"but homos are icky," therefor, Christians are willing to take any passages they choose in order to backup their biggotry.
I love how piecemeal religion is. Piecemeal is a good thing, too, but only if you aknowledge the fact that you're doing it. Many are taking passages willy-nilly that fit their ideology, and then SAY that their's is the only way, and they're actually following the full word of God.
Christianity (and Islam, and Jewdaism, sortof) is special, it piles on one other restriction for got... he is infinitely good and infinitely wise. How that figures into, "God created the sunami and killed hundreds"... I don't know. The inevitable paradox of evil.
Exactly. Remember that one way of making a product completely irresistable, especially to teenagers, is to dangle it in front of them and say, "you're not allowed to have this."
let's see, you're acting as an authority figure, speaking to a demographic that is, by nature (biologically), anti-authoritarian, and then you're telling them that they must wait until their older, and putting them down in the process. Does this make no-sense to anyone else but me?
I'm all for a rating system, FOR PARENTS. But leave the legality out of it, it just doesn't work. Almost all Teens want to be considered adults... so they'll likely go after any movie/game considered "Adult" (M, R, NC-17, AO) just to prove it to you! While we're at it, let's just drop all pretense of rating being connected to "age".
"L-M / V-L / S-M" seems like a perfectly reasonable rating to me. Considering that many parties preach "pre-screening" of all movies (which I think is insane and unhealthy for family trust and bonding), spending all of 10 seconds to read a label and consider its implications isn't much to ask.
We're pidgeonholing too much, and then making too much ride on the outcome. Ratings should be like food labels, manditory for people to be able to educate themselves on what they and their family's intake is, but free to make their own decisions.
Actually, yes, PW is mostly played by Adults... there's lots of nostologia factor in games like that.
But M is probably most widely played by 13-18 year olds. It's not so much that older gamers aren't playing them, but that many 13-18 year olds are playing NOTHING BUT M-rated games. Most teenagers won't even touch a T-rated game, because they're so damn eager to be considered an adult, and let's face it, M rated games tend to be more testosterone pumpers, and that's going to appeal to addolencents... there are biological reasons why M-rated games appeal so much to teenagers.
Myself, I'm 26, and I play some M rated games, but I also play a lot of T games, some E games, and everything. Earlier this year, I played 2 Pheonix Wright games, I also played (and loved) Bioshock, and Gears of War, Okami, and Resident Evil 4 (Wii). Currently, I'm juggling both Mario Galaxy and Mass Effect. Most of the younger people I know won't touch Mario or Pheonix Wright because they're "kiddy". Adults, however, have nothing to fear from peers labelling them as "kids".
Boxing's got HUGE problems, especially these days. Back in the day, around the time of Muhammad Ali, Boxing was still looked at for some semblence of honor, and the strategy and sportsmanship were still valued. Many of the very best boxers, even today, are more strategy oriented than meadhead power mongers. But most of the boxing today is pretty much followed because lots of guys (and yes, I'm a guy myself) get off on watching violence... which I think is a big societal problem.
Ever watch old Warner Bros cartoons? Those things would be rated NC-17 for blood had they been real. Yeah, society has always been very lopsided when it comes to cutesy animated violence. And they may have a point, too, presenting violence in a cutesy animated way puts it farther in the realm of fantasy, and less likedly to be idolized in a realistic way. In the WB cartoon universe, dropping a 100 ton anvil on someone is about as harmful as giving someone a wedgy, and we've been okay with TV wedgies for years now.
How many games does the Wii have now, anyway? I can count 5 M-Rated games off the top of my head: Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicals, Manhunt 2, Godfather: Blackhand Edition, and Medal of Honor 4. Wasn't Metroid Prime 3 also rated M, or was that T? There must be a few more. But I was under the impression that Wii games were at around the 100 mark, so how could a system with 5 M-Rated games, and around 100 games have only 3.2% M-Rated titles?
Two of those 5 were released within the last 2 weeks, so my guess is that the ratio is now pretty close to GameCube.
But it DOES mean something, in the context of the game. If you're the kind of person that likes to always kill the little girl, or be the hero to rule with an iron fist, what does that say about you're gameplay style? It could say one of a number of different things:
1) That you really are a horrible person who's just doing what comes naturally 2) That you are subconciously intrigued with blood-thirsty power 3) That you're playing the game through a second time, and want to see what happens if you're a horrible person.
*PS: Note that I purposefully didn't say, "because you're just blowing off steam and enjoy roleplaying a horrible person," that falls under #2. There's nothing trivial about what choices a person decides to make while blowing off steam.
I disagree. Just like with books, movies, and other narratives, I have an emotional connection to the world I'm in. Therefor, I have an incredibly hard time making decisions, in games, that I wouldn't do in real life. When I played Bioshock, I couldn't bring myself to kill the little sisters, because it just felt wrong to me. In Mass Effect, I tend toward the Paragon or the middle of the road answers. Even if I wanted to play an asshole, I'd feel incredibly bad about doing that, because it would feel unrealistic to who I am. I guess, I don't like assholes, and I don't like heros to be assholes, and what we play, in games, are heros... all NPCs tend to admire them, or fear them (if the NPCs are evil), I don't want anyone admiring a complete prick, partially because I hate to see that happen in real life.
So yes, I completely disagree that we're focusing on our performance. It's like saying that people don't pay attention to the plot of a story because they're more concerned in how many pages they're reading, per minute.
If you failed to hand in an assignment in school, what grade did you get?
If I were taking a sales examination at work, and failed to show up, do you really think my boss would say, "well... you didn't show up, but at least you didn't get any answer's wrong."
Welcome to the real world... failing to give answers is the same as getting them wrong. The fact that you weren't stupid enough to ACTUALLY get them all wrong isn't much consolation to anyone.
Quicksaves should be standard on all games that don't have "save anywhere", I agree. However, there's definite gameplay reasons why some games don't have "Save Anywhere". It has NOTHING to do with memory problems (maybe at one point, pre-Playstation, it did), but allowing the user to save anywhere, at a whim, radically alters gameplay mechanics in ways that the creators don't want. Save points offer some kind of benchmark to strive towards, in many games, they prevent against "inchworming" techniques that can inadvertantly make games feel tedious and less exciting (even though we feel compelled to use them anyway).
But having the ability to save anywhere so that you can shut down the system... that should be standard on everything, but there are many good reasons for not having "Save Anywhere" type systems. I find myself missing the good old save point in games like Mass Effect and Bioshock. Although I wanted to kick in my TV when Blue Dragon didn't offer any kind of quicksave. So, yeah, the GBA-style "Quicksave", along with a traditional "Save Point" system, feels like the best for me, for most games, anyway.
There's nothing linear or non-linear about levels, it's about organization. In fact, clear dilliniation is even MORE important to non-linear situations, where everything can start to feel all jumbled together. That's why Mario 64 works so well, and is almost completely non-linear.
If you're so eager to experience war the way the troops do, then go join the army. Games are entertainment, they're representations. At some level, they're stylized because the real experience really isn't worth $60 at Gamestop. Many troops had their hardest battles right off the bat... and died. And never got to experience the "glory" of the survivable battles. This is nonsense. Games are a form of narrative entertainment, and like all forms of narrative, they have a rising action and a conclusion, in games, that means a rise in difficulty. If it started hard and got easy, or jumped around, or stayed the same, it would seem incredibly repeatitive and pointless after a while.
I fear that you're search for "realism" will lead to increasingly boring and unrewarding experiences.
No matter what you do, you have to have some kind of organizational system to a game. Be it "levels" or "zones" or "areas". All of the "non-level" games you mentioned simply use litterary and organizational devices that superficially hide the level structure. Metroid, for instance, has enclosed locals, which usually are accessed via elevators or (herectical) drop points. Shadow of the Colossus has different Colossi which are defeated in order. These are levels, they provide the same super-structure, they are just better hidden. But some games thrive off of much more obvious hierarchical organization. The Mario series, for instance, has always done wonderfully with levels, and (in the 3D era), missions within these levels.
You are basically complaining about superficial differences in game progression. Traditional, levels-based gameplay can be made to be completed in a non-linear fashion, with minimal loading time, and freedom of movement (see Super Mario Galaxy for a recent, and rediculously good example). Where-as less defined organization (like some of the games you mentioned) can be very strictly linear, and have terrible load times. This is more a result of the programming and overall design, not whether a game has levels or not.
There are great usages of level-based design, and terrible ones. It's about as helpful as saying, "why, after all these years, are there still FPSs?" as if one genre of game is inherently inferior.
Many hardcore gamers are casual gamers. They play for a quick, intense action, usually featuring lots of bloody stumps. They buy Halo, Gears of War, Dead Rising, and Fear in droves.
Many hardcore gamers are connosiours, who pay attention to the industry as a whole, and look at games from an artistic standpoint.
Many hardcore gamers are competetive gamers, they play for self-satisfaction in increasing their skill, playing for hours and hours on the hardest settings, online, against other power gamers.
The point is, there is no single group defined as "hardcore gamers". The term is thrown around in many different circles as some sort of badge of legitimacy, but in actuality, it's a throwaway term.
Well, "innovative" doesn't always equal "good". You need innovation, and you need pollish, and you very rarely find the two together in the same game. I often prefer the pollished games better. Zelda: TP is a pollished game... and it's the best game in the series, IMO. Is it innovative? Not at all, but the joy in playing it comes from how incredibly well it's presented. Same with Mario Galaxy, although MG is quite innovative. Many times, series games are more innovative than standalone games, even if they feature some of the same characters/gameplay, because they can use those superficial elements as an anchor, while being incredibly creative on other fronts.
Regardless, though... one of my most anticipated games of 2008 is the Wii port of Okami. Partly, I just want to get my hands on a Widescreen, Wiimote version of the game (which lends itself so well to that control), but additionally, I'd just like to see more broad exposure to a game that was so graphically innovative, while being so pollished in other areas.
Well, that's WHY Wii Sports is the most popular game... everyone has it. If they had sold it for $50, it would be be very low on the totum pole.
Also, I guess it just depends upon what your tastes are. I bought a 360 a few months back, and I absolutely love it. But if anything, it's just reenforced my respect for the Wii. Out of the 360 games that I've bought (Bioshock, Kameo, Gears of War, and Blue Dragon), only Bioshock and Blue Dragon have held my attention. I've TRIED to get into Gears of War, but it's just not my thing, and Kameo just plain got old from boring design (too much brawler, not enough platform/puzzle elements). My trackrecord on the Wii is about the same, a good 50/50 success rate with game purchases.
However, Zelda: Twilight Princess became my favorite game of all time, and Mario Galaxy is shaping up to be absolutely wonderful (I was really skeptical at first, but I find myself absolutely loving it). With things like the next Final Fantasy: CC, a port of Okami, Smash, a new Tales game, MarioKart, and a number of other things, the Wii really looks like it has a great year ahead of it.
25 hours is A LOT. And yes, most parents would be extremely bothered by 25 hours a week of TV. I actually think that parents are probably a little more linient on games than TV. Games at least have some kind of interactive involvement, where hour after hour of TV watching is thought of as some sort of "zombieism". But I still come back to the fact that 25 hours a week is A LOT of hours to be doing anything TV/Game related. I'd deffinitely try to get my kid to do other things.
Well, GHIII just came out a few weeks back, and it's not even all that huge, so I don't know how Rock Band is going to do, and I heard lots more about GH3 than this "Rock Band" you're talking about. And UT3 has been met with mixed reviews.
And finally, I don't care about FPSs or band games. I've got my own band, don't need games to do that for me.
Actually, it was never scheduled to be released next week... it was originally slated for Dec. 2nd, but got pushed back to February. So no, not the biggest game of the year. It will most definitely be the biggest game of next year, and possibly the next 5.
with just one title too (there may be more, but really, who cares):
Mass Effect.
Not to understate the release of Mario Galaxy, for that is a title almost a decade in the waiting. But for some reason, when it comes down to it, I'm probably even more excited about Mass Effect... even though I traditionally don't like American RPGs. If a jRPG/Wii freak like me can be converted to the dark side by this... I can only guess how huge this game is going to be.
Wii = $249 XBox 360 Core = $279 Wii + 1 game = $298 XBox 360 Core + 1 game = $338 XBox 360 = $349 PS3 40Gig = $399 XBox 360 + 1 game = $418 PS3 40GIG + 1 game = $458 XBox 360 Elite (with 2 games bundled) = $499 PS3 80Gig (with 1 game bundled) = $499
I'm sorry, but no matter how you try to cut that up, the price of entry to play GoW3 is a lot more with the PS3 than on anything else. Let me just show you the price of entry for every system:
Wii = $298 360 = $338 PS3 = $458
There's a $40 gap between price of entry between Wii and 360, and then there's a whopping $120 gap between 360 and PS3. Sure, at the high end, they converge, with one less game on the PS3. But at sheer price of entry, there's no comparison. Hell, there's no comparison, period. The PS3 is still a lot more expensive. You can buy a 360 with a game for $61 less than you can buy the PS3 alone. When the 360 starts looking like it's closer to the Wii price point than the PS3, you've got a problem.
And let's face it, the PS3 starts, uncrippled, with the 80Gig version, at $499. The normal 360 is uncrippled at $150 less. So if we're comparing uncrippled systems, price of entry is:
Wii = $298 360 = $418 PS3 = $499
Here we have a $120 difference between Wii adn 360, and a $81 difference between 360 and PS3. Still the PS3 comes out way more expensive.
Needless to say, I think I'm entitled to say that the PS3 is a lot more exensive a console for fans of a particular game to ask for.
Why should GOW fans be happy that it's being released on the PS3? Shouldn't that be "PS3 fans" should be happy that it's on the PS3? Because nowhere near all of the GOW fans are ever going to purchase PS3s to play GOW3 on.
Why be happy about a game being released, exclusively for the most expensive console with the lowest market share?
Slashdot Mirror
Nonplussed means "Not Upset" or "Not shaken" by an event. It's French, obviously.
"but homos are icky," therefor, Christians are willing to take any passages they choose in order to backup their biggotry.
I love how piecemeal religion is. Piecemeal is a good thing, too, but only if you aknowledge the fact that you're doing it. Many are taking passages willy-nilly that fit their ideology, and then SAY that their's is the only way, and they're actually following the full word of God.
The World Is Hypocrites, and so can you.
Christianity (and Islam, and Jewdaism, sortof) is special, it piles on one other restriction for got... he is infinitely good and infinitely wise. How that figures into, "God created the sunami and killed hundreds"... I don't know. The inevitable paradox of evil.
1. not sure 2. no 3. yes 4. on a good day
Exactly. Remember that one way of making a product completely irresistable, especially to teenagers, is to dangle it in front of them and say, "you're not allowed to have this."
let's see, you're acting as an authority figure, speaking to a demographic that is, by nature (biologically), anti-authoritarian, and then you're telling them that they must wait until their older, and putting them down in the process. Does this make no-sense to anyone else but me?
I'm all for a rating system, FOR PARENTS. But leave the legality out of it, it just doesn't work. Almost all Teens want to be considered adults... so they'll likely go after any movie/game considered "Adult" (M, R, NC-17, AO) just to prove it to you! While we're at it, let's just drop all pretense of rating being connected to "age".
How about this:
Language: Low/Mid/High
Violence: Low/Mid/High
Sex: Low/Mid/High
"L-M / V-L / S-M" seems like a perfectly reasonable rating to me. Considering that many parties preach "pre-screening" of all movies (which I think is insane and unhealthy for family trust and bonding), spending all of 10 seconds to read a label and consider its implications isn't much to ask.
We're pidgeonholing too much, and then making too much ride on the outcome. Ratings should be like food labels, manditory for people to be able to educate themselves on what they and their family's intake is, but free to make their own decisions.
Actually, yes, PW is mostly played by Adults... there's lots of nostologia factor in games like that.
But M is probably most widely played by 13-18 year olds. It's not so much that older gamers aren't playing them, but that many 13-18 year olds are playing NOTHING BUT M-rated games. Most teenagers won't even touch a T-rated game, because they're so damn eager to be considered an adult, and let's face it, M rated games tend to be more testosterone pumpers, and that's going to appeal to addolencents... there are biological reasons why M-rated games appeal so much to teenagers.
Myself, I'm 26, and I play some M rated games, but I also play a lot of T games, some E games, and everything. Earlier this year, I played 2 Pheonix Wright games, I also played (and loved) Bioshock, and Gears of War, Okami, and Resident Evil 4 (Wii). Currently, I'm juggling both Mario Galaxy and Mass Effect. Most of the younger people I know won't touch Mario or Pheonix Wright because they're "kiddy". Adults, however, have nothing to fear from peers labelling them as "kids".
Boxing's got HUGE problems, especially these days. Back in the day, around the time of Muhammad Ali, Boxing was still looked at for some semblence of honor, and the strategy and sportsmanship were still valued. Many of the very best boxers, even today, are more strategy oriented than meadhead power mongers. But most of the boxing today is pretty much followed because lots of guys (and yes, I'm a guy myself) get off on watching violence... which I think is a big societal problem.
Ever watch old Warner Bros cartoons? Those things would be rated NC-17 for blood had they been real. Yeah, society has always been very lopsided when it comes to cutesy animated violence. And they may have a point, too, presenting violence in a cutesy animated way puts it farther in the realm of fantasy, and less likedly to be idolized in a realistic way. In the WB cartoon universe, dropping a 100 ton anvil on someone is about as harmful as giving someone a wedgy, and we've been okay with TV wedgies for years now.
How many games does the Wii have now, anyway? I can count 5 M-Rated games off the top of my head: Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicals, Manhunt 2, Godfather: Blackhand Edition, and Medal of Honor 4. Wasn't Metroid Prime 3 also rated M, or was that T? There must be a few more. But I was under the impression that Wii games were at around the 100 mark, so how could a system with 5 M-Rated games, and around 100 games have only 3.2% M-Rated titles?
Two of those 5 were released within the last 2 weeks, so my guess is that the ratio is now pretty close to GameCube.
But it DOES mean something, in the context of the game. If you're the kind of person that likes to always kill the little girl, or be the hero to rule with an iron fist, what does that say about you're gameplay style? It could say one of a number of different things:
1) That you really are a horrible person who's just doing what comes naturally
2) That you are subconciously intrigued with blood-thirsty power
3) That you're playing the game through a second time, and want to see what happens if you're a horrible person.
*PS: Note that I purposefully didn't say, "because you're just blowing off steam and enjoy roleplaying a horrible person," that falls under #2. There's nothing trivial about what choices a person decides to make while blowing off steam.
I disagree. Just like with books, movies, and other narratives, I have an emotional connection to the world I'm in. Therefor, I have an incredibly hard time making decisions, in games, that I wouldn't do in real life. When I played Bioshock, I couldn't bring myself to kill the little sisters, because it just felt wrong to me. In Mass Effect, I tend toward the Paragon or the middle of the road answers. Even if I wanted to play an asshole, I'd feel incredibly bad about doing that, because it would feel unrealistic to who I am. I guess, I don't like assholes, and I don't like heros to be assholes, and what we play, in games, are heros... all NPCs tend to admire them, or fear them (if the NPCs are evil), I don't want anyone admiring a complete prick, partially because I hate to see that happen in real life.
So yes, I completely disagree that we're focusing on our performance. It's like saying that people don't pay attention to the plot of a story because they're more concerned in how many pages they're reading, per minute.
If you failed to hand in an assignment in school, what grade did you get?
If I were taking a sales examination at work, and failed to show up, do you really think my boss would say, "well... you didn't show up, but at least you didn't get any answer's wrong."
Welcome to the real world... failing to give answers is the same as getting them wrong. The fact that you weren't stupid enough to ACTUALLY get them all wrong isn't much consolation to anyone.
Quicksaves should be standard on all games that don't have "save anywhere", I agree. However, there's definite gameplay reasons why some games don't have "Save Anywhere". It has NOTHING to do with memory problems (maybe at one point, pre-Playstation, it did), but allowing the user to save anywhere, at a whim, radically alters gameplay mechanics in ways that the creators don't want. Save points offer some kind of benchmark to strive towards, in many games, they prevent against "inchworming" techniques that can inadvertantly make games feel tedious and less exciting (even though we feel compelled to use them anyway).
But having the ability to save anywhere so that you can shut down the system... that should be standard on everything, but there are many good reasons for not having "Save Anywhere" type systems. I find myself missing the good old save point in games like Mass Effect and Bioshock. Although I wanted to kick in my TV when Blue Dragon didn't offer any kind of quicksave. So, yeah, the GBA-style "Quicksave", along with a traditional "Save Point" system, feels like the best for me, for most games, anyway.
There's nothing linear or non-linear about levels, it's about organization. In fact, clear dilliniation is even MORE important to non-linear situations, where everything can start to feel all jumbled together. That's why Mario 64 works so well, and is almost completely non-linear.
If you're so eager to experience war the way the troops do, then go join the army. Games are entertainment, they're representations. At some level, they're stylized because the real experience really isn't worth $60 at Gamestop. Many troops had their hardest battles right off the bat... and died. And never got to experience the "glory" of the survivable battles. This is nonsense. Games are a form of narrative entertainment, and like all forms of narrative, they have a rising action and a conclusion, in games, that means a rise in difficulty. If it started hard and got easy, or jumped around, or stayed the same, it would seem incredibly repeatitive and pointless after a while.
I fear that you're search for "realism" will lead to increasingly boring and unrewarding experiences.
No matter what you do, you have to have some kind of organizational system to a game. Be it "levels" or "zones" or "areas". All of the "non-level" games you mentioned simply use litterary and organizational devices that superficially hide the level structure. Metroid, for instance, has enclosed locals, which usually are accessed via elevators or (herectical) drop points. Shadow of the Colossus has different Colossi which are defeated in order. These are levels, they provide the same super-structure, they are just better hidden. But some games thrive off of much more obvious hierarchical organization. The Mario series, for instance, has always done wonderfully with levels, and (in the 3D era), missions within these levels.
You are basically complaining about superficial differences in game progression. Traditional, levels-based gameplay can be made to be completed in a non-linear fashion, with minimal loading time, and freedom of movement (see Super Mario Galaxy for a recent, and rediculously good example). Where-as less defined organization (like some of the games you mentioned) can be very strictly linear, and have terrible load times. This is more a result of the programming and overall design, not whether a game has levels or not.
There are great usages of level-based design, and terrible ones. It's about as helpful as saying, "why, after all these years, are there still FPSs?" as if one genre of game is inherently inferior.
THERE IS NO SINGLE HARDCORE CULTURE!
Many hardcore gamers are casual gamers. They play for a quick, intense action, usually featuring lots of bloody stumps. They buy Halo, Gears of War, Dead Rising, and Fear in droves.
Many hardcore gamers are connosiours, who pay attention to the industry as a whole, and look at games from an artistic standpoint.
Many hardcore gamers are competetive gamers, they play for self-satisfaction in increasing their skill, playing for hours and hours on the hardest settings, online, against other power gamers.
The point is, there is no single group defined as "hardcore gamers". The term is thrown around in many different circles as some sort of badge of legitimacy, but in actuality, it's a throwaway term.
Well, "innovative" doesn't always equal "good". You need innovation, and you need pollish, and you very rarely find the two together in the same game. I often prefer the pollished games better. Zelda: TP is a pollished game... and it's the best game in the series, IMO. Is it innovative? Not at all, but the joy in playing it comes from how incredibly well it's presented. Same with Mario Galaxy, although MG is quite innovative. Many times, series games are more innovative than standalone games, even if they feature some of the same characters/gameplay, because they can use those superficial elements as an anchor, while being incredibly creative on other fronts.
Regardless, though... one of my most anticipated games of 2008 is the Wii port of Okami. Partly, I just want to get my hands on a Widescreen, Wiimote version of the game (which lends itself so well to that control), but additionally, I'd just like to see more broad exposure to a game that was so graphically innovative, while being so pollished in other areas.
Well, that's WHY Wii Sports is the most popular game... everyone has it. If they had sold it for $50, it would be be very low on the totum pole.
Also, I guess it just depends upon what your tastes are. I bought a 360 a few months back, and I absolutely love it. But if anything, it's just reenforced my respect for the Wii. Out of the 360 games that I've bought (Bioshock, Kameo, Gears of War, and Blue Dragon), only Bioshock and Blue Dragon have held my attention. I've TRIED to get into Gears of War, but it's just not my thing, and Kameo just plain got old from boring design (too much brawler, not enough platform/puzzle elements). My trackrecord on the Wii is about the same, a good 50/50 success rate with game purchases.
However, Zelda: Twilight Princess became my favorite game of all time, and Mario Galaxy is shaping up to be absolutely wonderful (I was really skeptical at first, but I find myself absolutely loving it). With things like the next Final Fantasy: CC, a port of Okami, Smash, a new Tales game, MarioKart, and a number of other things, the Wii really looks like it has a great year ahead of it.
Meanwhile, the 360 continues to impress.
25 hours is A LOT. And yes, most parents would be extremely bothered by 25 hours a week of TV. I actually think that parents are probably a little more linient on games than TV. Games at least have some kind of interactive involvement, where hour after hour of TV watching is thought of as some sort of "zombieism". But I still come back to the fact that 25 hours a week is A LOT of hours to be doing anything TV/Game related. I'd deffinitely try to get my kid to do other things.
Well, GHIII just came out a few weeks back, and it's not even all that huge, so I don't know how Rock Band is going to do, and I heard lots more about GH3 than this "Rock Band" you're talking about. And UT3 has been met with mixed reviews.
And finally, I don't care about FPSs or band games. I've got my own band, don't need games to do that for me.
Actually, it was never scheduled to be released next week... it was originally slated for Dec. 2nd, but got pushed back to February. So no, not the biggest game of the year. It will most definitely be the biggest game of next year, and possibly the next 5.
with just one title too (there may be more, but really, who cares):
Mass Effect.
Not to understate the release of Mario Galaxy, for that is a title almost a decade in the waiting. But for some reason, when it comes down to it, I'm probably even more excited about Mass Effect... even though I traditionally don't like American RPGs. If a jRPG/Wii freak like me can be converted to the dark side by this... I can only guess how huge this game is going to be.
Wii = $249
XBox 360 Core = $279
Wii + 1 game = $298
XBox 360 Core + 1 game = $338
XBox 360 = $349
PS3 40Gig = $399
XBox 360 + 1 game = $418
PS3 40GIG + 1 game = $458
XBox 360 Elite (with 2 games bundled) = $499
PS3 80Gig (with 1 game bundled) = $499
I'm sorry, but no matter how you try to cut that up, the price of entry to play GoW3 is a lot more with the PS3 than on anything else. Let me just show you the price of entry for every system:
Wii = $298
360 = $338
PS3 = $458
There's a $40 gap between price of entry between Wii and 360, and then there's a whopping $120 gap between 360 and PS3. Sure, at the high end, they converge, with one less game on the PS3. But at sheer price of entry, there's no comparison. Hell, there's no comparison, period. The PS3 is still a lot more expensive. You can buy a 360 with a game for $61 less than you can buy the PS3 alone. When the 360 starts looking like it's closer to the Wii price point than the PS3, you've got a problem.
And let's face it, the PS3 starts, uncrippled, with the 80Gig version, at $499. The normal 360 is uncrippled at $150 less. So if we're comparing uncrippled systems, price of entry is:
Wii = $298
360 = $418
PS3 = $499
Here we have a $120 difference between Wii adn 360, and a $81 difference between 360 and PS3. Still the PS3 comes out way more expensive.
Needless to say, I think I'm entitled to say that the PS3 is a lot more exensive a console for fans of a particular game to ask for.
Why should GOW fans be happy that it's being released on the PS3? Shouldn't that be "PS3 fans" should be happy that it's on the PS3? Because nowhere near all of the GOW fans are ever going to purchase PS3s to play GOW3 on.
Why be happy about a game being released, exclusively for the most expensive console with the lowest market share?