I agree very much. There is some kind of critical mass an online game has to reach in order for it to really work well online. Once it reaches that, others will pick it up just because that is the game that everyone else is playing. And that is why I made the sheep comment. I'm not trying to say people go to it because they're dumb and will go wherever marketing tells them to. I was merely saying that people are smart, they want a good online experience, and since massive numbers can help boost that, then Halo fit the bill. Large numbers can help to make the online experience better, large numbers of people play Halo, and so people who are looking for a good online experience flock to it. I don't think it's because Halo is very good at what it does, or because it is revolutionary, or because it is polished. It has just reached some critical mass. How it did that I have no idea, but it did and that drives sales even further, so its sort of self perpetuating. I'm sure Starcraft, WoW, and Counter-Strike all have the same phenomenon going for them. One can argue whether any of those games are the best, or any good at all, but it is certain that they are all helped, just as Halo is, simply by having large numbers of people playing, or even the assumption that large numbers of people will be playing. That is why I think Halo feeds off of hype. It's important for all games to generate hype so that they can try to reach that critical mass. I just wish the games that reached the critical mass were always the best, most polished games. But then you get into arguments about what best is and what most polished even means. My argument is that Halo isn't one of those games, but it is somewhat irrelevant since so many people are playing it.
Why is this game so popular? In which ways did it revolutionize the genre?
I cannot answer this. I have no idea why it is so popular. I played Halo 1 and enjoyed it. In fact, I enjoyed it so much I have never played Halo 2. IOW, it was interesting, but not addictive by any stretch.
Much like Blizzard games which are not really revolutionary but are simply well done with a lot of attention to detail.
You don't have to be revolutionary to be popular. Just well polished. You gave the example of Blizzard and that is an excellent example. Another is the iPod. Attention to detail sets you apart. However, it's debatable how polished Halo is/was. I honestly didn't think it was much more than evolutionary even in terms of polish. It was just a game. I'm not saying it was bad (the PC version not counted), just that it wasn't as great as it was made out to be.
The reality of it is people like to be a part of a group/community. I'm not calling people sheep. Halo was just something for a lot of people who had never played FPSs before to rally behind and talk as a community. How it got there originally I'm not sure, but it hit some critical mass where if you wanted to sound informed you had to play it. A lot of people I've met felt like they had to play it in order to make themselves appear like they were legitimate hard core gamers, thus like they were really part of this growing community of gamers. I'll admit that I've done that. I love the Half-Life series. For a little while I felt like I had to play Counter-Strike to really feel like I was a true Half-Life fan.
Again, I'm not calling fans of Halo all a bunch of sheep. I'm not calling the game lousy. I am saying that a lot of people enjoy it simply to feel like they are a part of the community. I am saying that the game is not as good as it is made out to be.
Sony in a world of hurt? Either you are woefully ignorant of the facts, or you are a fanboy of the purest kind. I'm no Sony lover, but look at the facts. The PS3 has sold as many units as the Xbox 360 at the same time in its lifetime. They are selling at the same rate. Even now the PS2 (a seven year old console) is selling more than the Xbox 360 is each week. The costs to make a PS2 are small now. That is pretty much pure profit for Sony. That means each week, the PS2 probably makes more in profit than the 360 makes in revenue. Sony isn't hurting for money, and the PS3 isn't hurting either. Take a look at VGChartz.com and inform yourself.
In fact, at the rates they are going, the only reason MS has more units sold than the PS3 is because it came out a year before. I'll grant that those charts show a bump for Sony due to its price cut, but the Xbox 360's price cut hasn't had a chance to materialize yet. At this point, however, we can look at the previous generation and see that the Xbox 360 AND the PS3 are headed for the same fate as the Xbox and Gamecube fate of last generation. The growth of the Wii will eventually take most of the developers and thus the games. The Wii is the fastest selling video game device of all time (faster then the PS2, Gameboy, DS, PSP, etc.) which no developer/publisher expected. They were all caught looking the other way, and are slowly realizing they can get a bigger market share for lower development costs.
I'm not a zealot by any stretch of the imagination, but copying music isn't stealing. How hard is it for people to add a new phrase to their vocabulary. It's called copyright infringement. It's illegal. It's against the law. It has been put on the law books as something that should not be done. It is NOT stealing. Perhaps those zealots are hypocritical when getting angry at copyright infringement when it is their copyright, perhaps there are more than one group of people on slashdot. But in either case, people who say such a thing are correct and you are wrong. Get over it.
I don't copy music, nor do I download games, and I don't own any unpurchased-by-me movies either. I don't participate in copyright infringement, I don't condone it. I recognize that it is illegal and unlawful. But I also recognize that it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement.
Do you realize that murder and manslaughter and aggravated assault are different?
Do you realize that robbery and theft are different?
Do you realize that trespassing, breaking and entering and burglary are different?
If not, then I can understand that you don't know the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. But if you do understand the difference in all of those above, then why do you have such a hard time understanding that there is a difference between copyright infringement and stealing?
I will say it one more time: Copyright infringement, while still an illegal and unlawful act (in jurisdictions where the copyright is held), is NOT stealing. They aren't the same crime. Both are crimes, but they are not the same crime.
No one can stop you from making any game and selling it online. You could make the most raunchiest, violent and out of taste game you want (provided it is legal, i.e., no child porn) and sell it online. Don't expect Walmart (or any games retailer for that matter) to sell it, don't expect it to be on any console, and don't expect to make very much in the way of sales. But you can do it and no one would stop you. This happens all the time with movies. There are loads of movies that are unrated. Some of them simply because they didn't go through the process of being rated, while others because they knew they would get a terrible rating anyway. You can find those movies in art houses, online, and/or in porn shops (depending on the movie). They are out there in droves. Same thing could be true of video games.
I think this thread is missing the part of the point. What does the industry gain by not having the ESRB? Nothing. So we axe the ESRB, go to the Supreme Court and win and congress can't regulate anything. What does that do for video games? Nothing. MS, Sony, and Nintendo still probably won't let games that would have gotten an AO on their systems. Retailers still won't be selling games that would have received an AO under the current system. However, then you would have MS, Sony, Nintendo, Walmart, EBGames, etc, etc, etc, all having their own reviewers rating the games deciding if they want to allow the game on their system or sell the game in their store. So without the ESRB it becomes much more arbitrary what is E, T, M, and AO.
However, there are lots of things that the ESRB does buy the video game industry, and very little of that has anything to do with government censorship. Parents can easily look at a game's ratings and determine whether to ignore that game or continue looking into it. It helps do a lot of weeding out. It helps parents to look at a rating and see "M - Excessive Violence and Gore" and then say "My Johnny can't handle violence" and then they can keep looking elsewhere. It doesn't matter if Johnny is 7 or 17. The parent knows their child and can make those decisions.
It also helps with the retailers and the system makers. If the ESRB (an independent third-party) rates a game one way, then MS, Sony, Nintendo, Walmart, EBGames, etc, can just take those ratings and base their policies regarding suitability off of that. That way there is only one ratings system. They also like it because it removes liability from them somewhat. Imagine what would happen if Walmart had to deal 100% with the liability of the ratings when the Hot Coffee stuff happened. People would be yelling at Walmart for releasing that game, and then Walmart would turn around and start rating games even more restrictively, possibly even telling Rockstar that they would no longer sell their games. A whole bunch of games would get censored into oblivion then. The console manufacturer's would do the same.
In other words, the ESRB isn't stopping government regulation, it's stopping hodge-podge regulation that would be even worse. It also helps parents make decisions about what kinds of stuff their kids watch. The ESRB is a good thing.
Now for the counter-arguments
Parents don't ever look at the ratings. Not true. A lot of parents don't, and they raise their voices and scream out of their own ignorance. But a lot of parents do. Part of the problem is that games are new. ESRB ratings aren't as common as MPAA ratings. Everyone in the US understands the basic differences between G, PG, PG-13 and R. Fewer know what NC-17 is. But my guess is that even fewer know what the difference between E, T, M, and AO are. More people knowing about the ratings helps. Another problem is that many people still think of video games as a kid thing, which means they think that all games are desgined for 12 year olds anyway. If we got past that stigma then people will realize that video games are just like movies in that regard. Some are for younger audiences, while some are intended for more mature audiences, and everything in between.
The ESRB is corrupt. Maybe so. Maybe they rate games according to how much you pay them or according to political pressure. My point is not to get into a debate about whether the current operations of the ESRB are perfect, only to point out the role they play and the importance of that role.
Which is very true. However, the USA consumes more entertainment than anywhere else, though I won't go so far as to say per capita, because I'm not sure. For example, take a look at VGChartz. Japan has purchased slightly more consoles as the rest of the world, but the USA has Japan beat by 5.5 million units. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows sold 11 million copies in the first 24 hours of a 93-country release, 8.3 million of which were in the USA alone. Looking at worldwide movie grosses you'll see that in nearly every case the USA accounts for nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of a movies box office success.
Because of all this you would expect the USA to have a higher adoption rate than anywhere else, and because of that, the HD format of choice will most likely be won in the USA. So pointing to what US adoption rates of a form of entertainment is a valid argument even if it doesn't represent the rest of the world.
So then your beef is with the retailers, not the ESRB or the MPAA or whatever. If Walmart decides not to sell AO games, that's their decision. The ESRB rates games according to how the games ought to be rated (if it doesn't that is another issue). So if you don't like the rating, then complain to the game developer. If you don't like that $RETAIL_OUTLET doesn't sell the game, then complain to $RETAIL_OUTLET. But this has nothing to do with the ESRB. If they just made it M so that the game could sell, then they would undermine themselves and the gov't would come in and say that they need to be in charge of rating games now.
If I was an 360 owner, then I would certainly be excited (I'm not, I'm a PC gamer). However, in the context of this article, Most of these games probably won't win over a lot of people to become new 360 owners. For example, if I wanted BioShock I would get it for the PC, if I wanted Fallout I would get it for the PC. Now that's because I'm already a PC gamer with a decent PC to play those games with. Someone who doesn't have a PC or 360 to play those games but wanted to play those games then that is a different story. But most people in that situation are simply waiting to buy one for Halo 3. Which means that MS isn't having to win converts, they just have to get the product out. In short, none of these games are likely to win very many new 360 converts.
The real problem with "games as art" is that we even have this argument.
First off, the term art is not well defined. It basically boils down to "Art is what I consider art" or "Art is what the majority consider art" or "Art is what the critics consider art." If we had a precise definition of art then it would be easy to decide. But if that were possible, it would have happened a long time ago.
Second, I don't see why people even want video games to be considered art. You don't hear people complaining that other types of games are art. Where are all the Monopoly players getting upset that no one considers it an art. Where are the Scrabble players, the Candy Land players or even the Chess or Checkers players at? Probably playing their games and enjoying them for what they are: games. It's not like having a video game fall into the category of art makes that game more enjoyable.
I'm going to explore the three definitions of art given above.
1) "Art is what I call art" -- If so, then call it art and we have no need for this discussion.
2) "Art is what the majority call art" -- I realize there are lots of different people on the slashdot with lots of differing opinions, but if we use this definition it sure seems bizarre that we have one article where a lot of people spell doom for Nintendo for ignoring the "hardcore" and going after the mainstream and then we have this one where people are declaring that games should be considered art by the majority.
3) "Art is what the critics consider art" -- taking this definition, then it's only a matter of finding a critic who can be respected and who calls games art. I think we have Molyneaux, Meier, Miyamoto, and many others who can be game critics and call games art.
Wrong. That's what this whole article is about, and what it fails to realize. Nintendo isn't trying to move the market, it's trying to expand the market. Before the Wii came out a lot of developers/publishers thought it wouldn't sell. Now that it's been out for 7 months and has nearly passed the 360 in sales developers are realizing that people are buying it and they would be foolish not to develop for it. In that rush to get something out, we're going to initially see a lot of ports and simple quick games. Over time however, there will be some companies that will produce games that take longer to develop. There will be more of the games that have been around for years, but there will also be fun, easy to learn, quick to play games.
Nintendo isn't trying to avoid the "hardcore*." Quite the opposite, they want to appeal to them AND the casual. The long games will come out, but it takes time. Gears of War was started long before the X360 was released, but few developers really thought the Wii would sell like it has, so there is nothing equivalent** to Gears yet.
*I'm defining "hardcore" here to include nearly every definition I can think of. Some of those definitions include:
people who love games and play them all the time
people who want only the most shiniest of graphics
Why is it that you can't have a mega budget game on the Wii? I fail to see how no mega budget on PS360 means no mega budget games at all. Developers are just getting into the Wii. They are still exploring the possibilities of the Wii-mote. Give them time and some really cool games that cannot be done without it will come around OR we will all find out that the Wii-mote offers nothing and it will be a one generation thing to not be worried about. I'm looking forward to what it offers as I think it really can offer something that can't be offered any way else. The next generation will have all three major consoles having something to do with motion sensing. It's just the way things are going.
No no no. You don't get it. Because Nintendo is branching out that means they are dropping their bread and butter. Look, the writing is on the wall. It's just like Microsoft. When MS made the XBox it was obvious they were going to stop making Windows and Office. It's just around the corner now. Nintendo is going to stop making these games that sell millions so they can focus on other games that may or may not sell millions.
the activity involved isn't a real selling point for me. While I can't speak for anyone else on Slashdot, I suspect I'm not alone when I say I get enough physical activity on my own for said activity to be required when I want to sit down and game.
You're doing it wrong. You do not, I repeat loudly, DO NOT have to move and flail and point and swing like you see in the commercials, nor do you have to move like you're really swinging a tennis racket, etc. You do have to point at certain things, but if you are sufficently far from the sensor bar (that is, 3 feet is suffient, 2 is cutting it close) I can point anywhere on screen with less movement involved than moving a mouse. I've played Tennis while sitting down and never even moving my arm as Tennis uses the acceleration of the wii-mote. You can accelerate it with slight wrist movements just as well as entire arm movements (sometimes better). I've done the same with the boxing and elebits, etc.
In other words, if you feel tired in anyway shape or form after playing the Wii, then you over-exerted yourself or you weren't getting enough activity anyway. To be more specific, overexert means you chose to swing around like a wild animal when it wasn't necessary at all (which can be fun, too) and by not getting enough activity I mean moving a mouse and typing on a keyboard makes you winded.
Exactly. They have to see a crime before they can do anything, thus, the bomb has to go off before they can do anything. So, tell us again how this prevents tragic loss of life?
Not that I like either console (I'm a PC gamer with an eye on the Wii), but some of your counterpoints don't really compare.
The Xbox division has lost billions. Not just the 360. Both consoles lost/are losing money. The Playstation brand on the other hand is making lots of money on the PS2 right now. Remember, the PS2 is still outselling the 360.
You can't really compare overpriced by design and defective by design. Granted the defective thing might be a little exaggerated, but just because both are design issues, doesn't mean they'll cause the same problems, or even the same type of problems, or even problems at all.
Bluray is also doing slightly better than HD-DVD so that argument is out. But even then, most Bluray players sold are the PS3, which is a game console, which probably has a higher rate of non-bluray player usage than a stand-alone bluray player. So it skews the disks per player sold.
Lastly, don't discount tech demos. That's what Wii Sports is. It's bundled in the US, but it is sold separately in Japan, and it's still selling fast. Some times what looks like a tech demo is what people want.
Nintendo wasn't involved in that case. They used a different technology. So Immersion's patent is right now bolstered by one console manufacturer, and one might be supported through third parties in the future.
You are absolutely correct. All those companies making games for the Wii, DS, PSP, PS3, PS2, Mac and Linux are using DirectX. I mean, no game developer in their right mind would ever bother to learn OpenGL.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree very much. There is some kind of critical mass an online game has to reach in order for it to really work well online. Once it reaches that, others will pick it up just because that is the game that everyone else is playing. And that is why I made the sheep comment. I'm not trying to say people go to it because they're dumb and will go wherever marketing tells them to. I was merely saying that people are smart, they want a good online experience, and since massive numbers can help boost that, then Halo fit the bill. Large numbers can help to make the online experience better, large numbers of people play Halo, and so people who are looking for a good online experience flock to it. I don't think it's because Halo is very good at what it does, or because it is revolutionary, or because it is polished. It has just reached some critical mass. How it did that I have no idea, but it did and that drives sales even further, so its sort of self perpetuating. I'm sure Starcraft, WoW, and Counter-Strike all have the same phenomenon going for them. One can argue whether any of those games are the best, or any good at all, but it is certain that they are all helped, just as Halo is, simply by having large numbers of people playing, or even the assumption that large numbers of people will be playing. That is why I think Halo feeds off of hype. It's important for all games to generate hype so that they can try to reach that critical mass. I just wish the games that reached the critical mass were always the best, most polished games. But then you get into arguments about what best is and what most polished even means. My argument is that Halo isn't one of those games, but it is somewhat irrelevant since so many people are playing it.
You don't have to be revolutionary to be popular. Just well polished. You gave the example of Blizzard and that is an excellent example. Another is the iPod. Attention to detail sets you apart. However, it's debatable how polished Halo is/was. I honestly didn't think it was much more than evolutionary even in terms of polish. It was just a game. I'm not saying it was bad (the PC version not counted), just that it wasn't as great as it was made out to be.
The reality of it is people like to be a part of a group/community. I'm not calling people sheep. Halo was just something for a lot of people who had never played FPSs before to rally behind and talk as a community. How it got there originally I'm not sure, but it hit some critical mass where if you wanted to sound informed you had to play it. A lot of people I've met felt like they had to play it in order to make themselves appear like they were legitimate hard core gamers, thus like they were really part of this growing community of gamers. I'll admit that I've done that. I love the Half-Life series. For a little while I felt like I had to play Counter-Strike to really feel like I was a true Half-Life fan.
Again, I'm not calling fans of Halo all a bunch of sheep. I'm not calling the game lousy. I am saying that a lot of people enjoy it simply to feel like they are a part of the community. I am saying that the game is not as good as it is made out to be.
Sony in a world of hurt? Either you are woefully ignorant of the facts, or you are a fanboy of the purest kind. I'm no Sony lover, but look at the facts. The PS3 has sold as many units as the Xbox 360 at the same time in its lifetime. They are selling at the same rate. Even now the PS2 (a seven year old console) is selling more than the Xbox 360 is each week. The costs to make a PS2 are small now. That is pretty much pure profit for Sony. That means each week, the PS2 probably makes more in profit than the 360 makes in revenue. Sony isn't hurting for money, and the PS3 isn't hurting either. Take a look at VGChartz.com and inform yourself.
It also says that the PS3 is selling well.
In fact, at the rates they are going, the only reason MS has more units sold than the PS3 is because it came out a year before. I'll grant that those charts show a bump for Sony due to its price cut, but the Xbox 360's price cut hasn't had a chance to materialize yet. At this point, however, we can look at the previous generation and see that the Xbox 360 AND the PS3 are headed for the same fate as the Xbox and Gamecube fate of last generation. The growth of the Wii will eventually take most of the developers and thus the games. The Wii is the fastest selling video game device of all time (faster then the PS2, Gameboy, DS, PSP, etc.) which no developer/publisher expected. They were all caught looking the other way, and are slowly realizing they can get a bigger market share for lower development costs.
I'm not a zealot by any stretch of the imagination, but copying music isn't stealing. How hard is it for people to add a new phrase to their vocabulary. It's called copyright infringement. It's illegal. It's against the law. It has been put on the law books as something that should not be done. It is NOT stealing. Perhaps those zealots are hypocritical when getting angry at copyright infringement when it is their copyright, perhaps there are more than one group of people on slashdot. But in either case, people who say such a thing are correct and you are wrong. Get over it.
I don't copy music, nor do I download games, and I don't own any unpurchased-by-me movies either. I don't participate in copyright infringement, I don't condone it. I recognize that it is illegal and unlawful. But I also recognize that it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement.
Do you realize that murder and manslaughter and aggravated assault are different?
Do you realize that robbery and theft are different?
Do you realize that trespassing, breaking and entering and burglary are different?
If not, then I can understand that you don't know the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. But if you do understand the difference in all of those above, then why do you have such a hard time understanding that there is a difference between copyright infringement and stealing?
I will say it one more time: Copyright infringement, while still an illegal and unlawful act (in jurisdictions where the copyright is held), is NOT stealing. They aren't the same crime. Both are crimes, but they are not the same crime.
I hope that clears it up for you.
No one can stop you from making any game and selling it online. You could make the most raunchiest, violent and out of taste game you want (provided it is legal, i.e., no child porn) and sell it online. Don't expect Walmart (or any games retailer for that matter) to sell it, don't expect it to be on any console, and don't expect to make very much in the way of sales. But you can do it and no one would stop you. This happens all the time with movies. There are loads of movies that are unrated. Some of them simply because they didn't go through the process of being rated, while others because they knew they would get a terrible rating anyway. You can find those movies in art houses, online, and/or in porn shops (depending on the movie). They are out there in droves. Same thing could be true of video games.
I think this thread is missing the part of the point. What does the industry gain by not having the ESRB? Nothing. So we axe the ESRB, go to the Supreme Court and win and congress can't regulate anything. What does that do for video games? Nothing. MS, Sony, and Nintendo still probably won't let games that would have gotten an AO on their systems. Retailers still won't be selling games that would have received an AO under the current system. However, then you would have MS, Sony, Nintendo, Walmart, EBGames, etc, etc, etc, all having their own reviewers rating the games deciding if they want to allow the game on their system or sell the game in their store. So without the ESRB it becomes much more arbitrary what is E, T, M, and AO.
However, there are lots of things that the ESRB does buy the video game industry, and very little of that has anything to do with government censorship. Parents can easily look at a game's ratings and determine whether to ignore that game or continue looking into it. It helps do a lot of weeding out. It helps parents to look at a rating and see "M - Excessive Violence and Gore" and then say "My Johnny can't handle violence" and then they can keep looking elsewhere. It doesn't matter if Johnny is 7 or 17. The parent knows their child and can make those decisions.
It also helps with the retailers and the system makers. If the ESRB (an independent third-party) rates a game one way, then MS, Sony, Nintendo, Walmart, EBGames, etc, can just take those ratings and base their policies regarding suitability off of that. That way there is only one ratings system. They also like it because it removes liability from them somewhat. Imagine what would happen if Walmart had to deal 100% with the liability of the ratings when the Hot Coffee stuff happened. People would be yelling at Walmart for releasing that game, and then Walmart would turn around and start rating games even more restrictively, possibly even telling Rockstar that they would no longer sell their games. A whole bunch of games would get censored into oblivion then. The console manufacturer's would do the same.
In other words, the ESRB isn't stopping government regulation, it's stopping hodge-podge regulation that would be even worse. It also helps parents make decisions about what kinds of stuff their kids watch. The ESRB is a good thing.
Now for the counter-arguments
Parents don't ever look at the ratings. Not true. A lot of parents don't, and they raise their voices and scream out of their own ignorance. But a lot of parents do. Part of the problem is that games are new. ESRB ratings aren't as common as MPAA ratings. Everyone in the US understands the basic differences between G, PG, PG-13 and R. Fewer know what NC-17 is. But my guess is that even fewer know what the difference between E, T, M, and AO are. More people knowing about the ratings helps. Another problem is that many people still think of video games as a kid thing, which means they think that all games are desgined for 12 year olds anyway. If we got past that stigma then people will realize that video games are just like movies in that regard. Some are for younger audiences, while some are intended for more mature audiences, and everything in between.
The ESRB is corrupt. Maybe so. Maybe they rate games according to how much you pay them or according to political pressure. My point is not to get into a debate about whether the current operations of the ESRB are perfect, only to point out the role they play and the importance of that role.
Which is very true. However, the USA consumes more entertainment than anywhere else, though I won't go so far as to say per capita, because I'm not sure. For example, take a look at VGChartz. Japan has purchased slightly more consoles as the rest of the world, but the USA has Japan beat by 5.5 million units. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows sold 11 million copies in the first 24 hours of a 93-country release, 8.3 million of which were in the USA alone. Looking at worldwide movie grosses you'll see that in nearly every case the USA accounts for nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of a movies box office success.
Because of all this you would expect the USA to have a higher adoption rate than anywhere else, and because of that, the HD format of choice will most likely be won in the USA. So pointing to what US adoption rates of a form of entertainment is a valid argument even if it doesn't represent the rest of the world.
So then your beef is with the retailers, not the ESRB or the MPAA or whatever. If Walmart decides not to sell AO games, that's their decision. The ESRB rates games according to how the games ought to be rated (if it doesn't that is another issue). So if you don't like the rating, then complain to the game developer. If you don't like that $RETAIL_OUTLET doesn't sell the game, then complain to $RETAIL_OUTLET. But this has nothing to do with the ESRB. If they just made it M so that the game could sell, then they would undermine themselves and the gov't would come in and say that they need to be in charge of rating games now.
Can you explain your sig?
I gave specific examples, but had I used more general terms, such as board games, card games, etc., it doesn't change the points I made.
The real problem with "games as art" is that we even have this argument.
First off, the term art is not well defined. It basically boils down to "Art is what I consider art" or "Art is what the majority consider art" or "Art is what the critics consider art." If we had a precise definition of art then it would be easy to decide. But if that were possible, it would have happened a long time ago.
Second, I don't see why people even want video games to be considered art. You don't hear people complaining that other types of games are art. Where are all the Monopoly players getting upset that no one considers it an art. Where are the Scrabble players, the Candy Land players or even the Chess or Checkers players at? Probably playing their games and enjoying them for what they are: games. It's not like having a video game fall into the category of art makes that game more enjoyable.
I'm going to explore the three definitions of art given above.
1) "Art is what I call art" -- If so, then call it art and we have no need for this discussion.
2) "Art is what the majority call art" -- I realize there are lots of different people on the slashdot with lots of differing opinions, but if we use this definition it sure seems bizarre that we have one article where a lot of people spell doom for Nintendo for ignoring the "hardcore" and going after the mainstream and then we have this one where people are declaring that games should be considered art by the majority.
3) "Art is what the critics consider art" -- taking this definition, then it's only a matter of finding a critic who can be respected and who calls games art. I think we have Molyneaux, Meier, Miyamoto, and many others who can be game critics and call games art.
Wrong. That's what this whole article is about, and what it fails to realize. Nintendo isn't trying to move the market, it's trying to expand the market. Before the Wii came out a lot of developers/publishers thought it wouldn't sell. Now that it's been out for 7 months and has nearly passed the 360 in sales developers are realizing that people are buying it and they would be foolish not to develop for it. In that rush to get something out, we're going to initially see a lot of ports and simple quick games. Over time however, there will be some companies that will produce games that take longer to develop. There will be more of the games that have been around for years, but there will also be fun, easy to learn, quick to play games.
Nintendo isn't trying to avoid the "hardcore*." Quite the opposite, they want to appeal to them AND the casual. The long games will come out, but it takes time. Gears of War was started long before the X360 was released, but few developers really thought the Wii would sell like it has, so there is nothing equivalent** to Gears yet.
*I'm defining "hardcore" here to include nearly every definition I can think of. Some of those definitions include:
- people who love games and play them all the time
- people who want only the most shiniest of graphics
- people who want only mature content
- people who want games that are 100 hours long
- people who want artsy stories
**By equivalent I mean development time.Why is it that you can't have a mega budget game on the Wii? I fail to see how no mega budget on PS360 means no mega budget games at all. Developers are just getting into the Wii. They are still exploring the possibilities of the Wii-mote. Give them time and some really cool games that cannot be done without it will come around OR we will all find out that the Wii-mote offers nothing and it will be a one generation thing to not be worried about. I'm looking forward to what it offers as I think it really can offer something that can't be offered any way else. The next generation will have all three major consoles having something to do with motion sensing. It's just the way things are going.
No no no. You don't get it. Because Nintendo is branching out that means they are dropping their bread and butter. Look, the writing is on the wall. It's just like Microsoft. When MS made the XBox it was obvious they were going to stop making Windows and Office. It's just around the corner now. Nintendo is going to stop making these games that sell millions so they can focus on other games that may or may not sell millions.
Sony is not dead or dying or even fatally wounded. The PS3 is not selling as bad as some make it out to be. Take a look at some charts.
The PS3 is selling about the same as the X360 if you align the launch dates.
The PS2 (how many years old is that now? Seven?) is selling the same as the X360 each week. In other words, if you think thtat MS is about to knock Sony out of the market, you must be speaking from the far future or coming from a different dimension or something. The PS3 is not a disaster. It's not the success Sony wanted it to be, but if you think the X360 is doing great, then the PS3 is right behind it.
Exactly. They have to see a crime before they can do anything, thus, the bomb has to go off before they can do anything. So, tell us again how this prevents tragic loss of life?
Not that I like either console (I'm a PC gamer with an eye on the Wii), but some of your counterpoints don't really compare.
The Xbox division has lost billions. Not just the 360. Both consoles lost/are losing money. The Playstation brand on the other hand is making lots of money on the PS2 right now. Remember, the PS2 is still outselling the 360.
You can't really compare overpriced by design and defective by design. Granted the defective thing might be a little exaggerated, but just because both are design issues, doesn't mean they'll cause the same problems, or even the same type of problems, or even problems at all.
As to sales, worldwide the PS3 is doing about as well as the 360. if you align the launch dates.
Bluray is also doing slightly better than HD-DVD so that argument is out. But even then, most Bluray players sold are the PS3, which is a game console, which probably has a higher rate of non-bluray player usage than a stand-alone bluray player. So it skews the disks per player sold.
Lastly, don't discount tech demos. That's what Wii Sports is. It's bundled in the US, but it is sold separately in Japan, and it's still selling fast. Some times what looks like a tech demo is what people want.
Nintendo wasn't involved in that case. They used a different technology. So Immersion's patent is right now bolstered by one console manufacturer, and one might be supported through third parties in the future.
You are absolutely correct. All those companies making games for the Wii, DS, PSP, PS3, PS2, Mac and Linux are using DirectX. I mean, no game developer in their right mind would ever bother to learn OpenGL.