The reports that I've heard say that the best way to hold it is like a TV remote. You just rest it in your lap. You don't need to make huge motions for it to work.
ePSXe (Google it) will run PS1 games off of a regular PS1 CD. It's run pretty much everything I've thrown at it, although a few games require some searching around for specific settings.
I think that 200kbps is an OK definition of broadband.
It lets you stream music (128kbps). You'll have broadband latency (except with satellite). You'll be able to load webpages almost as fast as regular broadband (>1Mbps) and significantly faster than 56k. You'll be able to download files more than 4x as fast as 56k (since 56k actually means about 4kbytes/s in my experience, which is 32kbps, 6-7 times slower than 200kbps).
Sure, you can't stream video well and you won't be able to download large files as fast as normal broadband. Still, it's very close to regular broadband speed for most activities, so I don't think that it's a mistake to call it broadband.
To be fair, Half-Life wouldn't have been even close to as successful as it has been without its multiplayer component. How many people would be playing Half-Life three months after release if it wasn't for its multiplayer mode? Out of the over hundred thousand people playing some form of Half-Life at this moment, I would guess that less than 1% are playing single player, while the other 99% are playing Counter-Strike or another Half-Life mod. Personally, I'd be more willing to play on-line if (A) game companies would stop acting like all that we want is human-vs-human deathmatch -- bullshit, I prefer team vs. bots to fill in the gaps when necessary, particularly on LAN games; (B) there were ways to filter out "I'm only 13 and we lost so you guys sux0rs and I rulez" (which is the main reason why I gave up on the standalone RtCW:ET); (C) game companies didn't charge me like crazy every month for the privilege (WoW); (D) the game gives me a decent single-player version in the event that for whatever reason the network is down or the servers are overwhelmed *coughBlizzardcough*.
A. Almost all multiplayer FPS games, all RTS games, and all RPG games have game modes where you can play cooperatively against bots. B. While I agree that certain games are plagued with immature assholes, you can almost always find servers, clans (I remember several clans in some of the FPS games that I've played, who didn't accept members below the age of 30), or communities that don't have that problem. C. While I agree with this, you are paying for a unique experience that can't be provided without very expensive infrastructure running the game. D. This issue is only a problem with some MMO games. I don't see why they should put in a single-player that drastically increases their development costs, even though it would be used very rarely.
The thing is, the online market will continue to expand. More and more players and more and more games will have multiplayer modes. Most genres of games benefit from having some sort of multiplayer mode, be it competitive or cooperative. Distrubution methods will shift until you usually (or maybe even exclusively) buy games online and download them without having to go out to a Best Buy or wait for a box to be shipped to you. However, this will never get rid of singleplayer games. Some people do prefer to play by themselves (although I guess that this will eventually be perceived in the same way as solo-Golf or solo-Basketball is; it's something to do when there's no one to play with or to practice your skills). Some genres (point-and-click Adventure games, for example) don't really work well multiplayer. Singleplayer games, like Half-Life 2, are much more cinematic and immersive when played solo. Singleplayer games will never die, but they'll eventually become much less popular than multiplayer games.
That may be true in Korea, but I don't think that it's true in the US.
* Gamers devote more than triple the amount of time spent playing games each week to exercising or playing sports, volunteering in the community, religious activities, creative endeavors, cultural activities, and reading. * In total, gamers spend 23.4 hours per week on these activities, compared to 6.8 hours per week playing games. * Seventy-nine percent of game players of all ages report exercising or playing sports an average of 20 hours a month. * Forty-five percent of gamers volunteer an average 5.4 hours per month. * Ninety-three percent of game players also report reading books or daily newspapers on a regular basis, while sixty-two percent consistently attend cultural events, such as concerts, museums, or the theater. * Fifty percent of gamers are regularly involved in creative activities, such as painting, writing, or playing an instrument. In addition, adult gamers exhibit a high level of interest in current events, with 94 percent following news and current events, and 78 percent reporting that they vote in most of the elections for which they are eligible.
Fifty percent of all Americans play video games.... The average adult woman plays games 7.4 hours per week. The average adult man plays 7.6 hours per week. Source:http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php
While Microsoft is touting Xbox 360 as the most powerful next-gen hardware, most believe the PlayStation will outperform it in terms of graphics prowess. This could mean trouble for Microsoft as Japanese Xbox developers had one thing they all loved about the first Xbox: it was the most powerful machine on the market. That advantage may vanish next round.
Why does this matter? The PS2 was the most successful console of the latest generation, even though it had the worst graphics (not counting the Dreamcast, of course). If you compare the graphics of Gamecube and Xbox games to PS2 games, the PS2 loses 90% of the time.
I don't think that the difference between the graphics of the next generation consoles will matter much, in the end.
Madden doesn't matter. At least 6 Systems have Madden 2005 (PC, PS2, Xbox, GC, GBA, DS). At least 8 Systems have, or will have, Madden 06 (the six listed above, plus Xbox360 and PSP). People won't base their console choice on Madden, since any system that they can buy will have it.
What really matters to consumers are these games: -Nintendo licenses (Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc.) -Grand Theft Auto -Halo
Game of the Year-quality, well marketed, console exclusive games are what make or break a console. Nintendo had many amazing games, but they weren't marketed well, so the Gamecube was less popular than it could have been. Sony had Grand Theft Auto and Microsoft had Halo, so they both did fairly well (Sony cemented its spot at #1 in the console market, Microsoft stole Nintendo's #2 spot in the USA). The company that gets the largest number of excellent, well-marketed games, is the company that will do the best next generation.
The answer is to let characters develop free from classes and restrictions. Let people call themselves whatever they want, and let them earn the skills to back up their chosen title. Do you want to be a swordsman? You had better start swinging your long sword around and gaining skill with it.
I have played games with this system and it's boring. In the real world, it ends up being not much different than a dual class system.
You end up getting stuck with your choices. If you're level 73 and you want to try using a sword for the first time, you'll have to go back to easy mobs and grind for hours and hours. And then, once you get it up to a decent level, you may find out that you don't like it. If swords get nerfed in a patch, then all that time will be wasted and you'll have to switch to something else.
I much prefer games (like Guild Wars, for example), where you have the freedom to change around your skill/talent/attribute/stat points, within limits, to adapt your strategies to counter your opponent's strategies. Plus, if you get bored with the same boring combo that you use all the time (Fireblast, Fireball, Pyroblast, Fireblast, Fireball, Fireball, Fireball, repeat), you can try out something new without having to waste dozens of hours leveling up your skill.
I have to say that Guild Wars is an amazing value for the money. In addition to an awesome game, we get a heck of a lot more than most online RPG gamers. The developer, ArenaNet, lets a fansite interview them every single Friday. In addition, there is a substantial patch (much more than just bug fixes) almost every Wednesday (in the months that I've owned the game, they've missed a patch date twice, but both times, they had a large patch with new content and features the following week ). We also get balance patches (not that Guild Wars needs balance patches, another great point) and exploit fixes very quickly, often within a day after a problem is discovered.
The publisher (who also manage the servers), NCSoft is also amazing. I get almost no lag, and in hundreds of hours of gameplay, I've been disconnected once. Server downtime is measured in minutes per month. Because of the way the game is built, it takes less than 5 minutes to patch the servers and my client (over a cable modem).
I am proud to have paid money to two companies that display such a high level of service, especially since I'm not giving them a monthly fee. If they can maintain this business model, they will both be successful companies for a very long time.
It's very playable. Of course, you may take longer to load areas, and it will be difficult for you to use third party voice communication software. Still, you will be able to play enjoyable, even at a competitive level.
I think that the article put too much emphasis on two aspects of an RPG, an interactive story and moral choices that affect the plot. When I'm playing an RPG, I'm going to spend most of my time doing one thing: combat (I'm not counting walking). Even in a D&D based game like Knights of the Old Republic, with heavy emphasis on storyline and light side/dark side choices, I spend twice as much time fighting as talking. In RPGs like World of Warcraft or Diablo, I'm spending dozens of times as much time fighting as I am talking.
So, I think that the most important parts of an RPG are compelling and deep combat mechanics and character growth with a high level of strategy that directly affects combat. A good plot adds a lot to the immersiveness, but I have yet to see a plot that can hold my interest for hundreds of hours and still be just as good the third or fourth time through the game.
Maybe it's because I'm not a casual gamer, but I'd rather that developers concentrate on the parts of the game that I'll spend the most time doing and the parts that can still be interesting over and over again.
On another note, the talk of a robust physics system has me salivating. Combat mechanics with a dose of The Incredible Machine would be very interesting.
I disagree. Stats facilitate interesting combat. Without stats, it's difficult to create strategies. If you run at an enemy and swing your sword, you won't have any feedback at all regarding how effectively you are fighting. You won't know if the enemy has resistance to slashing damage, or has high health regeneration, or anything. Without any kind of feedback, you're basically crossing your fingers every time you do anything.
Now, if you're arguing that there should be feedback, but that it should be displayed in a non-numerical format, you may have a point. In a single player or cooperative multiplayer game, a lack of stats might add immersiveness. However, in a competitive multiplayer game, it is difficult to have deep gameplay without accessible and informative stats.
I think that the "Nintendo is Dying!" rant is wrong. Here's why:
-The Gamecube was the only console of its generation to be profitable. Every PS2 and Xbox that was made cost Sony and Microsoft money. -The DS is beating the PSP in sales in Japan. I believe that it's winning in the US, but I can't find any hard data. -The Revolution will almost certainly be the only profitable console of its generation. -Microsoft's Xbox division is in the red by several billion dollars. Nintendo has only slightly less profit than Sony does, even though Sony has significantly more sales and market share. -The Gamecube is only slightly behind the Xbox for US sales, but is solidly in second place in the world.
If you want to compare them to Sega, then you should take note of the large disparities in profit on console sales and in general between the two companies. If anyone is going to pull out of the console hardware business, I see it being Microsoft.
I believe that the Revolution is coming out at about $200, but even if I'm wrong, it won't be more than $300. Games will be the same price as they are this generation, plus, if Nintendo's smart, the older, emulated games will be very cheap.
When you buy a console, you're buying a guarantee that you will be able to play games on it for 3+ years, without having to worry about performance issues. The price of a new CPU, Video Card, and more RAM to upgrade your gaming PC to last 3 years would easily be double or triple the price of a console. Consoles are a great investment, if you like the genres that they excel at.
I think that there's a place in the world for both simple games and complex games. Simple games are great for casual gamers or short gaming sessions. More complex games are better if you want to have a longer, more involved session. Too many simple games just don't have the depth that the more complex games have. While Nintendo games are a lot of fun, most of them don't have much in the way of strategy or tactics. The most complex genres, FPS, RTS, and MMORPG are the ones that have the most depth, strategy, and tactics. You get to experience games in those genres on a more cerebral level.
I don't know about other people, but the most fun that I've had gaming was playing FPS games with a half dozen friends at a LAN party. 2v4 Q3CTF was as much, or even more fun, than any Nintendo games that I've played. Still, when I play with friends, I play Nintendo games more often than complex PC games.
While it does look great, I don't think it's the leap in graphics that it should be. When this generation's consoles first came out, we were amazed at the graphics. Everything looked so much better than N64/Playstation/PC graphics at the time. Now, the difference is much smaller.
Let's take Half-Life 2, running on the Source engine.
It's still 6 months until the Xbox360 release. By then, the next generation of video cards should be out, or very close to release. That'll narrow the gap or even eliminate it altogether.
This may be the first console launch in history where the consoles fail to outdo PCs in the graphics department.
The major exception to this that I've seen is Killzone 2. It has substantially better graphics than any Xbox360 game that I've seen. However, there's still a lot of controversy over whether the pics and movies that have been released were actual gameplay footage, non-game in-engine footage, or prerendered CG.
Who knows, maybe Microsoft (possibly) and Sony (probably not, they have a reputation of overhyping their graphics and system specs; I doubt their games will look any prettier at release) haven't finished optimizing their console designs, meaning that the graphics that we see today aren't as good as they will be at release.
So why would they mention indie developers in their press release or emphasize easy development at their E3 presentation? I think Nintendo learned a lesson from the weak 3rd party support for the Gamecube.
Nintendo would be doing a very good thing if they released their SDK for free. Look at the modding community for an example of what free SDKs can do. Half-Life was released in 1998. 7 years later, people are still playing it, thanks to the dozens of mods that keep it going. As I write this, there are 87,348 people playing Counter-Strike. How many tens of thousands of copies of Half-Life did Valve sell because of third party mods?
Frankly, if Nintendo does this, everyone wins. Nintendo gets cash from extra Revolution sales and the extra game sales that extra Revolution sales would bring. Modders and Indie developers get easy access to the largest gaming market (consoles), get experience working with that market (something that is difficult to do when you aren't part of a large corporation), get their names out there, and make money. Gamers get a large number of new games, mods, maps, and other extras, some of them even for free.
The average price of an 1100 square foot home in Japan is over $350,000.
The average price of an 1100 square foot home in the United States is a shade over $210,000.
That suggests that prices in Japan are about 166% higher than those in America. What happens if you take the $300 price tag of the PS2 and add 160% to it? WHOA! You get $480! That's almost exactly 50,000 yen! That's a meaningless statistic. Population density in Japan is much higher than in America, meaning that land costs a lot more money, meaning that houses cost a lot more money.
A more meaningful example would be the price of a video game console, like the Nintendo DS.
The DS launched in Japan at ¥15,000. That's about $140. In America it cost $150.
So, the DS costs 7% MORE in the US. If that holds for the PS3, then it will end up cost almost $500 exactly, in the US.
Smash Brothers Online at Launch + FF: Crystal Chronicles + Zelda + Mario + Huge Back Catalog of Backwards Compatibility = Guaranteed Sale
While I am annoyed that they didn't show more than a couple second of Metroid for the Revolution, they announced too many good things for me to be unhappy. Unlike Microsoft and Sony, they actually have games that I'm excited about. But then again, I am a Nintendo fanboy.
Xbox's biggest problem
on
Out Of The XBox
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
The biggest problem that I have with the Xbox is the lack of unique, good, exclusive, first party games. Let's look at the top 10 Xbox games on Game Rankings:
1. Halo - Released on PC
2. Halo 2 - Xbox Exclusive, but it isn't a very unique game. It has excellent reviews (although I don't really like Halo games), but it isn't radically different than Half-Life 2, UT2K5, or other great FPS games.
3. Forza Motorsport - This is a good racing game, but there are dozens of good racing games out there.
4. Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic - Released on PC
5. Grand Theft Auto Double Pack - Released on PC and PS2
6. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory - Released on Multiple Systems
7. Burnout 3 - Released on PS2
8. Splinter Cell - Released on Multiple Systems
9. Project Gotham Racing - This is a good racing game, but there are dozens of good racing games out there.
10. Splinter Cell - Pandora Tomorrow - Released on Multiple Systems.
So, out of the top 10 games, only Halo 2, Forza Motorsport, and Project Gotham Racing are Xbox exclusive. FPS and Racing games are a dime a dozen; I can get similiar experiences on other systems.
Now, let's look at the Gamecube:
1. Metroid Prime - GC exclusive. I don't know of any other high quality FPS games with similiar gameplay.
2. Resident Evil 4 - To be released on PS2. Exclusive to GC until Q4 2005.
3. Zelda: Windwaker - GC exclusive.
4. Soul Calibur 2 - Released on Multiple Systems.
5. SSX 3 - Released on Mutliple Systems.
6. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time - Released on Multiple Systems.
7. Metroid Prime 2 - GC exclusive. I don't know of any other high quality FPS games with similiar gameplay.
8. Viewtiful Joe - Released on PS2.
9. Super Mario Sunshine - GC exclusive.
10. Time Splitters 2 - Released on Mutliple Systems.
So, the Gamecube has Metroid Prime, Windwaker, Metroid Prime 2, Super Mario Sunshine, and Resident Evil 4, for 4.5 unique, good, exclusive games (Resident Evil 4 is 1/2 a point since it isn't out yet on PS2). In addition, it has a couple dozen or so excellent first and second party games, Mario Kart, Mario sports games, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin, Paper Mario, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong, but when I think of good Xbox games, I think of Halo, sports games, and a few action games like Ninja Gaiden. In comparison, Nintendo has a varied, deep, unique selection of games for the Gamecube.
(Note: I'm not comparing the PS2 to either system, because it has a much larger library of games than these two. In essence, they're out of its league.)
Slashdot Mirror
The reports that I've heard say that the best way to hold it is like a TV remote. You just rest it in your lap. You don't need to make huge motions for it to work.
ePSXe (Google it) will run PS1 games off of a regular PS1 CD. It's run pretty much everything I've thrown at it, although a few games require some searching around for specific settings.
Plus, it's nice to run PS1 games at 1400x1050.
I think that 200kbps is an OK definition of broadband.
It lets you stream music (128kbps).
You'll have broadband latency (except with satellite).
You'll be able to load webpages almost as fast as regular broadband (>1Mbps) and significantly faster than 56k.
You'll be able to download files more than 4x as fast as 56k (since 56k actually means about 4kbytes/s in my experience, which is 32kbps, 6-7 times slower than 200kbps).
Sure, you can't stream video well and you won't be able to download large files as fast as normal broadband. Still, it's very close to regular broadband speed for most activities, so I don't think that it's a mistake to call it broadband.
To be fair, Half-Life wouldn't have been even close to as successful as it has been without its multiplayer component. How many people would be playing Half-Life three months after release if it wasn't for its multiplayer mode? Out of the over hundred thousand people playing some form of Half-Life at this moment, I would guess that less than 1% are playing single player, while the other 99% are playing Counter-Strike or another Half-Life mod.
Personally, I'd be more willing to play on-line if (A) game companies would stop acting like all that we want is human-vs-human deathmatch -- bullshit, I prefer team vs. bots to fill in the gaps when necessary, particularly on LAN games; (B) there were ways to filter out "I'm only 13 and we lost so you guys sux0rs and I rulez" (which is the main reason why I gave up on the standalone RtCW:ET); (C) game companies didn't charge me like crazy every month for the privilege (WoW); (D) the game gives me a decent single-player version in the event that for whatever reason the network is down or the servers are overwhelmed *coughBlizzardcough*.
A. Almost all multiplayer FPS games, all RTS games, and all RPG games have game modes where you can play cooperatively against bots.
B. While I agree that certain games are plagued with immature assholes, you can almost always find servers, clans (I remember several clans in some of the FPS games that I've played, who didn't accept members below the age of 30), or communities that don't have that problem.
C. While I agree with this, you are paying for a unique experience that can't be provided without very expensive infrastructure running the game.
D. This issue is only a problem with some MMO games. I don't see why they should put in a single-player that drastically increases their development costs, even though it would be used very rarely.
The thing is, the online market will continue to expand. More and more players and more and more games will have multiplayer modes. Most genres of games benefit from having some sort of multiplayer mode, be it competitive or cooperative. Distrubution methods will shift until you usually (or maybe even exclusively) buy games online and download them without having to go out to a Best Buy or wait for a box to be shipped to you. However, this will never get rid of singleplayer games. Some people do prefer to play by themselves (although I guess that this will eventually be perceived in the same way as solo-Golf or solo-Basketball is; it's something to do when there's no one to play with or to practice your skills). Some genres (point-and-click Adventure games, for example) don't really work well multiplayer. Singleplayer games, like Half-Life 2, are much more cinematic and immersive when played solo. Singleplayer games will never die, but they'll eventually become much less popular than multiplayer games.
That may be true in Korea, but I don't think that it's true in the US.
* Gamers devote more than triple the amount of time spent playing games each week to exercising or playing sports, volunteering in the community, religious activities, creative endeavors, cultural activities, and reading.
* In total, gamers spend 23.4 hours per week on these activities, compared to 6.8 hours per week playing games.
* Seventy-nine percent of game players of all ages report exercising or playing sports an average of 20 hours a month.
* Forty-five percent of gamers volunteer an average 5.4 hours per month.
* Ninety-three percent of game players also report reading books or daily newspapers on a regular basis, while sixty-two percent consistently attend cultural events, such as concerts, museums, or the theater.
* Fifty percent of gamers are regularly involved in creative activities, such as painting, writing, or playing an instrument. In addition, adult gamers exhibit a high level of interest in current events, with 94 percent following news and current events, and 78 percent reporting that they vote in most of the elections for which they are eligible.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php
Video games a niche demographic?
...
Fifty percent of all Americans play video games.
The average adult woman plays games 7.4 hours per week. The average adult man plays 7.6 hours per week.
Source:http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php
Doesn't sound like a niche demographic to me.
While Microsoft is touting Xbox 360 as the most powerful next-gen hardware, most believe the PlayStation will outperform it in terms of graphics prowess. This could mean trouble for Microsoft as Japanese Xbox developers had one thing they all loved about the first Xbox: it was the most powerful machine on the market. That advantage may vanish next round.
Why does this matter? The PS2 was the most successful console of the latest generation, even though it had the worst graphics (not counting the Dreamcast, of course). If you compare the graphics of Gamecube and Xbox games to PS2 games, the PS2 loses 90% of the time.
I don't think that the difference between the graphics of the next generation consoles will matter much, in the end.
Madden doesn't matter. At least 6 Systems have Madden 2005 (PC, PS2, Xbox, GC, GBA, DS). At least 8 Systems have, or will have, Madden 06 (the six listed above, plus Xbox360 and PSP). People won't base their console choice on Madden, since any system that they can buy will have it.
What really matters to consumers are these games:
-Nintendo licenses (Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc.)
-Grand Theft Auto
-Halo
Game of the Year-quality, well marketed, console exclusive games are what make or break a console. Nintendo had many amazing games, but they weren't marketed well, so the Gamecube was less popular than it could have been. Sony had Grand Theft Auto and Microsoft had Halo, so they both did fairly well (Sony cemented its spot at #1 in the console market, Microsoft stole Nintendo's #2 spot in the USA). The company that gets the largest number of excellent, well-marketed games, is the company that will do the best next generation.
...that eventually Video Games will be as difficult to obtain as Pornography.
It should read:
"has surpassed 1.5 million paying eBay entrepreneurs in China"
The answer is to let characters develop free from classes and restrictions. Let people call themselves whatever they want, and let them earn the skills to back up their chosen title. Do you want to be a swordsman? You had better start swinging your long sword around and gaining skill with it.
I have played games with this system and it's boring. In the real world, it ends up being not much different than a dual class system.
You end up getting stuck with your choices. If you're level 73 and you want to try using a sword for the first time, you'll have to go back to easy mobs and grind for hours and hours. And then, once you get it up to a decent level, you may find out that you don't like it. If swords get nerfed in a patch, then all that time will be wasted and you'll have to switch to something else.
I much prefer games (like Guild Wars, for example), where you have the freedom to change around your skill/talent/attribute/stat points, within limits, to adapt your strategies to counter your opponent's strategies. Plus, if you get bored with the same boring combo that you use all the time (Fireblast, Fireball, Pyroblast, Fireblast, Fireball, Fireball, Fireball, repeat), you can try out something new without having to waste dozens of hours leveling up your skill.
I have to say that Guild Wars is an amazing value for the money. In addition to an awesome game, we get a heck of a lot more than most online RPG gamers. The developer, ArenaNet, lets a fansite interview them every single Friday. In addition, there is a substantial patch (much more than just bug fixes) almost every Wednesday (in the months that I've owned the game, they've missed a patch date twice, but both times, they had a large patch with new content and features the following week ). We also get balance patches (not that Guild Wars needs balance patches, another great point) and exploit fixes very quickly, often within a day after a problem is discovered.
The publisher (who also manage the servers), NCSoft is also amazing. I get almost no lag, and in hundreds of hours of gameplay, I've been disconnected once. Server downtime is measured in minutes per month. Because of the way the game is built, it takes less than 5 minutes to patch the servers and my client (over a cable modem).
I am proud to have paid money to two companies that display such a high level of service, especially since I'm not giving them a monthly fee. If they can maintain this business model, they will both be successful companies for a very long time.
It's very playable. Of course, you may take longer to load areas, and it will be difficult for you to use third party voice communication software. Still, you will be able to play enjoyable, even at a competitive level.
I think that the article put too much emphasis on two aspects of an RPG, an interactive story and moral choices that affect the plot. When I'm playing an RPG, I'm going to spend most of my time doing one thing: combat (I'm not counting walking). Even in a D&D based game like Knights of the Old Republic, with heavy emphasis on storyline and light side/dark side choices, I spend twice as much time fighting as talking. In RPGs like World of Warcraft or Diablo, I'm spending dozens of times as much time fighting as I am talking.
So, I think that the most important parts of an RPG are compelling and deep combat mechanics and character growth with a high level of strategy that directly affects combat. A good plot adds a lot to the immersiveness, but I have yet to see a plot that can hold my interest for hundreds of hours and still be just as good the third or fourth time through the game.
Maybe it's because I'm not a casual gamer, but I'd rather that developers concentrate on the parts of the game that I'll spend the most time doing and the parts that can still be interesting over and over again.
On another note, the talk of a robust physics system has me salivating. Combat mechanics with a dose of The Incredible Machine would be very interesting.
I disagree. Stats facilitate interesting combat. Without stats, it's difficult to create strategies. If you run at an enemy and swing your sword, you won't have any feedback at all regarding how effectively you are fighting. You won't know if the enemy has resistance to slashing damage, or has high health regeneration, or anything. Without any kind of feedback, you're basically crossing your fingers every time you do anything.
Now, if you're arguing that there should be feedback, but that it should be displayed in a non-numerical format, you may have a point. In a single player or cooperative multiplayer game, a lack of stats might add immersiveness. However, in a competitive multiplayer game, it is difficult to have deep gameplay without accessible and informative stats.
I think that the "Nintendo is Dying!" rant is wrong. Here's why:
-The Gamecube was the only console of its generation to be profitable. Every PS2 and Xbox that was made cost Sony and Microsoft money.
-The DS is beating the PSP in sales in Japan. I believe that it's winning in the US, but I can't find any hard data.
-The Revolution will almost certainly be the only profitable console of its generation.
-Microsoft's Xbox division is in the red by several billion dollars. Nintendo has only slightly less profit than Sony does, even though Sony has significantly more sales and market share.
-The Gamecube is only slightly behind the Xbox for US sales, but is solidly in second place in the world.
If you want to compare them to Sega, then you should take note of the large disparities in profit on console sales and in general between the two companies. If anyone is going to pull out of the console hardware business, I see it being Microsoft.
I believe that the Revolution is coming out at about $200, but even if I'm wrong, it won't be more than $300. Games will be the same price as they are this generation, plus, if Nintendo's smart, the older, emulated games will be very cheap.
When you buy a console, you're buying a guarantee that you will be able to play games on it for 3+ years, without having to worry about performance issues. The price of a new CPU, Video Card, and more RAM to upgrade your gaming PC to last 3 years would easily be double or triple the price of a console. Consoles are a great investment, if you like the genres that they excel at.
I think that there's a place in the world for both simple games and complex games. Simple games are great for casual gamers or short gaming sessions. More complex games are better if you want to have a longer, more involved session. Too many simple games just don't have the depth that the more complex games have. While Nintendo games are a lot of fun, most of them don't have much in the way of strategy or tactics. The most complex genres, FPS, RTS, and MMORPG are the ones that have the most depth, strategy, and tactics. You get to experience games in those genres on a more cerebral level. I don't know about other people, but the most fun that I've had gaming was playing FPS games with a half dozen friends at a LAN party. 2v4 Q3CTF was as much, or even more fun, than any Nintendo games that I've played. Still, when I play with friends, I play Nintendo games more often than complex PC games.
While it does look great, I don't think it's the leap in graphics that it should be. When this generation's consoles first came out, we were amazed at the graphics. Everything looked so much better than N64/Playstation/PC graphics at the time. Now, the difference is much smaller.
7 11.html 4 30.html 4 01.html
8 &p=11 8 &p=10
Let's take Half-Life 2, running on the Source engine.
The graphics in Gears of War are only moderately better than HL2.
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_2465
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_2118
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/492/492830/img_1766
With the Lost Coast levels that are coming out soon (adding High Dynamic Range lighting), the difference will be even smaller.
Today's high end graphics cards can run HL2 at or above HD resolutions, with higher FPS than the consoles will put out.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=227
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=227
It's still 6 months until the Xbox360 release. By then, the next generation of video cards should be out, or very close to release. That'll narrow the gap or even eliminate it altogether.
This may be the first console launch in history where the consoles fail to outdo PCs in the graphics department.
The major exception to this that I've seen is Killzone 2. It has substantially better graphics than any Xbox360 game that I've seen. However, there's still a lot of controversy over whether the pics and movies that have been released were actual gameplay footage, non-game in-engine footage, or prerendered CG.
Who knows, maybe Microsoft (possibly) and Sony (probably not, they have a reputation of overhyping their graphics and system specs; I doubt their games will look any prettier at release) haven't finished optimizing their console designs, meaning that the graphics that we see today aren't as good as they will be at release.
So why would they mention indie developers in their press release or emphasize easy development at their E3 presentation? I think Nintendo learned a lesson from the weak 3rd party support for the Gamecube.
Nintendo would be doing a very good thing if they released their SDK for free. Look at the modding community for an example of what free SDKs can do. Half-Life was released in 1998. 7 years later, people are still playing it, thanks to the dozens of mods that keep it going. As I write this, there are 87,348 people playing Counter-Strike. How many tens of thousands of copies of Half-Life did Valve sell because of third party mods?
Frankly, if Nintendo does this, everyone wins. Nintendo gets cash from extra Revolution sales and the extra game sales that extra Revolution sales would bring. Modders and Indie developers get easy access to the largest gaming market (consoles), get experience working with that market (something that is difficult to do when you aren't part of a large corporation), get their names out there, and make money. Gamers get a large number of new games, mods, maps, and other extras, some of them even for free.
The average price of an 1100 square foot home in Japan is over $350,000.
The average price of an 1100 square foot home in the United States is a shade over $210,000.
That suggests that prices in Japan are about 166% higher than those in America. What happens if you take the $300 price tag of the PS2 and add 160% to it? WHOA! You get $480! That's almost exactly 50,000 yen!
That's a meaningless statistic. Population density in Japan is much higher than in America, meaning that land costs a lot more money, meaning that houses cost a lot more money.
A more meaningful example would be the price of a video game console, like the Nintendo DS.
The DS launched in Japan at ¥15,000. That's about $140. In America it cost $150.
So, the DS costs 7% MORE in the US. If that holds for the PS3, then it will end up cost almost $500 exactly, in the US.
Smash Brothers Online at Launch + FF: Crystal Chronicles + Zelda + Mario + Huge Back Catalog of Backwards Compatibility = Guaranteed Sale
While I am annoyed that they didn't show more than a couple second of Metroid for the Revolution, they announced too many good things for me to be unhappy. Unlike Microsoft and Sony, they actually have games that I'm excited about. But then again, I am a Nintendo fanboy.
Blizzard games always get delayed heavily.
The biggest problem that I have with the Xbox is the lack of unique, good, exclusive, first party games. Let's look at the top 10 Xbox games on Game Rankings: 1. Halo - Released on PC 2. Halo 2 - Xbox Exclusive, but it isn't a very unique game. It has excellent reviews (although I don't really like Halo games), but it isn't radically different than Half-Life 2, UT2K5, or other great FPS games. 3. Forza Motorsport - This is a good racing game, but there are dozens of good racing games out there. 4. Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic - Released on PC 5. Grand Theft Auto Double Pack - Released on PC and PS2 6. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory - Released on Multiple Systems 7. Burnout 3 - Released on PS2 8. Splinter Cell - Released on Multiple Systems 9. Project Gotham Racing - This is a good racing game, but there are dozens of good racing games out there. 10. Splinter Cell - Pandora Tomorrow - Released on Multiple Systems. So, out of the top 10 games, only Halo 2, Forza Motorsport, and Project Gotham Racing are Xbox exclusive. FPS and Racing games are a dime a dozen; I can get similiar experiences on other systems. Now, let's look at the Gamecube: 1. Metroid Prime - GC exclusive. I don't know of any other high quality FPS games with similiar gameplay. 2. Resident Evil 4 - To be released on PS2. Exclusive to GC until Q4 2005. 3. Zelda: Windwaker - GC exclusive. 4. Soul Calibur 2 - Released on Multiple Systems. 5. SSX 3 - Released on Mutliple Systems. 6. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time - Released on Multiple Systems. 7. Metroid Prime 2 - GC exclusive. I don't know of any other high quality FPS games with similiar gameplay. 8. Viewtiful Joe - Released on PS2. 9. Super Mario Sunshine - GC exclusive. 10. Time Splitters 2 - Released on Mutliple Systems. So, the Gamecube has Metroid Prime, Windwaker, Metroid Prime 2, Super Mario Sunshine, and Resident Evil 4, for 4.5 unique, good, exclusive games (Resident Evil 4 is 1/2 a point since it isn't out yet on PS2). In addition, it has a couple dozen or so excellent first and second party games, Mario Kart, Mario sports games, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin, Paper Mario, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I think of good Xbox games, I think of Halo, sports games, and a few action games like Ninja Gaiden. In comparison, Nintendo has a varied, deep, unique selection of games for the Gamecube. (Note: I'm not comparing the PS2 to either system, because it has a much larger library of games than these two. In essence, they're out of its league.)