I just say I'm from Alaska, and half the time, people don't make the connection. Little do they know, it's the same "country" that Ted Stevens and Don "Like Two Gay Men Buttfucking" Young come from.
wow, miscommunication city. I completely agree with you there. Yeah, I think jRPGs need a new name. There's nothing "roll playing" about them. I love the genre, and play it almost exclusively, these days, but I'll be the first one to say the name doesn't fit. The problem is, every alternative name I've heard seems a bit dimeaning: "Interactive Movies", "Interactive Novels"... make them sound like a lesser form of another genre, and I don't see them as being that way at all.
The aim is to make a video game that somewhat closely resembles the experience of playing pen and paper.
That may be the aim for some, but not for me. I play P&P on occation, but not very much anymore. I'm sorta sick of it.
If you think that jRPGs are trying to reproduce the experience of P&P RPGs, think again. It's not that they're "not doing it right", they ditched that effort long ago.
I don't play games as an interactive social experience... in many ways, I often play games to escape that. I socialize with friends every day: at work, at the bar, during jam sessions, playing P&P RPGs, etc. Many times we'll start talking about the jRPGs we've been playing, over a few beers at the bar, that feels a lot more rewarding to me.
I play games to escape reality, and yes, responsibility, for the same reasons I read books. Social interaction doesn't play into my desire for those things, outside of discussion, later, with my friends.
As I recall, no system has ever had a platform-exclusive RPG come out until many months after launch.
This is pretty much correct. Actually Final Fantasy X came out fairly soon into the PS2s lifecycle... but seeing as though Square was given a huge head-start on the project (which was also innitiated on PS1 devkits), it's not surprising. The SNES, PS1, and all other RPG-crazy systems, however, didn't really get going until about 1/3rd of the way through their lifespan.
In fact, the Wii will have its first big RPG, Final Fantasy Chrystal Chronicals: The Ring Bearers (which is looking to be absolutely amazing), long before the PS3 will have its first. Currently, most of the big RPG developers are still churning them out for the PS2, without much letting up.
Actually, with the recent tidbits on the new Chrystal Chronicals, I'm actually a lot more excited about it than FF13... it looks to be a lot more innovative, and somewhere halfway between Skies of Arcadian and Zelda, two of my favorite series.
The Wii wasn't made to last for years, I'd give it 4 years, tops, before Nintendo comes out with their next system. Seriously, I think they were probably planning on replacing it after 2 years, but with the success they're having now, it's going to be hard to justify coming out with a new console when you've only just bearilly started to meet demand with the original!
No, it's obvious that Nintendo had planned to shorten the generational cycle, as a way of getting a leg up on Sony and Microsoft: wait for them to bring down the prices of expensive hardware, and then come out with a faster system while they're still financially unable to justify building a new system. Maryl Lynch, at one point, predicted that Sony won't be able to financially justify a new system after the PS3 for about 8-10 years, Microsoft about 6-8 years. Nintendo could practically do it NOW. in 2010, the next system will be released, and will blow the PS3 and 360s specs out of the water, and Sony and Microsoft will be caught holding their dicks.
Interesting thing, though, for all the talk of hardcore gaming, I frequent a lot of jRPG communities, these are people who play games day in and day out, and the common consensus among them is that they're all desperate to try some good jRPGs with the Wii. Reception to the PS3 has been fairly negative, although reception of the 360 has begun to pick up. I know that this is a very small subset of hardcore gamers, but it's kinda interesting to note the Wii is generally highly regarded among this crowd.
But I DO want a story told to me... why would I want to help tell someone else's story? Seriously, if I wanted to tell a story, I'd write a story (which I've done), or a song (which I do all the time), or make a short film (I'm a TV producer, it's my job). Seriously, gaming is a terrible waste of time if you're looking for a creative outlet. I feel very sorry for those who have so little creative outlet in their lives that they must rely on video games to give them a sense of their being creative. I play games for entertainment, to escape to another world, to view the lives of other people, to analyze the psychological aspects of various characters and NPCs. I do it as an augmentation to reading litterature or watching movies.
Seriously, people, video games are a terrible excuse for a creative outlet.
But movies aren't interactive... why must something be either one extreme (interactive) or another (non-interactive). I crave a movie where I can float around in the story, choose my own camera angles, talk to various secondary characters about what they feel about what's going on, and explore the surrounding area a little.
Where am I going to find that opportunity? Obviously not on the big screen!
The bottom line is that computers allow for a variety of different story telling opportunities. Story-telling, in all its linear, pre-composed glory, has existed for thousands of years. I, personally, as an artist, am a lot more comfortable with a distinct "author/audience" separation. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of "lack of author", it scares me a little... as a creative person. I want to hear what other people have to say, and be able to interpret that for myself... not the other way around.
I know I'm just one opinion, but I think there's room for both. And A LOT of people out there crave a story where they have the interactivity to simply be immersed in it, but not neccessarilly control it. I find this desire for complete control a bit eerie, to say the least. A certain amount of it may be healthy, and there is a place for open-ended story-telling, but I certainly don't think it should be required.
*PC* RPG, not console RPGs. That's the point. A lot of American made, PC RPGs are basically MMORPGs without the MMO part... they have very little story, and are so obsessed with non-linearity and the "make your own character" bullshit that they absolutely refuse to do so.
jRPGs/console RPGs are a different genre and a different market. aRPGs either need to either jump onboard with the MMO stuff, or learn a few things about story and character development from their friends across the Pacific. Both genres have merrit and a strong future, single-player, non-linear RPGs, however, do not. Elder Scrolls, I'm looking at YOU!
One possibility is that the Republican party has shifted very dramatically in the past few decades, while the democratic party, spending most of the time on the defensive, has remained relitively static. The shift of the Republican party also leaves a trail of dissolutioned old-line Republicans who are alienated by the neo-conservative crusade. It's as if the Libertarian party is sprouting from the old riverbed where the Republican party used to be. If the democratic party were to start shifting to the left (which I actually sorta hope it does, if only to broaden the gap).
Also, the Libertarian party is based on a steadfast PHILOSOPHY, that humans are better governed by a decentralized and less restritive body. While the republican party is based on a PLATFORM, stemming from a mish-mash of special interests and religious dogma. Sometimes it embraces the libertarian philosophy, but only when it fits their interests. Small, decentralized government, but not when it comes to the military, marriage, drug enforcement, reproductive rights, and so on and so forth.
The Democratic party, at its heart, I think stands for a philosophy, but it's public image has been scared into being a bit wishy-washy, due to having to have been on the defensive for so long. At it's heart, MOST democrats are liberals, believing in a strong centralized government mainly used for upholding civil liberties.
In many ways, the goals of liberals and libertarians are the same, just with a different ideas about the best way of achieving those goals. I think this is true for some republicans as well, but I believe that the right-wing groups have a very different vision of where this country should go.
I, myself, am a pretty steadfast Liberal... I believe that a strong central government is, in many ways, the most efficient way of going. But I can easilly respect and understand the views of libertarians that decentralization is the right path. Sometimes I can agree. I guess my main difference is that I don't inherently see strong centralized government as a neccessarilly evil thing, the way most libertarians seem to... I don't think we have a reason to be afraid of either way, really, and think that there is a place for both at different times. I also dispise social darwinism, and believe that most people that fail did not do so by their own incompetance, and therefor should be given a great amount of public support to pick themselves up again... I know this view is somewhat looked down upon by most Libertarains. And that's why I'm not one, but I can still understand what they're saying.
Republicans, however, are pretty much lost on me... and I think they're sorta lost on themselves, frankly... I'm not quite sure they stand for anything other than big business and religious dogma, these days, both powers that are as equally dangerious, if not more so, than centralized government.
Similarly, Clinton was more conservative than Nixon, and much more conservative than the mainstream dems, he's not too far from Lieberman and McCain. I don't particularly care for his politics, because of this, but I do like what he stood for: intelligence, accedamia, and making decissions on a step by step basis instead of being an ideologue.
I think a lot of libertarians would be mighty offended by you calling them conservatives. Libertarians, are, by defenition, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Many get lumped into the republican camp, but just as many vote democrat because of the social issues.
I always thought that FF13 was going to be a 2008 release, my biggest surprise is that this is news at all.
In any case, Final Fantasy, while not dead to me, ha really lost its charm as of late. I mean, I liked FF12 well enough, but then I went on to play Tales of the Abyss, and realized that I was enjoying myself a whole lot more, and found that title to be much more engrossing. FF12 came in a distant fourth this year after Twilight Princess, Okami, and Tales of the Abyss. That's not bad, since all those games were absolutely stunning, but unlike FF6-9, which I believe to be the pinnical of the series, they just don't have that wonderous charm that they once did. FFX was pure crap, as far as I'm concerned. At this point, I'm going to put more faith in Bandai-Namco, Mistwalker, and Gust to make the best jRPGs... I'm also really looking forward to Trusty Bell/Eternal Sonata, even that's Tri-Crescendo, a company I usually dispise.
The N64 had the same problem. You'd think having 6 buttons in one place would be a great arcade feature (remember the Genesis Street Fighter controller?), but nobody ever noticed, because 4 of the N64 buttons were small and yellow.
The N64 was pure crap, as far as I'm concerned. Nintendo really lost it with that one. Their design philosophy just totally went to hell. It was also unergonomic, awkward, and the A-stick was utter crap. I think the GameCube controller is a totally different direction from the N64 controller.
That said, the color coding isn't really neccessary, the whole point is that you don't want people to be LOOKING at the controller. That said, many games will have on-screen visual references to buttons, like in WW at the top right corner of the screen, THAT'S when color coding comes in handy... but that's really the only time. I like what they've done with the Wiimote and Classic controllers by making solid white buttons and clear plastic buttons, it just looks really ellegant. I just wish they had scooped the X and Y buttons on the CC like with the American SNES controller.
Unfortunately, MP3 *IS* bounding-box crap. I'm sure it'll be a great game, but it's just a small evolutionary step from Medal of Honor, Red Steele and the like. This pisses me off. There are many more kinds of methods for controlling FPSs on the Wii, things like using the motion sensor in the nuncuck to "steer" your character, freeing up the Wiimote to do only aiming and firing. Unfortunately, developers are insistant that bounding-box is the be-all-and-end-all control scheme, without realizing that it's one of the most clunky. It'll eventually kill FPSs on the Wii, regardless of how "fine tuned" MP3s bounding-box control is.
First off, small style arcade games belong, more, on handhelds, so Nintendo wants to lead developers in the direction of the DS for those titles, which makes perfect sense to me. Also, they HAVE announced it, it's called the Virtual Console. It has been putting out older games (which are the bulk of the 360 and PS3s arcade libraries, anyway) since launch, and will have room for new arcade-style games here fairly shortly.
Honestly, I think Nintendo is currently doing the best for small arcade titles, just not on the Wii. Microsoft has no choice, and Sony's trying to make the PSP exclusively non-arcady, so the DS is really the best option.
Yes, Uematsu did a few of the tracks, but a very small amount. Probably the most notable is the boss battle theme (which is one of my favorites in the game), but I think it was as few as 7 tracks.
On that note, I don't think CT sounds ANYTHING like Chrono Cross. I found CCs soundtrack to be horrific both in musical nature, and how it fit with the game. Xenogears was somewhere in the middle... basically, I don't like where Mitsuda's going. I think he's sort of like a lesser Uematsu who got lost somewhere along there studying James Horner's more recent film scores, which I equally deplore.
This is what makes the GCN controller the best controller ever made, IMO. Tactile reference... seems to be a lost art these days. Even Nintendo abandoned it with the Classic Controller, which doesn't scoop the X and Y buttons like it's SNES cousin. Now, the angle of the buttons on the SNES controller were attrocious.
Not simply because of my own personal preference, but there was a lot more thought that went into it than any other controller to date... there are some extremely thoughtfull design decisions that went into it to make it much more immediate than other controllers of the time. It's not perfect, as I can see room for improvement, but it simply does a few things better than any other controller:
Button shape: This is the main reason why I feel the controller outperforms all others. Each button is skulpted differently, with a different size and shape, so that your thumb immediately has tactile feedback as to which button performs which action. About 5 minutes into a game, it's very rare to hit the wrong button or for their to be a delay in time between wanting to perform an action, and remembering which button to press. Where-as, on the PS2 and the XBox, I find myself hitting wrong buttons all the time, especially buttons across from each other (the human brain is able to distinguish up and down much more easilly than left and right). Each button shape also represents the function and amount of use of each action. The largest button is always the action button, it being the most tied to direct actions, with the smaller B button for secondary, but commonly used actions (jumping, etc.), while the more oddly shaped X and Y buttons are for more specialty actions and commands.
3-Shoulder Buttons: This is probably the most controversial aspect of the controller. Many times, it's pointed that Nintendo would have been facing a lawsuit with Sony had they put four shoulder buttons on the controller. None-the-less, what resulted from this decision was pure perfection. Having an odd number of shoulder buttons makes the controller aesymmetrical, and this makes it more immediate for the brain to interpret which action to perform. As I mentioned earlier, the brain has a difficult time distinguishing left and right, and sometimes has to stop and think about which is which (even if you're not dyslexic). But having a different number of buttons on each side of the controller makes each side "feel" distinctly different, and thus the brain can access that side of the controller much more quickly. Now, the z-button itself is a dog, it could have been made much more robustly, could have been given pressure sensitivity, and made bigger, but still have it be very differently constructed than the R button.
Different A-Stick design: This isn't as much of a deal, since their position is so outragiously different, it would be difficult to accidently switch the two... but it still shows that there was a lot of psychology that went into the design. The A-stick shows a very traditional design, color, and shape, where-as the oddly shaped C-Stick very clearly represents specialty actions such as camera control.
Now, for irgonomics and basic robustness, the 360 controller quite possibly comes out on top, although besides the 360 controller, I think the GCN controller is still very robust and irgonomic compared to it's other counterparts. But from a psychological perspective, and the perspective of design philosophy, the GameCube controller has a much better handle on the neurological process of connecting desired actions action with button pressess.
It's not perfect, there are a few things that could have been improved: - The D-Pad is attrocious... not that it ever gets used - The Z-button is slightly too small, to thin, and could have been given pressure sensitivity - The face buttons could have been given pressure sensitivity - The wings could have been a slightly thicker - Addition of a select button
Unfortunately, the odd button shape and color-coded layout makes it look like a toy to some. This is unfortunate since both of these things were not done to represent a child-like appearence, rather than to achieve immediate visual and tactile recognition of different buttons.
I think it partially stems from the fact that the US, in particular, has this sort of aversion to drama and abstraction, in general. We seem to prefer the "realistic" to the "fantastic", partially because fantasy and mellodrama offend so easily. In fantasy, and mellodrama, the audience is required to open up themselves in various ways, emotionally and imaginitively, that I think a lot of people feel a bit self-concious of doing. It's also kind of a macho thing too, guys aren't supposed to be emotional or particularly imaginative.
I think this sorta explains the rise of GTA over fantasy games, but I think it also begins to explain the distinction between Brain Age and fantasy/drama titles.
The Wii version is absolutely NOTHING like the original GC game. They already had a interview with some of the guys at S-E, and the details suggested that it would be an almost 180 degree change from the first: completely different style, non-repeatitive gameplay, a fully, epic story, no "pot". The way it was described made it sound like a cross between Zelda and Skies of Arcadia, when I heard that... I had to put on a new pare of pants.
The DS version looks to be slightly more similar, but again, no pot, smaller areas, and non-repeatitive story.
I honestly didn't have a huge problem with the soundtrack... most of the dungeon music wasn't really there, but what WAS there was actually quite good. I really loved the intro theme, basically taking the traditional Uematsu-esque style, and giving it a Celtic spin... and doing it in a non-offensive, non-Mitsuda/Horner-esque sorta way.
Possibly... the PS2s library suddenly became amazing in the last year or so, before that, I was actually pretty discontent with it. But at the 11th hour, they proved to have one of the absolutely strongest libraries of any console in history, with maybe only the SNES and POSSIBLY the PS1 ahead. The XBox360 is starting to look mighty good right now, and this coming from an old guard PS2 and GameCube/Wii fan. But I'm really excited about the Wii games coming out, especially the new Chrystal Chronicals, which, unlike the first, is looking to be a masterpiece. I'm not even as interested in FF13 as I am in this new action RPG. I've got hopes for MP3 (though I've got my reservations after MP2 and MPH), and Brawl is looking to be a gem. NiGHTS is also going to be stellar.
On the 360 end, I'm mostly looking at jRPGs... Eternal Sonata, especially... but also Lost Odyssey. I'm just hoping we get some jRPG love on the Wii... especially a Tales game.
How is that possible? By the time the XBox came out, the PS2 was doing gloriously. FFX pretty much solidified its dominance back in 2001, and all the gaming press I generally heard was possitive. Also, Sony were still the "good guys" back then, with the evil Microsoft looming overhead, and the bastardly Nintendo about to make their move. Also, the PS2 was such a saving grace after what was looking to be the utter failior of the DreamCast (now realized to be largely because of Sony FUD).
Now, the tables have turned. Sony is the evil money-grubbing company that doesn't care about quality of content, just superficial image, Microsoft have proven themselves to be relatively "decent", and Nintendo are the shining beacon of inginuity and vision.
Public perception makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE. If you decide to hate a company, you're basically lost to them as a costomer, no matter how great a product you deliver. Sony are currently the "bad guys" (note the difference between "bad guys" and "bad boys") of the generation, and that's going to cost them dearly, no matter what titles they put out.
The fact is, much of the old gamer gaurd refused to accept Microsoft because console gamers were always at odds with PC gamers, and Microsoft represented a threatening side of gaming. This is a large reason why the XBox didn't come out on top last generation. Now, they have proven themselves, and Sony has some real competition. And even moreso from Nintendo, who are currently presenting themselves (and being generally regarded), as the saviours of the gaming industry... and both companies are living up to their claims.
Slashdot Mirror
So we know Ballmer throws chairs... so now he's moved on to cabinets?
I just say I'm from Alaska, and half the time, people don't make the connection. Little do they know, it's the same "country" that Ted Stevens and Don "Like Two Gay Men Buttfucking" Young come from.
wow, miscommunication city. I completely agree with you there. Yeah, I think jRPGs need a new name. There's nothing "roll playing" about them. I love the genre, and play it almost exclusively, these days, but I'll be the first one to say the name doesn't fit. The problem is, every alternative name I've heard seems a bit dimeaning: "Interactive Movies", "Interactive Novels"... make them sound like a lesser form of another genre, and I don't see them as being that way at all.
If you think that jRPGs are trying to reproduce the experience of P&P RPGs, think again. It's not that they're "not doing it right", they ditched that effort long ago.
I don't play games as an interactive social experience... in many ways, I often play games to escape that. I socialize with friends every day: at work, at the bar, during jam sessions, playing P&P RPGs, etc. Many times we'll start talking about the jRPGs we've been playing, over a few beers at the bar, that feels a lot more rewarding to me.
I play games to escape reality, and yes, responsibility, for the same reasons I read books. Social interaction doesn't play into my desire for those things, outside of discussion, later, with my friends.
This is pretty much correct. Actually Final Fantasy X came out fairly soon into the PS2s lifecycle... but seeing as though Square was given a huge head-start on the project (which was also innitiated on PS1 devkits), it's not surprising. The SNES, PS1, and all other RPG-crazy systems, however, didn't really get going until about 1/3rd of the way through their lifespan.
In fact, the Wii will have its first big RPG, Final Fantasy Chrystal Chronicals: The Ring Bearers (which is looking to be absolutely amazing), long before the PS3 will have its first. Currently, most of the big RPG developers are still churning them out for the PS2, without much letting up.
Actually, with the recent tidbits on the new Chrystal Chronicals, I'm actually a lot more excited about it than FF13... it looks to be a lot more innovative, and somewhere halfway between Skies of Arcadian and Zelda, two of my favorite series.
The Wii wasn't made to last for years, I'd give it 4 years, tops, before Nintendo comes out with their next system. Seriously, I think they were probably planning on replacing it after 2 years, but with the success they're having now, it's going to be hard to justify coming out with a new console when you've only just bearilly started to meet demand with the original!
No, it's obvious that Nintendo had planned to shorten the generational cycle, as a way of getting a leg up on Sony and Microsoft: wait for them to bring down the prices of expensive hardware, and then come out with a faster system while they're still financially unable to justify building a new system. Maryl Lynch, at one point, predicted that Sony won't be able to financially justify a new system after the PS3 for about 8-10 years, Microsoft about 6-8 years. Nintendo could practically do it NOW. in 2010, the next system will be released, and will blow the PS3 and 360s specs out of the water, and Sony and Microsoft will be caught holding their dicks.
Interesting thing, though, for all the talk of hardcore gaming, I frequent a lot of jRPG communities, these are people who play games day in and day out, and the common consensus among them is that they're all desperate to try some good jRPGs with the Wii. Reception to the PS3 has been fairly negative, although reception of the 360 has begun to pick up. I know that this is a very small subset of hardcore gamers, but it's kinda interesting to note the Wii is generally highly regarded among this crowd.
But I DO want a story told to me... why would I want to help tell someone else's story? Seriously, if I wanted to tell a story, I'd write a story (which I've done), or a song (which I do all the time), or make a short film (I'm a TV producer, it's my job). Seriously, gaming is a terrible waste of time if you're looking for a creative outlet. I feel very sorry for those who have so little creative outlet in their lives that they must rely on video games to give them a sense of their being creative. I play games for entertainment, to escape to another world, to view the lives of other people, to analyze the psychological aspects of various characters and NPCs. I do it as an augmentation to reading litterature or watching movies.
Seriously, people, video games are a terrible excuse for a creative outlet.
But movies aren't interactive... why must something be either one extreme (interactive) or another (non-interactive). I crave a movie where I can float around in the story, choose my own camera angles, talk to various secondary characters about what they feel about what's going on, and explore the surrounding area a little.
Where am I going to find that opportunity? Obviously not on the big screen!
The bottom line is that computers allow for a variety of different story telling opportunities. Story-telling, in all its linear, pre-composed glory, has existed for thousands of years. I, personally, as an artist, am a lot more comfortable with a distinct "author/audience" separation. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of "lack of author", it scares me a little... as a creative person. I want to hear what other people have to say, and be able to interpret that for myself... not the other way around.
I know I'm just one opinion, but I think there's room for both. And A LOT of people out there crave a story where they have the interactivity to simply be immersed in it, but not neccessarilly control it. I find this desire for complete control a bit eerie, to say the least. A certain amount of it may be healthy, and there is a place for open-ended story-telling, but I certainly don't think it should be required.
*PC* RPG, not console RPGs. That's the point. A lot of American made, PC RPGs are basically MMORPGs without the MMO part... they have very little story, and are so obsessed with non-linearity and the "make your own character" bullshit that they absolutely refuse to do so.
jRPGs/console RPGs are a different genre and a different market. aRPGs either need to either jump onboard with the MMO stuff, or learn a few things about story and character development from their friends across the Pacific. Both genres have merrit and a strong future, single-player, non-linear RPGs, however, do not. Elder Scrolls, I'm looking at YOU!
One possibility is that the Republican party has shifted very dramatically in the past few decades, while the democratic party, spending most of the time on the defensive, has remained relitively static. The shift of the Republican party also leaves a trail of dissolutioned old-line Republicans who are alienated by the neo-conservative crusade. It's as if the Libertarian party is sprouting from the old riverbed where the Republican party used to be. If the democratic party were to start shifting to the left (which I actually sorta hope it does, if only to broaden the gap).
Also, the Libertarian party is based on a steadfast PHILOSOPHY, that humans are better governed by a decentralized and less restritive body. While the republican party is based on a PLATFORM, stemming from a mish-mash of special interests and religious dogma. Sometimes it embraces the libertarian philosophy, but only when it fits their interests. Small, decentralized government, but not when it comes to the military, marriage, drug enforcement, reproductive rights, and so on and so forth.
The Democratic party, at its heart, I think stands for a philosophy, but it's public image has been scared into being a bit wishy-washy, due to having to have been on the defensive for so long. At it's heart, MOST democrats are liberals, believing in a strong centralized government mainly used for upholding civil liberties.
In many ways, the goals of liberals and libertarians are the same, just with a different ideas about the best way of achieving those goals. I think this is true for some republicans as well, but I believe that the right-wing groups have a very different vision of where this country should go.
I, myself, am a pretty steadfast Liberal... I believe that a strong central government is, in many ways, the most efficient way of going. But I can easilly respect and understand the views of libertarians that decentralization is the right path. Sometimes I can agree. I guess my main difference is that I don't inherently see strong centralized government as a neccessarilly evil thing, the way most libertarians seem to... I don't think we have a reason to be afraid of either way, really, and think that there is a place for both at different times. I also dispise social darwinism, and believe that most people that fail did not do so by their own incompetance, and therefor should be given a great amount of public support to pick themselves up again... I know this view is somewhat looked down upon by most Libertarains. And that's why I'm not one, but I can still understand what they're saying.
Republicans, however, are pretty much lost on me... and I think they're sorta lost on themselves, frankly... I'm not quite sure they stand for anything other than big business and religious dogma, these days, both powers that are as equally dangerious, if not more so, than centralized government.
Similarly, Clinton was more conservative than Nixon, and much more conservative than the mainstream dems, he's not too far from Lieberman and McCain. I don't particularly care for his politics, because of this, but I do like what he stood for: intelligence, accedamia, and making decissions on a step by step basis instead of being an ideologue.
I think a lot of libertarians would be mighty offended by you calling them conservatives. Libertarians, are, by defenition, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Many get lumped into the republican camp, but just as many vote democrat because of the social issues.
I always thought that FF13 was going to be a 2008 release, my biggest surprise is that this is news at all.
In any case, Final Fantasy, while not dead to me, ha really lost its charm as of late. I mean, I liked FF12 well enough, but then I went on to play Tales of the Abyss, and realized that I was enjoying myself a whole lot more, and found that title to be much more engrossing. FF12 came in a distant fourth this year after Twilight Princess, Okami, and Tales of the Abyss. That's not bad, since all those games were absolutely stunning, but unlike FF6-9, which I believe to be the pinnical of the series, they just don't have that wonderous charm that they once did. FFX was pure crap, as far as I'm concerned. At this point, I'm going to put more faith in Bandai-Namco, Mistwalker, and Gust to make the best jRPGs... I'm also really looking forward to Trusty Bell/Eternal Sonata, even that's Tri-Crescendo, a company I usually dispise.
That said, the color coding isn't really neccessary, the whole point is that you don't want people to be LOOKING at the controller. That said, many games will have on-screen visual references to buttons, like in WW at the top right corner of the screen, THAT'S when color coding comes in handy... but that's really the only time. I like what they've done with the Wiimote and Classic controllers by making solid white buttons and clear plastic buttons, it just looks really ellegant. I just wish they had scooped the X and Y buttons on the CC like with the American SNES controller.
Unfortunately, MP3 *IS* bounding-box crap. I'm sure it'll be a great game, but it's just a small evolutionary step from Medal of Honor, Red Steele and the like. This pisses me off. There are many more kinds of methods for controlling FPSs on the Wii, things like using the motion sensor in the nuncuck to "steer" your character, freeing up the Wiimote to do only aiming and firing. Unfortunately, developers are insistant that bounding-box is the be-all-and-end-all control scheme, without realizing that it's one of the most clunky. It'll eventually kill FPSs on the Wii, regardless of how "fine tuned" MP3s bounding-box control is.
Sorry, that's just my jaded opinion.
Well, there are two reasons for that...
First off, small style arcade games belong, more, on handhelds, so Nintendo wants to lead developers in the direction of the DS for those titles, which makes perfect sense to me. Also, they HAVE announced it, it's called the Virtual Console. It has been putting out older games (which are the bulk of the 360 and PS3s arcade libraries, anyway) since launch, and will have room for new arcade-style games here fairly shortly.
Honestly, I think Nintendo is currently doing the best for small arcade titles, just not on the Wii. Microsoft has no choice, and Sony's trying to make the PSP exclusively non-arcady, so the DS is really the best option.
Yes, Uematsu did a few of the tracks, but a very small amount. Probably the most notable is the boss battle theme (which is one of my favorites in the game), but I think it was as few as 7 tracks.
On that note, I don't think CT sounds ANYTHING like Chrono Cross. I found CCs soundtrack to be horrific both in musical nature, and how it fit with the game. Xenogears was somewhere in the middle... basically, I don't like where Mitsuda's going. I think he's sort of like a lesser Uematsu who got lost somewhere along there studying James Horner's more recent film scores, which I equally deplore.
This is what makes the GCN controller the best controller ever made, IMO. Tactile reference... seems to be a lost art these days. Even Nintendo abandoned it with the Classic Controller, which doesn't scoop the X and Y buttons like it's SNES cousin. Now, the angle of the buttons on the SNES controller were attrocious.
Not simply because of my own personal preference, but there was a lot more thought that went into it than any other controller to date... there are some extremely thoughtfull design decisions that went into it to make it much more immediate than other controllers of the time. It's not perfect, as I can see room for improvement, but it simply does a few things better than any other controller:
Button shape:
This is the main reason why I feel the controller outperforms all others. Each button is skulpted differently, with a different size and shape, so that your thumb immediately has tactile feedback as to which button performs which action. About 5 minutes into a game, it's very rare to hit the wrong button or for their to be a delay in time between wanting to perform an action, and remembering which button to press. Where-as, on the PS2 and the XBox, I find myself hitting wrong buttons all the time, especially buttons across from each other (the human brain is able to distinguish up and down much more easilly than left and right). Each button shape also represents the function and amount of use of each action. The largest button is always the action button, it being the most tied to direct actions, with the smaller B button for secondary, but commonly used actions (jumping, etc.), while the more oddly shaped X and Y buttons are for more specialty actions and commands.
3-Shoulder Buttons:
This is probably the most controversial aspect of the controller. Many times, it's pointed that Nintendo would have been facing a lawsuit with Sony had they put four shoulder buttons on the controller. None-the-less, what resulted from this decision was pure perfection. Having an odd number of shoulder buttons makes the controller aesymmetrical, and this makes it more immediate for the brain to interpret which action to perform. As I mentioned earlier, the brain has a difficult time distinguishing left and right, and sometimes has to stop and think about which is which (even if you're not dyslexic). But having a different number of buttons on each side of the controller makes each side "feel" distinctly different, and thus the brain can access that side of the controller much more quickly. Now, the z-button itself is a dog, it could have been made much more robustly, could have been given pressure sensitivity, and made bigger, but still have it be very differently constructed than the R button.
Different A-Stick design:
This isn't as much of a deal, since their position is so outragiously different, it would be difficult to accidently switch the two... but it still shows that there was a lot of psychology that went into the design. The A-stick shows a very traditional design, color, and shape, where-as the oddly shaped C-Stick very clearly represents specialty actions such as camera control.
Now, for irgonomics and basic robustness, the 360 controller quite possibly comes out on top, although besides the 360 controller, I think the GCN controller is still very robust and irgonomic compared to it's other counterparts. But from a psychological perspective, and the perspective of design philosophy, the GameCube controller has a much better handle on the neurological process of connecting desired actions action with button pressess.
It's not perfect, there are a few things that could have been improved:
- The D-Pad is attrocious... not that it ever gets used
- The Z-button is slightly too small, to thin, and could have been given pressure sensitivity
- The face buttons could have been given pressure sensitivity
- The wings could have been a slightly thicker
- Addition of a select button
Unfortunately, the odd button shape and color-coded layout makes it look like a toy to some. This is unfortunate since both of these things were not done to represent a child-like appearence, rather than to achieve immediate visual and tactile recognition of different buttons.
For every person they offended, 5 went out and bought the game because of it.
I think it partially stems from the fact that the US, in particular, has this sort of aversion to drama and abstraction, in general. We seem to prefer the "realistic" to the "fantastic", partially because fantasy and mellodrama offend so easily. In fantasy, and mellodrama, the audience is required to open up themselves in various ways, emotionally and imaginitively, that I think a lot of people feel a bit self-concious of doing. It's also kind of a macho thing too, guys aren't supposed to be emotional or particularly imaginative.
I think this sorta explains the rise of GTA over fantasy games, but I think it also begins to explain the distinction between Brain Age and fantasy/drama titles.
The Wii version is absolutely NOTHING like the original GC game. They already had a interview with some of the guys at S-E, and the details suggested that it would be an almost 180 degree change from the first: completely different style, non-repeatitive gameplay, a fully, epic story, no "pot". The way it was described made it sound like a cross between Zelda and Skies of Arcadia, when I heard that... I had to put on a new pare of pants.
The DS version looks to be slightly more similar, but again, no pot, smaller areas, and non-repeatitive story.
I honestly didn't have a huge problem with the soundtrack... most of the dungeon music wasn't really there, but what WAS there was actually quite good. I really loved the intro theme, basically taking the traditional Uematsu-esque style, and giving it a Celtic spin... and doing it in a non-offensive, non-Mitsuda/Horner-esque sorta way.
Possibly... the PS2s library suddenly became amazing in the last year or so, before that, I was actually pretty discontent with it. But at the 11th hour, they proved to have one of the absolutely strongest libraries of any console in history, with maybe only the SNES and POSSIBLY the PS1 ahead. The XBox360 is starting to look mighty good right now, and this coming from an old guard PS2 and GameCube/Wii fan. But I'm really excited about the Wii games coming out, especially the new Chrystal Chronicals, which, unlike the first, is looking to be a masterpiece. I'm not even as interested in FF13 as I am in this new action RPG. I've got hopes for MP3 (though I've got my reservations after MP2 and MPH), and Brawl is looking to be a gem. NiGHTS is also going to be stellar.
On the 360 end, I'm mostly looking at jRPGs... Eternal Sonata, especially... but also Lost Odyssey. I'm just hoping we get some jRPG love on the Wii... especially a Tales game.
How is that possible? By the time the XBox came out, the PS2 was doing gloriously. FFX pretty much solidified its dominance back in 2001, and all the gaming press I generally heard was possitive. Also, Sony were still the "good guys" back then, with the evil Microsoft looming overhead, and the bastardly Nintendo about to make their move. Also, the PS2 was such a saving grace after what was looking to be the utter failior of the DreamCast (now realized to be largely because of Sony FUD).
Now, the tables have turned. Sony is the evil money-grubbing company that doesn't care about quality of content, just superficial image, Microsoft have proven themselves to be relatively "decent", and Nintendo are the shining beacon of inginuity and vision.
Public perception makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE. If you decide to hate a company, you're basically lost to them as a costomer, no matter how great a product you deliver. Sony are currently the "bad guys" (note the difference between "bad guys" and "bad boys") of the generation, and that's going to cost them dearly, no matter what titles they put out.
The fact is, much of the old gamer gaurd refused to accept Microsoft because console gamers were always at odds with PC gamers, and Microsoft represented a threatening side of gaming. This is a large reason why the XBox didn't come out on top last generation. Now, they have proven themselves, and Sony has some real competition. And even moreso from Nintendo, who are currently presenting themselves (and being generally regarded), as the saviours of the gaming industry... and both companies are living up to their claims.
I like RPGs... so I'm going to get an XBox360...
Wow, I never thought I'd end up saying that! Good job, Sony!