and adversity. Talk about drama! (Maybe somebody should call TNT. Hmmm...)
Fad? I disagree. I've been involved in the classic gaming community (what we called it before the term 'retro' became common with the kids) for several years now, and many more people have been doing this for at least 15 years or more. Some guys I talk to got started back when Pong was new and simply never lost interest in their early consoles.
And in the retail mainstream, emu packages have been available for about ten years now. This is not a fad, just a way for people to play the games from the past on modern platforms.
Besides, most (dare I say all?) of the people attending this expo or going to be enthusiasts and collectors, not the Average Joe consumer that gets sucked into the latest fads. The CGE convention itself has been an annual event for about 5 years now, in addition to several regional shows.
A few of the posts have pointed out that randomization doesn't work so well with certain genres or within certain game frameworks. Some games, after all, are built completely around the idea that it is the level design itself that provides the challenge.
But many old games had total randomization and did it well. I think a great example would be the Intellivision game Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The entire world was totally randomized - right down to where the mountains were and where the rivers flowed.
I think a good strategy would be to add a randomization feature to most games. For example, how about after you beat a level in an FPS game, a "random" option is unlocked? Then next time you play, you can click this option to randomize item locations and enemy locations. And to level the playfield in a multiplayer match, perhaps play in a completely randomly generated arena?
Randomization works with any game, but some people will not enjoy it as much as others. So designers should consider ways to incorporate different levels of randomization. Another FPS example - a user who only wants little randomization could choose to randomize which objects are at which locations, but not change those locations. So let's say this means there is always an item located at the top of the stairs, you just don't know what it will be until you get there. Now with total randomization of item locations, you don't know if there will be on object waiting at the top of the stairs. Hell, to make it truly total randomization, the item could in fact be floating in the air 15 feet above the staircase - or even embedded inside the staircase. This is a little TOO random for me, but it certainly does enhance the challenge. Randomizing the locations of enemies and certain obstacle (such as drone guns) can be done in much the same way - you know there is an enemy in the next room, but which enemy? Or for that matter, how many?
It is fairly obvious how FPS and strategy titles can benefit from randomization. But how about other genres? How about replaying an RPG in which all the characters have been randomly regenerated? Or the world map has been scrambled, so you no longer know where anything is? (Much like the first time you played!) If the game experience is rigidly bolted to a series of pre-rendered cut-scenes, then you're kinda stuck here. But if not, then you have room to twist things up a bit.
Remember "Typing Of The Dead"? That bizarre Dreamcast game in which players used the keyboard to type a series of characters fatal to the oncoming zombies? On the DS, the top screen would be the normal first person view of the oncoming baddies (zombies, aliens, fluffy bunnies, whatever). The lower screen would feature 2 or 3 rows of icons. The player would have to tap out the correct sequence of icons to defeat his enemies. Perhaps the icons would represent magical items or symbopls to cast a spell? (Nostalgia attack - visions of the use of heiroglyphics in Desert Falcon on the Atari 7800.) The icons disappear after they are used - even if the player tries the wrong sequence. New icons slide in from queues on the left and right edges to replace those used. To further enhance gameplay, perhaps the user could also navigate through the dungeon/base/whatever with the D-pad, evading baddies when possible? There are also some cool multiplayer possibilites of such a title. Such as a co-op mode that has the players standing side-by-side (or back-to-back?) fighting of the onslaught until they are overwhelmed. Or maybe a competetive mode in which all players enter the enemy stronhold from different points and attempt to be the first to reach a particular goal. Or how about a deathmatch mode in which the players not only fight off the ususal oncoming bad guys, but by tapping out certain icon combos they can send beasties to attack the other players, or perhaps even interfere with the other players the inserting dummy icons into their queues.