*slow applause*
Wow, that was money well spent. Did we really need a scientific research study to prove this to ourselves? Are we so belligerent and delusional as a society that we need lab confirmation that yapping on a phone makes it tougher to drive in traffic? We all see the signs every day driving to and from our jobs, taking our families around town. I could have told them this for free if they'd have called me, and I'm no scientist. Great job, fellas, you cracked the unsolvable case.
This is a terrible PR idea. It could have been a great opportunity for Hasbro to embrace Scrabulous and increase the popularity of their own product. Instead they took the douchey way out.
Disagreement doesn't warrant negative moderation, but merely a rebuttal of opinion.
Violence in gaming is one of the most misrepresented issues in this country. It is no different from blaming Marilyn Manson's and Slayer's music for the Columbine tragedy. People that are capable of ruthlessly killing their peers don't need to play a game to realize their potential. All they need are distracted parents, lack of affection, and an increasingly isolated feeling about the world. It's the same recipe for every kid. The gaming is the common denominator in all of it, but so is the deplorable state of their social life. Blaming video games for your messed up kids is just a lot easier than realizing you've failed them as a parent.
I know they didn't have to, but if they're going to give out something for free, they could've done a better job of evaluating what that reward would be. There were a lot of people that were angry or irritated by the XBL troubles, and giving them a game that had been out for ages and wasn't rated very highly is a poor patch-up decision, in my opinion.
I feel that if they were going to compensate paying subscribers for their inconvenience over the holidays, that free points would have been the right way to go. Instead, they chose an XBLA title that 1) was already widely downloaded and 2) was very widely panned by gamers. It has its fans like any game, sure, but I would say that a large population of gamers I've talked with about it don't like the game and would've enjoyed the chance to pick out what THEY wanted instead of what Microsoft felt like parting with free of charge. If you want to make the gamers happy, give them 800 points (the average cost of an XBLA game) and let them decide.
I can totally respect your defense of their business practices, but I can't fight the feeling that these sales numbers are often a reflection of quantity and hype rather than quality. If you own enough franchises, if you buy out enough competitors, and if you throw enough games out there, you're bound to have some gems.
Sales numbers and units sold are not always a reflection of the quality of a game but rather the advertising machine that pushed it. With that said, we all know that EA has the funding and motivation to hype their big games into oblivion, and in many cases they will sell even if they are sub par or below expectations. Take Assassin's Creed for example. (not EA, I know) Many, many people like the game. Fine. But for every person that enjoyed it, there's another guy who bought it, disliked it, and returned it for Mass Effect or [insert popular game]. I am one of them, and I know quite a few others. The sales numbers reflect gigantic success, yet fail to represent the not insignificant population that exchanged it at Gamestop for something else. I know we're debating peanuts here, but I think it's a point worth noting.
I've played tons of EA titles as I'm sure we all have, and I am often disappointed or bothered by shoddy developing, poor bug testing, and laggy menu designs that take away from the overall enjoyment from the game. I've seen a lot of franchises that I love digress over time due to lack of R&D, poor design, or general devolving due to the fact that EA bought all their competition and have no reason to substantially improve (HI2U JOHN MADDEN). It pisses me off and I'm tired of it.
I agree with this, but it can't be overlooked that the gameplay was inherently repetitive, and while the control system was intuitive and provided some *very* satisfying bloodshed, I didn't find it to be as innovative as was touted. There have been so many different approaches to the "freeroaming environment" mantra that this one feels like little more than an amalgamation of them all with a medieval twist. I just don't see why it's so original. But hey like you said, these discussions are only good for gaming.:)
Assassin's Creed's impact on gaming? Does anyone but Ubisoft and Gamespot realize that Assassin's Creed was widely unpopular with the very same gamers who hyped over it prior to release? I was thoroughly disappointed with AC and everything it had promised to deliver me. How this game could become a benchmark for future sandbox titles, or why anyone feels that its impact is powerful enough to write editorials about is beyond me. I was not impressed.
That EA is allowed to buy out all their competition rather than be forced to produce top notch titles in an effort to battle over the market is a farce to me. They did it with Madden as well by scooping up the NFL license just as Visual Concepts' ESPN NFL 2k series was starting to show signs of seriously competing with Madden. They can't be allowed to continue doing this. Why would BioWare want this for themselves? Doesn't anyone inside gaming feel that EA needs less help than anyone? Stay independent! Fight the urge to conglomerate!
Somehow I missed that entirely, silly me. That is a ridiculous price tag. You can get an HDTV twice the size for half the price. I know it isn't the same type of product, but who wants to spend 2 G's on a monitor?:o
Why is this even an issue? What does it matter whether Wikipedia has proofs or not? I didn't think mathematical data for public use was something people had big opinions about. They're just theorems. I don't see the problem. Put whatever you want on Wikipedia- that's what it's for.
Guitar Hero is one of my favorite games. Who would have thought that taking a concept like DDR and turning it into a guitar shredding rockfest would turn out to be one of the most fun gaming experiences on the market? I can't wait for this one, because it is the next logical step in the evolution of Harmonix' franchise.
I do wonder how well the havoc of four people playing different instruments will work out in a single room, on one television. Hopefully it will be alright for those of us that don't have cutting edge TV technology in our homes. I'm not sure how four different screens will appear on a 27" television. Do you think they'll do the 4-pane window split like in multiplayer FPS games? That might be squeezing things too tightly on smaller TVs.
Sounds like a personal issue. I'm not having any problems.
I have never been a huge proponent of mobile web applications. I think phones already feel heavy and bloated with too many features, and having a memory-happy app from Gecko sitting on it isn't the direction I'd like to see.
Geometry Wars is one of the most addictive yet simple games I own. I play it constantly. Too bad this one is for PS3 since I don't plan on spending over 400 on a console anytime soon.
Why do new materials and technologies immediately become used for military and automotive purposes? Any time a new plastic, metal, fiber, or other new fangled material is developed by some University of Whatever, it is quickly stated that it will be used for armor and aircraft.
Doesn't anyone want to build a house out of this stuff? Maybe...reinforce consumer vehicles to give them better crash test ratings? Everything gets a military use now. Fuck the military for assuming everything has a purpose for them. I'm tired of advancing military technology while neglecting schools and hospitals.
Sun Tzu wrote the Art Of War.
Also I think in all of your mentions of being at un-war, you forgot to mention Vietnam! The largest "police action" our military has ever endured.
I'm so pleased that there has finally been a light through the clouds with the Patriot Act's unfair legislation. I'm just surprised that it took so damn long for anything to happen.
The real problem, I think, is that hype has made game players disappointed with games as they're actually delivered. When a game is unexpectedly good, we all marvel over the 'sleeper hit.' There comes a point in a game's marketing, though, when more hype is just too much. The result is that when the game is finally delivered, there's almost no way for the real product to match up with player expectations. After Halo 3 launches later this month, odds are there will be a lot of people in forums nitpicking the slightest flaw or perceived imperfection. The lesson, I think, is that as gamers we need to learn to manage our expectations.
EXACTLY! Part of the downside with the internet is that it has a tendency to grossly over-hype popular games, sometimes as early as preliminary development. I think in a lot of ways the gaming industry shoots itself in the foot when they start talking up their projects too soon. I can think of several games, such as Lionhead's The Movies, that were highly anticipated but fell swiftly due to overexcited fans not receiving the product they'd imagined with such fervor. I think we would all do well to manage our expectations.
I can't say I fully agree nor disagree with your comments. I would concur that, by and large, big business is bad for the economy. Their band of influence and their bulging bank accounts put pressure on smaller companies that have neither the means nor the funding to compete on a large scale, leaving them to be swallowed up by their competitors.
At the same time Google has made it possible, through Adsense and other features, for smaller websites to remain active through smart advertising that is subtle yet effective. I've read disheartening things with their Google Apps content and possession of user submitted property, namely this story. That sort of manipulation through fine print is the sort of thing that big companies pull all the time, and I find it both underhanded and unnecessary.
Basically I can't find anything in what you say that truly disagrees with my principles, but as a whole I feel that Google does good things for the internet community, though they may drift at times.
google is evil, like ANY large corporation, and I won't be associated with it.
I'm so tired of the "google is evil" redundancy. The entire world can't be made up of mom-and-pop storefronts forever. And regardless of anything I read or hear, Google is far better aimed in the appropriate direction than many companies with a smaller band of influence.
Slashdot Mirror
*slow applause* Wow, that was money well spent. Did we really need a scientific research study to prove this to ourselves? Are we so belligerent and delusional as a society that we need lab confirmation that yapping on a phone makes it tougher to drive in traffic? We all see the signs every day driving to and from our jobs, taking our families around town. I could have told them this for free if they'd have called me, and I'm no scientist. Great job, fellas, you cracked the unsolvable case.
This is a lame product and hardly newsworthy.
This is a terrible PR idea. It could have been a great opportunity for Hasbro to embrace Scrabulous and increase the popularity of their own product. Instead they took the douchey way out.
Where there's a will, there will always be a way. Piracy cannot be contained, only accepted. Let's face it...people love free shit.
Disagreement doesn't warrant negative moderation, but merely a rebuttal of opinion. Violence in gaming is one of the most misrepresented issues in this country. It is no different from blaming Marilyn Manson's and Slayer's music for the Columbine tragedy. People that are capable of ruthlessly killing their peers don't need to play a game to realize their potential. All they need are distracted parents, lack of affection, and an increasingly isolated feeling about the world. It's the same recipe for every kid. The gaming is the common denominator in all of it, but so is the deplorable state of their social life. Blaming video games for your messed up kids is just a lot easier than realizing you've failed them as a parent.
I know they didn't have to, but if they're going to give out something for free, they could've done a better job of evaluating what that reward would be. There were a lot of people that were angry or irritated by the XBL troubles, and giving them a game that had been out for ages and wasn't rated very highly is a poor patch-up decision, in my opinion.
I feel that if they were going to compensate paying subscribers for their inconvenience over the holidays, that free points would have been the right way to go. Instead, they chose an XBLA title that 1) was already widely downloaded and 2) was very widely panned by gamers. It has its fans like any game, sure, but I would say that a large population of gamers I've talked with about it don't like the game and would've enjoyed the chance to pick out what THEY wanted instead of what Microsoft felt like parting with free of charge. If you want to make the gamers happy, give them 800 points (the average cost of an XBLA game) and let them decide.
Sales numbers and units sold are not always a reflection of the quality of a game but rather the advertising machine that pushed it. With that said, we all know that EA has the funding and motivation to hype their big games into oblivion, and in many cases they will sell even if they are sub par or below expectations. Take Assassin's Creed for example. (not EA, I know) Many, many people like the game. Fine. But for every person that enjoyed it, there's another guy who bought it, disliked it, and returned it for Mass Effect or [insert popular game]. I am one of them, and I know quite a few others. The sales numbers reflect gigantic success, yet fail to represent the not insignificant population that exchanged it at Gamestop for something else. I know we're debating peanuts here, but I think it's a point worth noting.
I've played tons of EA titles as I'm sure we all have, and I am often disappointed or bothered by shoddy developing, poor bug testing, and laggy menu designs that take away from the overall enjoyment from the game. I've seen a lot of franchises that I love digress over time due to lack of R&D, poor design, or general devolving due to the fact that EA bought all their competition and have no reason to substantially improve (HI2U JOHN MADDEN). It pisses me off and I'm tired of it.
I agree with this, but it can't be overlooked that the gameplay was inherently repetitive, and while the control system was intuitive and provided some *very* satisfying bloodshed, I didn't find it to be as innovative as was touted. There have been so many different approaches to the "freeroaming environment" mantra that this one feels like little more than an amalgamation of them all with a medieval twist. I just don't see why it's so original. But hey like you said, these discussions are only good for gaming. :)
Assassin's Creed's impact on gaming? Does anyone but Ubisoft and Gamespot realize that Assassin's Creed was widely unpopular with the very same gamers who hyped over it prior to release? I was thoroughly disappointed with AC and everything it had promised to deliver me. How this game could become a benchmark for future sandbox titles, or why anyone feels that its impact is powerful enough to write editorials about is beyond me. I was not impressed.
That EA is allowed to buy out all their competition rather than be forced to produce top notch titles in an effort to battle over the market is a farce to me. They did it with Madden as well by scooping up the NFL license just as Visual Concepts' ESPN NFL 2k series was starting to show signs of seriously competing with Madden. They can't be allowed to continue doing this. Why would BioWare want this for themselves? Doesn't anyone inside gaming feel that EA needs less help than anyone? Stay independent! Fight the urge to conglomerate!
Somehow I missed that entirely, silly me. That is a ridiculous price tag. You can get an HDTV twice the size for half the price. I know it isn't the same type of product, but who wants to spend 2 G's on a monitor? :o
I'd really like to know how much this thing is gonna cost. It's like trying to solve a cryptex looking for a price tag anywhere.
Why is this even an issue? What does it matter whether Wikipedia has proofs or not? I didn't think mathematical data for public use was something people had big opinions about. They're just theorems. I don't see the problem. Put whatever you want on Wikipedia- that's what it's for.
That picture is really bad ass. It's a shame that everything cool, technologically speaking, automatically has a military purpose for spying.
Guitar Hero is one of my favorite games. Who would have thought that taking a concept like DDR and turning it into a guitar shredding rockfest would turn out to be one of the most fun gaming experiences on the market? I can't wait for this one, because it is the next logical step in the evolution of Harmonix' franchise.
I do wonder how well the havoc of four people playing different instruments will work out in a single room, on one television. Hopefully it will be alright for those of us that don't have cutting edge TV technology in our homes. I'm not sure how four different screens will appear on a 27" television. Do you think they'll do the 4-pane window split like in multiplayer FPS games? That might be squeezing things too tightly on smaller TVs.
Sounds like a personal issue. I'm not having any problems.
I have never been a huge proponent of mobile web applications. I think phones already feel heavy and bloated with too many features, and having a memory-happy app from Gecko sitting on it isn't the direction I'd like to see.
Geometry Wars is one of the most addictive yet simple games I own. I play it constantly. Too bad this one is for PS3 since I don't plan on spending over 400 on a console anytime soon.
Why do new materials and technologies immediately become used for military and automotive purposes? Any time a new plastic, metal, fiber, or other new fangled material is developed by some University of Whatever, it is quickly stated that it will be used for armor and aircraft. Doesn't anyone want to build a house out of this stuff? Maybe...reinforce consumer vehicles to give them better crash test ratings? Everything gets a military use now. Fuck the military for assuming everything has a purpose for them. I'm tired of advancing military technology while neglecting schools and hospitals.
I'm so excited to go to the party here in Houston! Yay for geek fiestas!
Sun Tzu wrote the Art Of War. Also I think in all of your mentions of being at un-war, you forgot to mention Vietnam! The largest "police action" our military has ever endured. I'm so pleased that there has finally been a light through the clouds with the Patriot Act's unfair legislation. I'm just surprised that it took so damn long for anything to happen.
I guess Alan Grant really was onto something..
The real problem, I think, is that hype has made game players disappointed with games as they're actually delivered. When a game is unexpectedly good, we all marvel over the 'sleeper hit.' There comes a point in a game's marketing, though, when more hype is just too much. The result is that when the game is finally delivered, there's almost no way for the real product to match up with player expectations. After Halo 3 launches later this month, odds are there will be a lot of people in forums nitpicking the slightest flaw or perceived imperfection. The lesson, I think, is that as gamers we need to learn to manage our expectations.
EXACTLY! Part of the downside with the internet is that it has a tendency to grossly over-hype popular games, sometimes as early as preliminary development. I think in a lot of ways the gaming industry shoots itself in the foot when they start talking up their projects too soon. I can think of several games, such as Lionhead's The Movies, that were highly anticipated but fell swiftly due to overexcited fans not receiving the product they'd imagined with such fervor. I think we would all do well to manage our expectations.
I can't say I fully agree nor disagree with your comments. I would concur that, by and large, big business is bad for the economy. Their band of influence and their bulging bank accounts put pressure on smaller companies that have neither the means nor the funding to compete on a large scale, leaving them to be swallowed up by their competitors. At the same time Google has made it possible, through Adsense and other features, for smaller websites to remain active through smart advertising that is subtle yet effective. I've read disheartening things with their Google Apps content and possession of user submitted property, namely this story. That sort of manipulation through fine print is the sort of thing that big companies pull all the time, and I find it both underhanded and unnecessary. Basically I can't find anything in what you say that truly disagrees with my principles, but as a whole I feel that Google does good things for the internet community, though they may drift at times.
google is evil, like ANY large corporation, and I won't be associated with it.
I'm so tired of the "google is evil" redundancy. The entire world can't be made up of mom-and-pop storefronts forever. And regardless of anything I read or hear, Google is far better aimed in the appropriate direction than many companies with a smaller band of influence.