Good for them. Better them than Walmart, who will do the same, anyway. At least government leaders can be theoretically voted in and out.
Don't you get it? Society demands censorship. Blame your neighbor, not big government, not big corporations. Does that make it "right"? I don't really think this is really a question of right or wrong. But censorship is an innevitable part of any society, if you don't like the current trends of censorship, then fight it, by all means.
If you don't like civilization, fine, abandon it. The fact that you choose to be a part of civilization means that you've agreed to relinquish some level of power. That's not going to change until you throw off the bonds of civilization and become a one-man society. The only question is "which powers"? Some states value physical safety above all else, some value ecconomic fairness (in various deffinitions). That's what civiliation IS. The very fact that you are communicating over this vast network construct that our civilization has made, means that you have agreed to some degree of power relinquishment, so don't blame me for doing the same!
You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US). The fact is, one way or another, a society that condones the enforcing of values on other individuals (and show me a society that doesn't) will make it happen one way or another. Better the government does it than private business, because at least the government is more quickly swayed by current public ideology.
How is that so strange? People have controlled the flow of information for millenia. It's human nature. In fact, it's one of the sanist and most understandable things out there. You might not agree with it, but SOMEONE is going to control the flow of information, the only question is 'who'?
Hold on, how is this a Nanny-state situation? I love how the fact that a private rating organization whose decision affects the decision for private console manufacturing companies to release games, and the decision for private retailers to sell the game suddenly constitutes a "Nanny state". If you extend the "Nanny" to mean private corporations, than I will agree with you, but you do realize that there is absolutely no government involvement here.
What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?
I was being facetious, of course Samus's gun thing was crap, but so was the multiplayer things. C'mon, Smash's adventure mode is no more than a formaility, even if it is going to be drastically expanded. The fact remains that beyond the first two weeks, no one is going to play it for anything but multiplayer. In fact, an extended adventure mode could be a nuesence since it will likely be required to unlock key elements. I'm a big fan of single player games, but NO ONE buys Smash for the adventure mode.
Now, I'm sure the adventure mode will be enjoyable and all, but if you have another person in the room, you're going to want to battle, not co-op. Great for FPSs, but as the Sonic series demonstrated: terrible for platformers.
ie: Friday's news was completely worthless. And yes, Samus's piddly little gun thing is probably going to have a greater effect on our long-term enjoyment of the game.
a) This is old news b) This is probably one of the most minor Smash Bros updates to come out in over a month c) Today's update about Samus's stun gun was probably more interesting, even
Heck, I've been following Brawl on a daily basis, and even I'm going to tag this one "slownewsday". Zonk, I actually tend to agree with your choice of articles, but this time, I'm not defending you, there's GOT TO BE more important shit out there than this.
You must have not been around for the GameBoy Advanced and Nintendo DS... if there's ever any "pulling victory from their ass" award, it goes to those boys. And from what I'm seeing, the Wii seems to be the third system IN A ROW that did the same thing.
If you think about it, basically every system launched after the GameCube has been a complete success. And I still standby the statement that the GameCube only "failed" (and only in marketshare, not profit) because of the horrendous disaster that was the N64. Many systems sell according to their predicessors. The GameCube sold less units, but it gained a very strong following, which is one of the many reasons why the Wii is doing so well. The PS3 is an accepteption, because I don't think anyone has ever managed to shoot themselves in the foot more accurately than Sony.
So yes, Nintendo is one of the greatest in "ace-ass-pulling". And their hardware division is only part of it, their gaming division is even better at it.
Re:Read between the lines
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
I smell bullshit. I don't have a 360, I've never owned an XBox, and I've hardly ever played Halo, but even I know when something's huge. Was Bioshock one of the best recieved games on the decade? No question. Was it bought with a furvor, by many, that can only be described as religiously induced? Without a doubt. Will it have any chance in even coming close to Halo 3's sales or hype? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Remember, a title doesn't have to be good or well-loved to be popular. And I'm not saying that Halo 3 isn't. But I'll tell ya, if I had a 360, I'd probably buy Halo, and I don't even really care about the game. Marketing is JUST THAT POWERFUL (as an advertiser, I can attest to that). You're friends, as strange as it feels to say this, are in the vast minority there. It's not uncommon for small pockets of people to not follow the trend of the time, but don't let that fool you into thinking that that's the whole. The fact is, Halo 3 is going to make Bioshock look like an utter failior in comparison.
This comes from a person who's favorite game is Ico, and who's favorite TV show was Twin Peaks... two incredible works that are deemed money-making desasters in their respective genres.
Re:Read between the lines
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
Point taken... although I wouldn't put it past Brawl to outsell Halo 3. Nothing else on the Wii will, of course, but the Smash series practically tied the Halo series in its last outing, and the series has grown its following considerably since then. Don't count it out just quite yet.
Re:Read between the lines
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
H3 is obviously no small feat. But let's just wait until pre-orders open up for Smash Bros Brawl. Melee sold ALMOST as many units as Halo 2 on a system that had slightly less of a userbase. Let's face it, the Smash series has grown a HUGE following since Melee, and it's now on the dominant system of its generation. I think it'll probably be safe to say that Brawl will outsell Halo 3 by a quite a few units. Not by the end of the year, obviously, but in final sales.
Re:Read between the lines
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I don't doubt that Sony have a plan. But Microsoft and Nintendo also have plans, and currently, they're already way ahead.
Sony is already playing catchup against two companies that ALWAYS have tricks on their sleaves. Sony hasn't ever had to pull Aces out of their asses before now, where-as Nintendo, and to a lesser extent, Microsoft, are well versed in the ace-ass-pulling.
I agree completely. And stereoptics is actually pretty weak. The eye judges distance MOSTLY from other kinds of visual cues besides stereoptics. I think people will find that if they played a game with a stereoptic screen, it wouldn't actually be that much better, if really at all.
I honestly think that people complain about first-person platformers, NOT because of precision movement, but because they don't as closely resemble their 2D counterparts. If people are used to looking at, and identifying their characters in 2D, they often ask for the same in a 3D environment. Unfortunately, this is a lot harder and more subjective arguement to make, so most simply default on the "3rd person is more precise" arguement, which I believe to be completely untrue. Play Mario 64, then play Metroid Prime 1, and I dare you to tell me that Mario 64 is more precise. There's really no comparion, first person wins hands down on that one. We're more used to first-person anyway, since we control ourselves from a first-person standpoint. As you said, you don't need to look at your feet in real life when you walk, you've just learned to take into account the added distance your feet will be from the bottom of your vision. I find myself doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING in Prime 1, and my jumps are within inches of where I want them to be, and completely perfect in side/side dimensions. In Mario 64, I may be over a foot off in both X and Y dimensions. As I said, there's no comparion.
Now, Mario 64 would suck in first person. Not because of control, but because of concept. The cartoony presence of Mario is essential to the game's look and feel. A game without Mario without his hat and big nose on the screen would simply not feel like a Mario game, because his character essentially makes the series what it is. Basically, the Mario series is fucked either way in 3D, which is why its 3D games will NEVER reach the level of Mario 3 or Mario World.
Metroid is different, however. Samus's presence, while it became an expected tradition in the series, is not central to the game's look & feel. In fact, her presence is actually a distraction to the environment, which is really the core of what makes the series what it is. When in 2D, Samus's sprite could be relatively small on the screen, but 3D characters must, by nature, take up a lot more room on the screen. Having a big orange/yellow robot suit taking up half the height of the screen, at all times, would be a huge detriment in the player's immersion in the surrounding environment. Add to that the fact that shooting is much more natural in first person, not needing camera control, and more precision in jumping, and the choice to go first-person in the Metroid series becomes unbelievably clear.
Funny thing is, Samus was not really much of a character prior to Prime/Fusion. For all the complaints that "first person viewpoint takes away from character portrayal", there really wasn't much of any character development prior to the 3rd person games. Probably the best in the series, for that, was Zero Mission, but that was months later, and Prime 1 isn't that far off in it's character portrayal. Samus's character really isn't important to her series, I hate to say... her story is intriguing, but her personality is completely non-existant. So any complaints that first-person viewpoint takes away from character portrayal is kind of moot, anyway.
Well, to be honest, for an adventure game that's not a pure trigger-happy FPS, the control scheme for Prime 1 was close to perfect. Granted, in a mulitplayer combat situation, most FPS fans would find it extremely limiting, but for what's required of the Metroid series, the GC controls are practically superior to a keyboard/mouse control scheme.
Now, however I tend to feel about Corruption trying to become more like a traditional FPS (which bothers me), I'll say that the control scheme was VERY GOOD in that regard. The lock-on may have actually been completely unneccssary. I think that maybe circle-strafe without lock-on would have been the best method, but besides that it was close to perfect. The ONLY gripe I had is that the crosshairs needed to be much more visible. Unlike traditional FPSs, with the Wiimote, the crosshair is not always in the center of the screen, which requires them to be a bit more blatently visible than in other games. First and foremoet, they should never be obsucrred by bloom-lighighting or gunblast effects (which they were in Corruption), they should always sit on a layer above everything else, they should be completely opaque, and possibly even have an outline of another color for added visibility. I can't count the number of times I went "okay, where are my crosshairs again?"
But that aside: Corruption did have the best control scheme of any FPS on a console. I really can't argue against that. Sure, it wasn't "perfect" but it was pretty damn close when compared to Halo, Bioshock, or other duel-analog control setups.
I think this comes from the fact that most 3D platformers are 3rd person, which, while being great in theory, also have some severe handicaps. It's much harder judging exact depth in 3rd person than in 1st person. The 3rd person games tend to vissually resemble their 2d counterparts more, which gives them a bit more nostolgic feel, but they become clumsy in their control. Mario 64 wasn't nearly as precise to control as Mario 3/Mario World. You may not know exactly where your feet are when in first person, but you learn to account for the added distance very quickly, and can make very precise movements. Also, not having to worry about a camera is an added bonus.
3rd person is great for adventure games that don't require precision in placement. It's perfect for RPGs, in which all action elements are computer controlled, and Zelda does incredibly well, since close combat is much better represented. Pure platformers, though, are attrocious in 3rd person. Metroid Prime would have been aweful in 3rd person, and Mario 64 and Sonic Adventure really lost alot of ground in their series due to lack of control.
wow, dude, such anger! I happen to agree with him, and I love Super Metroid. I place Prime 1 and Super Metroid at the top of the list. I think the 3D games are VERY faithful to the original series in all but the action-element in the gameplay... of which I think is not so much a defining feature of the series. Not all the 2D games are great, and not all the 3D games are great. It's all pretty mixed from "good" to "meh".
2D Super Metroid and Zero Mission are amazing Metroid II and Fusion are "pretty good" though they go against some of the series' core stylistic elements Metroid I was good for its time, but is no fun to play today accept for nostolgic value
3D: Prime is amazing Corruption is very good Echos is alright Hunters is crap
So I don't think you're viewpoint really an all-encompassing one, I don't think a lot of people agree with you here, that there's some kind of objective reason why the 3D series is inferior. Many believe, as I do, that there's nothing particularly better about one side of the series than the other, they both have their ups and downs. I happen to think that Prime edges out Super Metroid by a hair... but that they're both so great that it's bearily worth noting. If I were to break things down, I think that Super Metroid has the greatest sound design of any game ever made, but Prime edges it out, though slightly, on atmospheric elements, and they're about tied everywhere else. The games are very comparible, IMO, unlike what you suggest. I played Super Metroid quite a bit back in the day, and then I replayed it a few times before I got Prime... that didn't stop me from loving both games equally.
I agree with you except for Zelda. I think 3D Zelda and 2D Zelda are essentially fairly similar, since the game itself doesn't revolve so much around control mechanics. The game is essentially a puzzle game with fighting thrown in the mix. This means that although the perspective has changed, the way in which you methodically play through the game has not. Case-in-point, I don't think that Phantom Hourglass, which is fundimentally a 2D game, is going to feel or play all that differently from Windwaker
Also, I think that top-view games have a much easier time transitioning to 3D, since 3 dimension are traditionally implied by 2D top-view games. If you think about it, the way you control a 3rd person 3D game and a top-view 2D game are fairly similar. Top-view games usually have a "height" element in them, repesented by various vissual tricks, like stairs the seem to run at an angle, and shadows that denote depth. Side-view games, however, with very few acceptions (Mairo 3, going behind the scenery) have no depth element at all, and the player must accecpt the game world as a 2D plane.
Here's my take on the 3 series in question:
Zelda - 3D games basically are able to carry over everything that made the 2D games what they were, and add to it. Almost to the point of not NEEDING to continue the 2D series. Link to the Past could be redone in 3D and wouldn't stand to lose anything but nostolgia, which I believe to be fairly irrelivant when talking about these issues.
Metroid - 3D games were able to carry over a part of what made the series. The series has basically 3 major componants: action-based gameplay, navigational problem solving, and a diffinitive style. The navigation and style carried over perfectly (particularly in Prime 1), yet the action-based gameplay had to be completely redone from the ground up. My take is that the Prime series is every bit as good as its 2D counterpart, but that it does not replace it in the same way that Zelda's replaced it. 2D games in the Metroid series are still very welcome.
Mario - I think this series made the least-successful transition. As good as Mario 64 is, very few believe it to be superior to Mario 3 or Mario World, in the same way that Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime have become pennultimate games in their series. Mario is a pure platformer (originally). It's style is noticable, but most would agree that the meat of the series is in its action/platformer elements. The transition from 2D Sideview to 3D third-person radically altered the platformer element, changing the fundimentals of what makes up the Mario series. Mario 64 is esentially, for the most part, a completely new series based on stylistic elements of another series.
The overall feeling I get is that Zelda's transition was natural, as if the series was meant to, from the beginning, be in 3D, but they had to wait for the technology to catch up. The same with Final Fantasy (being another top-view series). Metroid sat out for a while, and then Nintendo decided to resurrect the franchise by creating a game very faithful to some of the core stylistic elements of the series, but with altered gameplay. Mario simply made the transition because it was the trend of the time, not so much out of neccessity or that it would actually better the series.
I'm inclined to believe Sony at this point, not because I trust them, but because I don't think a price drop is in their best interest. They're already losing some $300 per unit, why lose another $100, when they can claim pack-in bundles and shit like that?
There's some truth to the fact that, at $600, they're targeting people of whom money is not an object, so lowering it $100 isn't going to do much more than net them $100 less on every unit.
They've never hinted at a price drop, and I have yet to see a good reason besides a subjective, uninformed, "because they should."
Meh, I don't think Dark Cloud and Zelda have much in common. I've only played DC2, and only part of it, but it seemed more like a combination of a dungeon crawler and SimCity. There are other games that are able to capture a more similar feel to Zelda. Try Skies of Arcadia, for instance, which is a straight-ahead RPG, but whose dungeon construction and navigation is quite reminicient of a Zelda game. It also has a similar flare for the epic while remaining very innocent. Another one to mention is ICO, which is a must-play for anyone into the adventure genre, absolutely breathtaking game... one of my favorite games ever made. Okami as well.
You're right, this is going to be interesting. But I don't expect Nintendo to QUITE be able to keep up with demand, although I bet they've been planning ahead for it for some time, they may have put some new production lines on schedule to start up specifically for the holiday season.
As for Guitar Hero 3, I'm going to expect that the winner will be the 360, since the system already has two GH games out for it, less Wii owners will have been privilaged to the hype that has been the Guitar Hero series. The PS3 will move a few units, but the 360 will win by sheer market share domination.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but I'll admit, that's just assaholic. Few Apple heads can justify this. And for you anti-Apple people... I have yet to see any Apple fans TRY to justify it, so STFU. So let's just admit it, Apple did an evil little thing today. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Slashdot Mirror
Good for them. Better them than Walmart, who will do the same, anyway. At least government leaders can be theoretically voted in and out.
Don't you get it? Society demands censorship. Blame your neighbor, not big government, not big corporations. Does that make it "right"? I don't really think this is really a question of right or wrong. But censorship is an innevitable part of any society, if you don't like the current trends of censorship, then fight it, by all means.
Here's a reality check:
Civilization = bondage
If you don't like civilization, fine, abandon it. The fact that you choose to be a part of civilization means that you've agreed to relinquish some level of power. That's not going to change until you throw off the bonds of civilization and become a one-man society. The only question is "which powers"? Some states value physical safety above all else, some value ecconomic fairness (in various deffinitions). That's what civiliation IS. The very fact that you are communicating over this vast network construct that our civilization has made, means that you have agreed to some degree of power relinquishment, so don't blame me for doing the same!
You do realize that if the government hadn't demanded one, than Wal-Mart and other "morally obligated" retailers would have demanded the same thing, and then we're back to the same exact outcome (which is what we have here in the US). The fact is, one way or another, a society that condones the enforcing of values on other individuals (and show me a society that doesn't) will make it happen one way or another. Better the government does it than private business, because at least the government is more quickly swayed by current public ideology.
How is that so strange? People have controlled the flow of information for millenia. It's human nature. In fact, it's one of the sanist and most understandable things out there. You might not agree with it, but SOMEONE is going to control the flow of information, the only question is 'who'?
Hold on, how is this a Nanny-state situation? I love how the fact that a private rating organization whose decision affects the decision for private console manufacturing companies to release games, and the decision for private retailers to sell the game suddenly constitutes a "Nanny state". If you extend the "Nanny" to mean private corporations, than I will agree with you, but you do realize that there is absolutely no government involvement here.
What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?
I was being facetious, of course Samus's gun thing was crap, but so was the multiplayer things. C'mon, Smash's adventure mode is no more than a formaility, even if it is going to be drastically expanded. The fact remains that beyond the first two weeks, no one is going to play it for anything but multiplayer. In fact, an extended adventure mode could be a nuesence since it will likely be required to unlock key elements. I'm a big fan of single player games, but NO ONE buys Smash for the adventure mode.
Now, I'm sure the adventure mode will be enjoyable and all, but if you have another person in the room, you're going to want to battle, not co-op. Great for FPSs, but as the Sonic series demonstrated: terrible for platformers.
ie: Friday's news was completely worthless. And yes, Samus's piddly little gun thing is probably going to have a greater effect on our long-term enjoyment of the game.
Okay, a number of things:
a) This is old news
b) This is probably one of the most minor Smash Bros updates to come out in over a month
c) Today's update about Samus's stun gun was probably more interesting, even
Heck, I've been following Brawl on a daily basis, and even I'm going to tag this one "slownewsday". Zonk, I actually tend to agree with your choice of articles, but this time, I'm not defending you, there's GOT TO BE more important shit out there than this.
There's something strangely... arousing... about what you just said.
You must have not been around for the GameBoy Advanced and Nintendo DS... if there's ever any "pulling victory from their ass" award, it goes to those boys. And from what I'm seeing, the Wii seems to be the third system IN A ROW that did the same thing.
If you think about it, basically every system launched after the GameCube has been a complete success. And I still standby the statement that the GameCube only "failed" (and only in marketshare, not profit) because of the horrendous disaster that was the N64. Many systems sell according to their predicessors. The GameCube sold less units, but it gained a very strong following, which is one of the many reasons why the Wii is doing so well. The PS3 is an accepteption, because I don't think anyone has ever managed to shoot themselves in the foot more accurately than Sony.
So yes, Nintendo is one of the greatest in "ace-ass-pulling". And their hardware division is only part of it, their gaming division is even better at it.
I smell bullshit. I don't have a 360, I've never owned an XBox, and I've hardly ever played Halo, but even I know when something's huge. Was Bioshock one of the best recieved games on the decade? No question. Was it bought with a furvor, by many, that can only be described as religiously induced? Without a doubt. Will it have any chance in even coming close to Halo 3's sales or hype? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Remember, a title doesn't have to be good or well-loved to be popular. And I'm not saying that Halo 3 isn't. But I'll tell ya, if I had a 360, I'd probably buy Halo, and I don't even really care about the game. Marketing is JUST THAT POWERFUL (as an advertiser, I can attest to that). You're friends, as strange as it feels to say this, are in the vast minority there. It's not uncommon for small pockets of people to not follow the trend of the time, but don't let that fool you into thinking that that's the whole. The fact is, Halo 3 is going to make Bioshock look like an utter failior in comparison.
This comes from a person who's favorite game is Ico, and who's favorite TV show was Twin Peaks... two incredible works that are deemed money-making desasters in their respective genres.
Point taken... although I wouldn't put it past Brawl to outsell Halo 3. Nothing else on the Wii will, of course, but the Smash series practically tied the Halo series in its last outing, and the series has grown its following considerably since then. Don't count it out just quite yet.
H3 is obviously no small feat. But let's just wait until pre-orders open up for Smash Bros Brawl. Melee sold ALMOST as many units as Halo 2 on a system that had slightly less of a userbase. Let's face it, the Smash series has grown a HUGE following since Melee, and it's now on the dominant system of its generation. I think it'll probably be safe to say that Brawl will outsell Halo 3 by a quite a few units. Not by the end of the year, obviously, but in final sales.
OMG Karnov!!!
Big half-naked Russian circusmen from hell!
OMG Ponies!
Oh, I don't doubt that Sony have a plan. But Microsoft and Nintendo also have plans, and currently, they're already way ahead.
Sony is already playing catchup against two companies that ALWAYS have tricks on their sleaves. Sony hasn't ever had to pull Aces out of their asses before now, where-as Nintendo, and to a lesser extent, Microsoft, are well versed in the ace-ass-pulling.
I agree completely. And stereoptics is actually pretty weak. The eye judges distance MOSTLY from other kinds of visual cues besides stereoptics. I think people will find that if they played a game with a stereoptic screen, it wouldn't actually be that much better, if really at all.
I honestly think that people complain about first-person platformers, NOT because of precision movement, but because they don't as closely resemble their 2D counterparts. If people are used to looking at, and identifying their characters in 2D, they often ask for the same in a 3D environment. Unfortunately, this is a lot harder and more subjective arguement to make, so most simply default on the "3rd person is more precise" arguement, which I believe to be completely untrue. Play Mario 64, then play Metroid Prime 1, and I dare you to tell me that Mario 64 is more precise. There's really no comparion, first person wins hands down on that one. We're more used to first-person anyway, since we control ourselves from a first-person standpoint. As you said, you don't need to look at your feet in real life when you walk, you've just learned to take into account the added distance your feet will be from the bottom of your vision. I find myself doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING in Prime 1, and my jumps are within inches of where I want them to be, and completely perfect in side/side dimensions. In Mario 64, I may be over a foot off in both X and Y dimensions. As I said, there's no comparion.
Now, Mario 64 would suck in first person. Not because of control, but because of concept. The cartoony presence of Mario is essential to the game's look and feel. A game without Mario without his hat and big nose on the screen would simply not feel like a Mario game, because his character essentially makes the series what it is. Basically, the Mario series is fucked either way in 3D, which is why its 3D games will NEVER reach the level of Mario 3 or Mario World.
Metroid is different, however. Samus's presence, while it became an expected tradition in the series, is not central to the game's look & feel. In fact, her presence is actually a distraction to the environment, which is really the core of what makes the series what it is. When in 2D, Samus's sprite could be relatively small on the screen, but 3D characters must, by nature, take up a lot more room on the screen. Having a big orange/yellow robot suit taking up half the height of the screen, at all times, would be a huge detriment in the player's immersion in the surrounding environment. Add to that the fact that shooting is much more natural in first person, not needing camera control, and more precision in jumping, and the choice to go first-person in the Metroid series becomes unbelievably clear.
Funny thing is, Samus was not really much of a character prior to Prime/Fusion. For all the complaints that "first person viewpoint takes away from character portrayal", there really wasn't much of any character development prior to the 3rd person games. Probably the best in the series, for that, was Zero Mission, but that was months later, and Prime 1 isn't that far off in it's character portrayal. Samus's character really isn't important to her series, I hate to say... her story is intriguing, but her personality is completely non-existant. So any complaints that first-person viewpoint takes away from character portrayal is kind of moot, anyway.
Well, to be honest, for an adventure game that's not a pure trigger-happy FPS, the control scheme for Prime 1 was close to perfect. Granted, in a mulitplayer combat situation, most FPS fans would find it extremely limiting, but for what's required of the Metroid series, the GC controls are practically superior to a keyboard/mouse control scheme.
Now, however I tend to feel about Corruption trying to become more like a traditional FPS (which bothers me), I'll say that the control scheme was VERY GOOD in that regard. The lock-on may have actually been completely unneccssary. I think that maybe circle-strafe without lock-on would have been the best method, but besides that it was close to perfect. The ONLY gripe I had is that the crosshairs needed to be much more visible. Unlike traditional FPSs, with the Wiimote, the crosshair is not always in the center of the screen, which requires them to be a bit more blatently visible than in other games. First and foremoet, they should never be obsucrred by bloom-lighighting or gunblast effects (which they were in Corruption), they should always sit on a layer above everything else, they should be completely opaque, and possibly even have an outline of another color for added visibility. I can't count the number of times I went "okay, where are my crosshairs again?"
But that aside: Corruption did have the best control scheme of any FPS on a console. I really can't argue against that. Sure, it wasn't "perfect" but it was pretty damn close when compared to Halo, Bioshock, or other duel-analog control setups.
I think this comes from the fact that most 3D platformers are 3rd person, which, while being great in theory, also have some severe handicaps. It's much harder judging exact depth in 3rd person than in 1st person. The 3rd person games tend to vissually resemble their 2d counterparts more, which gives them a bit more nostolgic feel, but they become clumsy in their control. Mario 64 wasn't nearly as precise to control as Mario 3/Mario World. You may not know exactly where your feet are when in first person, but you learn to account for the added distance very quickly, and can make very precise movements. Also, not having to worry about a camera is an added bonus.
3rd person is great for adventure games that don't require precision in placement. It's perfect for RPGs, in which all action elements are computer controlled, and Zelda does incredibly well, since close combat is much better represented. Pure platformers, though, are attrocious in 3rd person. Metroid Prime would have been aweful in 3rd person, and Mario 64 and Sonic Adventure really lost alot of ground in their series due to lack of control.
wow, dude, such anger! I happen to agree with him, and I love Super Metroid. I place Prime 1 and Super Metroid at the top of the list. I think the 3D games are VERY faithful to the original series in all but the action-element in the gameplay... of which I think is not so much a defining feature of the series. Not all the 2D games are great, and not all the 3D games are great. It's all pretty mixed from "good" to "meh".
2D
Super Metroid and Zero Mission are amazing
Metroid II and Fusion are "pretty good" though they go against some of the series' core stylistic elements
Metroid I was good for its time, but is no fun to play today accept for nostolgic value
3D:
Prime is amazing
Corruption is very good
Echos is alright
Hunters is crap
So I don't think you're viewpoint really an all-encompassing one, I don't think a lot of people agree with you here, that there's some kind of objective reason why the 3D series is inferior. Many believe, as I do, that there's nothing particularly better about one side of the series than the other, they both have their ups and downs. I happen to think that Prime edges out Super Metroid by a hair... but that they're both so great that it's bearily worth noting. If I were to break things down, I think that Super Metroid has the greatest sound design of any game ever made, but Prime edges it out, though slightly, on atmospheric elements, and they're about tied everywhere else. The games are very comparible, IMO, unlike what you suggest. I played Super Metroid quite a bit back in the day, and then I replayed it a few times before I got Prime... that didn't stop me from loving both games equally.
I agree with you except for Zelda. I think 3D Zelda and 2D Zelda are essentially fairly similar, since the game itself doesn't revolve so much around control mechanics. The game is essentially a puzzle game with fighting thrown in the mix. This means that although the perspective has changed, the way in which you methodically play through the game has not. Case-in-point, I don't think that Phantom Hourglass, which is fundimentally a 2D game, is going to feel or play all that differently from Windwaker
Also, I think that top-view games have a much easier time transitioning to 3D, since 3 dimension are traditionally implied by 2D top-view games. If you think about it, the way you control a 3rd person 3D game and a top-view 2D game are fairly similar. Top-view games usually have a "height" element in them, repesented by various vissual tricks, like stairs the seem to run at an angle, and shadows that denote depth. Side-view games, however, with very few acceptions (Mairo 3, going behind the scenery) have no depth element at all, and the player must accecpt the game world as a 2D plane.
Here's my take on the 3 series in question:
Zelda - 3D games basically are able to carry over everything that made the 2D games what they were, and add to it. Almost to the point of not NEEDING to continue the 2D series. Link to the Past could be redone in 3D and wouldn't stand to lose anything but nostolgia, which I believe to be fairly irrelivant when talking about these issues.
Metroid - 3D games were able to carry over a part of what made the series. The series has basically 3 major componants: action-based gameplay, navigational problem solving, and a diffinitive style. The navigation and style carried over perfectly (particularly in Prime 1), yet the action-based gameplay had to be completely redone from the ground up. My take is that the Prime series is every bit as good as its 2D counterpart, but that it does not replace it in the same way that Zelda's replaced it. 2D games in the Metroid series are still very welcome.
Mario - I think this series made the least-successful transition. As good as Mario 64 is, very few believe it to be superior to Mario 3 or Mario World, in the same way that Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime have become pennultimate games in their series. Mario is a pure platformer (originally). It's style is noticable, but most would agree that the meat of the series is in its action/platformer elements. The transition from 2D Sideview to 3D third-person radically altered the platformer element, changing the fundimentals of what makes up the Mario series. Mario 64 is esentially, for the most part, a completely new series based on stylistic elements of another series.
The overall feeling I get is that Zelda's transition was natural, as if the series was meant to, from the beginning, be in 3D, but they had to wait for the technology to catch up. The same with Final Fantasy (being another top-view series). Metroid sat out for a while, and then Nintendo decided to resurrect the franchise by creating a game very faithful to some of the core stylistic elements of the series, but with altered gameplay. Mario simply made the transition because it was the trend of the time, not so much out of neccessity or that it would actually better the series.
Okay, so I guess now they're losing about $200 per unit... my bad, my facts were a few months outdated... there, you happy?
ass
I'm inclined to believe Sony at this point, not because I trust them, but because I don't think a price drop is in their best interest. They're already losing some $300 per unit, why lose another $100, when they can claim pack-in bundles and shit like that?
There's some truth to the fact that, at $600, they're targeting people of whom money is not an object, so lowering it $100 isn't going to do much more than net them $100 less on every unit.
They've never hinted at a price drop, and I have yet to see a good reason besides a subjective, uninformed, "because they should."
Meh, I don't think Dark Cloud and Zelda have much in common. I've only played DC2, and only part of it, but it seemed more like a combination of a dungeon crawler and SimCity. There are other games that are able to capture a more similar feel to Zelda. Try Skies of Arcadia, for instance, which is a straight-ahead RPG, but whose dungeon construction and navigation is quite reminicient of a Zelda game. It also has a similar flare for the epic while remaining very innocent. Another one to mention is ICO, which is a must-play for anyone into the adventure genre, absolutely breathtaking game... one of my favorite games ever made. Okami as well.
You're right, this is going to be interesting. But I don't expect Nintendo to QUITE be able to keep up with demand, although I bet they've been planning ahead for it for some time, they may have put some new production lines on schedule to start up specifically for the holiday season.
As for Guitar Hero 3, I'm going to expect that the winner will be the 360, since the system already has two GH games out for it, less Wii owners will have been privilaged to the hype that has been the Guitar Hero series. The PS3 will move a few units, but the 360 will win by sheer market share domination.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but I'll admit, that's just assaholic. Few Apple heads can justify this. And for you anti-Apple people... I have yet to see any Apple fans TRY to justify it, so STFU. So let's just admit it, Apple did an evil little thing today. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Both good, but even better: Kirby's Canvas Curse (DS), probably the most innovative platformer since the original Super Mario Bros.