Different strokes for different folks. When I was young, a tiny little arcade game could keep me busy for hours. Now, if I'm going to play something, I want something I can really sink my teeth into. I play an hour or so before bed, after a long day at the office... sorta my equivalent to how a lot of people read before bed. I don't know what's hard to understand about that, people read books that take them weeks, 20 minutes here, 20 minutes there... a lot of people do the same with games.
And you're right, a lot of these new gamers that Nintendo's been recruiting are going to be turned off by epic games... at first... but once they get a good taste for gaming, a lot of them are going to be begging for more and more complex material. There's always a lot of room for longer games, they may be MORE comfortable to some new gamers, since they're closer to the film and literature they're used to.
Bottom line is, everyone is entertained differently. Mindless fun isn't... well... very fun for me. In every genre, if it has no substance or depth, I get bored really fast. That's just me, but you'd be surprised how many people have similar entertainment habits.
Think back a short time ago, it's early 2004, and Nintendo has just announced a little portable with two screens and a stylus. I just about beat my head against the wall with laughter, I thought it was such a rediculus idea. The comments ranged from anger, to pitty, to Nintendo doomsday scenarios. Not a single positive comment. Come holiday 2004: a few people bought it, played it for 2 days, and tucked it safely away for later. Fast forward to April, 2007... it's the best selling console of all time, first and third party developers have come up with amazing usage of the new interface, and some even believe that it may be in direct competition with the TV based consoles of its generation (for the first time in handheld history).
The DS was a joke for the first 9 months of its existance... and I can tell you that the Wii is FAR from that. It'll take time, but developers these days seem to be really up for the challenge. The Wii's potential is enormous, and it's already doing fairly well (comparitively to other consoles at the same point) already.
All I'm saying is, the Wii is breaking all logical expectations. I don't think anyone, especially Nintendo, invisioned this amount of success. And if you thought it was going to be any better than this, in terms of game library, by this point... you need to study your history.
Dude, I think he understands what WarioWare: Smooth Moves is. The fact is, no, it wasn't really all that great of a game. It was lots of fun for a couple of hours, but soon all my friends and I go back to smash bros or watching each other play Zelda (which is fun in of itself). The GameCube version was much more condusive to party play, and let's face it... we don't buy WarioWare for the single-player mode.
All I'm saying is this: WarioWare ($50) - 5 hours of gameplay Final Fantasy XII ($60) - 140 hours of gameplay.
And I'd say that I pretty much enjoyed every hour of FF12 more than every hour of WarioWare, so I'm not thinking that WW was exactly the best value for its money. Don't get me wrong, its a great concept, and includes a couple hours of real fun, but after that... "meh".
Bottom line is, Zelda was an epic game that made great use of the controller. Why are we being limited to ONLY short-lived arcade-style games, now?
Ahhhh, but there's a pretty simple answer to that question: the inevitable post-launch draught. Epic games take A LONG TIME to make, so of course the first things to hit the shelves are the easy to produce, quick to throw away, minigame collections and arcade titles. Ports also are first to come along, as the innitial design process (the most time consuming part) is already done. So there we go: the Wii has all the "small" games, and the PS3 has all the ports for their post-launch draughts.
So, while I may not be playing my Wii on a regular basis (it's actually on loan to a friend at the moment), I'm not worried in the slightest. All consoles start off as "potential with no content", hell, just look at the 360! Next week, we get Super Paper Mario... the second "epic-sized" game to hit the Wii. It should all be uphill from here.
Bingo. I think the 360 is a great compliment to the Wii, no need to double functionality. Bottom line is, Sony or Microsoft are not going to get anywhere close to the level of usability that Nintendo's motion sensing has, anytime soon. Rather than do something halfassed, play to your strengths (traditional gaming styles, high quality graphics, online mutliplayer).
Similarly, I'd like to see Nintendo stay away from online multiplayer until they think they can do it really well. They took the same attitude with optical media load times (stuck with cartridges for one more generation) and I think we're going to see that pay off in the long run.
Also, I don't think the Wii is going to be big, come 2010. The Wii is a short life-span console, by design, and will be replaced with a beefier, HD capable system sometime around 2010. I don't think Nintendo has to worry about whether the system is going to hold up for 5 years, they probably view it as a transitional system. With all the money they're making from it, that could happen sooner rather than later.
By comparison, it requires a greater amount of research and commitment (usually) to purchase a Mac, because of market saturation for Win, but it doesn't make you any more knowledgeable of the underpinnings.
Of course not, simply buying a mac doesn't make you inherently more intelligent. But as you yourself agknowledged, it takes a bit more effort and clear understanding of what you need, to purchase a Mac, due to it being a niche purchase. That, in of itself, usually weeds out the absolute bottom-feeder level users, who have no idea what they're doing, and what they're using a computer for. You do have to go out of your way, in price, in software, and in purchasing location, to buy a Mac, which suggests that you, most likely, know a bit about what you're doing and why you're doing it.
As for "Apple chic", I'm not sure if it hurts Apple or not. Obviously, it doesn't really indear Macs to corporate big shots, who wouldn't want to be caught dead with something labeled "cute". But as a business strategy, it's rallied a lot of younger people to their side. The bottom line is that corporate-types have ALWAYS resisted creative/design philosophies. Doesn't matter if it's a Mac or whatever... the fact that it's designed, specifically, for creative work, actually hurts its reputation within the admin block of the business world. Administrative staff are used to looking at numbers, figures, and results... and not all that Macs have to offer can be quantified so easily in that manner. They're more expensive because a lot of time and money goes into interface R&D, higher grade componants to insure a more fluid creative experience: less distractions, etc.
For instance, an adminstrative person looks at hardware upkeep costs. They note that Windows machines tend to need a higher amount of upkeep, but that the hardware is cheeper, so it actually costs less to fix in the long term, even figuring in the lost time by employees. A designer, however, will take into account the fact that all the lost time isn't just lost money from the bottom line, but that having to stop and restart projects interrupts the creative process.
As I mentioned, I work as a TV Producer. The entire company is Windows based; not a Mac within miles of here. Our IT staff are basically radio/tv engineers who have some basic computer training. Macs are like cryptonite to engineers, they'd rather die than have a Mac be set in front of them. The idea of allowing production to use Final Cut might as well be akin to proposing serial homicide. They're such windows zealots that, it goes as far as: if there's a microsoft version of a particular type of program, no matter how unusable, we have to use it. I'm sure if Microsoft came out with a competitor to Photoshop, we'd be required to use it. It's a wonder we don't do our production in Windows Movie Maker. I once downloaded Firefox and almost got fired. So I'm frusterated, and sick and tired of the bullshit.
I'm not even going to get into the so-called superiority of Windows NT and 2000... it is to laugh, and I speak as one who used NT and Mac OS at the same time. How did you like NTs USB support, by the way?
Actually, I'll agree with him here. I think you missunderstood him. He's stating the superiority of NT and 2000 over the other Windows OSs. I'll echo that: NT, 2000, and XP are god's gift to computing, in comparison to 95, 98 and ME. They're nothing compared to OS X, of course, but at least those OSs are the first semi-functional OSs of the Windows line.
I guess my reasoning for being a "Mac fanboy" (if you must call me that) is neither due to their hardware or software... it's their design philosophy that I really admire and support. They've chosen to go down a path where they've agknowledged that basic utilitarianism only goes so far. They spend a huge amount of time on designing interfaces (both hardware and software) that are intuitive and elegant. As a media producer, myself, I really relate to this line of thinking. There are some basic creative principals at play here, and as someone who is striving day in and day out to achieve elegent designs, I'd say Apple's work is pretty in tune with the way I approach my work.
Linux will never be able to satisfy my thinking that way. It's simply too clear-cut utilitarian. There's not enough structure, not enough unity in its design philosophy. It's like a building in which every room was designed by a different architect in a different style. Each one may be elegant and functional, but when you step back, the gestalt is grotesque and ununified. Form follows function, yes... but when you have no overarching form, you lose the wholeness of the functionality as well. A computer is just as much a work of creative design as is a building's architecture. Both are functional works of creativity, but functionality is directly related to aesthetics.
My reasoning might be a little bit out there, but I suspect that at some level, this is one of the subconcious reasons why many people like me are drawn to Apple (and Nintendo's) work.
Actually, there is a "many". The fact is, the Mac is a niche machine... it's a business machine made specifically for design fields. If you're buying a mac, then there's a very good chance you're some kind of artist/designer. Seeing that you have break from the norm to get one, it's likely that you're a bit more serious about what you do than the average computer user. The Mac Pro machines are great for companies to buy, but for us that would like to take our work home with us, a lot of us can't really afford to throw $2,500 on a computer (designer possitions are usually very underpaid). That's why the Mac, as a concept, is a terrible gaming platform... it's not made for playing around. It's friendly design comes from the fact that creative types have a lot more appreciation for elegant and sophisticated design... don't let that fool you into thinking it's the everyman computer.
Me, I'm a TV producer who's main work, at home, is in music composition. I need a beefy system capable of handling Digital Performer with a number of software synth instances. That takes power and RAM. But most importantly, it requires a computer that can grow sufficiantly along with the industry (which is becoming more and more complicated by the day). I don't need the state-of-the-art, but I need something that won't be obsolete in a year.
Especially since the Mac Pro is the ONLY Mac, on the market right now, not built on portable architecture. The iMac's 3GB RAM limit is a deal killer for me, the slower clock speeds of the processors are a deal killer for others, and the repair work costs may be a deal killer for others. That said, why must I pay $2.5k for a "non-portable" computer? Apple's come a long way on improving its pricing on the consumer end of things, but their pro-level stuff has just fallen from grace. I was hoping that with this 8-core machine, they'd drop the entire line's pricepoint by $500, but it seems that they just want to build on top of it.
I'm sure there's a niche for an 8-core, 3.0Ghz machine. But there's a much greater cry for a low-level tower, and it's fairly obvious that Apple is purposefully ignoring these pleas, simply because they feel that those that are crying for one, will eventually suck it up and spend the $2,500. They're probably right, too, I'm going to have to do this. It just seems that at a point where they've really been concentrating on expanding their install-base, they'd be better off forgetting about the bottom line for a sec. Damn share-holders.
Bingo. Programming is a tool. Knowing how to use a hammer doesn't make you a good architect. That said, playing games is important. You're not going to write an interesting piece of music unless you listen to a lot of music, same with every genre. Learn to understand the success and failings of those who came before you. Then get out, and use your own life experiences to build on those things that you feel worked... it's like any art form, you're better off learning much more than just how to create in that medium.
That's why I dropped out of my composition major and got my degree in multi-media music and sound design, I know have a lot more diverse experiences I can draw from to create good music... even if it is just straightforward orchestral scores.
That's the thing, so many people who want to be game designers go out and get CS degrees. This is probably about as far as you want to get to break into the video game field. For every programmer, there are like 10 designers behind him: graphic artists, game theorists, UI developers, screen-writers, composers, sound technicians, etc.
It's basically like if everyone who wanted to be in cinema went to study cinematography. Cinematography may be the thing that actually produces the final product, but a film is worthless without everything else involved.
You'd be way better off studying commercial design philosophy, getting a liberal arts degree, and maybe some psychology under your belt. Those things will enable you to think more in terms of how to create original and markettable gaming techniques.
Most games these days are built on pre-built engines. All the development is high-level software... nothing that you're going to pick up in learning C++. Now, don't get me wrong, in learning C++ you'll also learn some valuable thinking skills in order to get you working quickly under various circumstances, but your best skills are going to come from walking away from your computer/game system, and just learning how to think in terms of elegant design and functionality. People play games to have fun, after all... if it feels like a game is made by people who do nothing but sit behind screens and type in numbers, it's not going to be a fun experience.
Well, Amtrack is completely stuck, because they don't OWN any tracks. That's right, our only nationally endorsed rail system has to pay all it's dues to local and statewide private transport companies, who could care less about speed and environmental concerns. Amtrack itself really isn't to blame, it's the government who refuses to consider building interstate rail systems that function worth a damn.
People mistake "not first place" for "not doing very well". Yes, Dragon Quest is Japans favorite jRPG series, and Final Fantasy is the favorite jRPG of the rest of the world, but don't mistake that for "Final Fantasy doesn't do as well in Japan". Final Fantasy does extremely well in japan, at something like the 5th best selling games in the country (mostly after DQ, Pokemon, and Mario).
Per capita, Final Fantasy does even better in Japan than it does in the rest of the world, it just so happens that one other jRPG tops it there. In the US, about 20 or so other series top it in sales, but it happens to be our favorite jRPG. Keep in mind that Japan has quite a large population (something like 1/3rd of the US), with a much larger percentage of gamers. So, to brush off Final Fantasy's sales in Japan as being "not very important" simply because Dragon Quest outsells it, is to really miss the big picture.
There's a good reason why they're always written, first, in Japanese, and then translated. Square is big enough, with enough english writers, that if they thought Final Fantasy was more important to the US, they wouldn't hesitate to do them first in English, and then translate them over to Japanese. But the fact remains, Japan is still the capital of the world when it comes to the Final Fantasy series.
That said, and because of the high popularity of the series, it could practically make the 360 the system of choice overnight. Not only would it give the Japanese one of their favorite series, it would tell them that the 360 is now a system ripe for Japanese-style games. Currently, it's still viewed as the meathead, baka gaijin (stupid westerner) system with a completely un-japanese aesthetic. But with Mistwalker and Squeenix, that might be viewed as a turning point.
Some of those seem realistic, some of those are a bit excessive. Multipul touch screens could be very awkward and combersomb, it would lead to a lot of problematic UIs; it's just better to just force the game developers come up with interfaces that don't require two touch screens. Multi-touch, on the other hand, sounds completely acceptable (as long as it's ecconomically feasable, which I'm guessing it would be). You can almost completely forget about rumble though... it's a little asked for feature that requires additional weight, and people are demanding that handhelds be smaller and lighter. Better to simply include an optional rumble GBA cartridge, like what was done with Metroid Pinball. All your other things make perfect sense.
Nintendo is really searching for ways of tieing the DS and the Wii together, because it ensures that more people will get both. That's why there's a very similar look & feel in the design between both. Things like accellerometer (tilt detection), Channels, Miis, Virtual Console, and internal storage, I think you can be sure are fairly high on the list for the next handheld.
But don't expect it to be out anytime soon... I'd say early '09 at the earliest. The Lite just came out less than a year ago, and remember that the GBA, as a line, had a good 4-5 year run, and the DS is doing even better than that. I expect that the Wii will have a shorter lifespan than most consoles (they'll make a WiiHD in a few years), and I think it would be reasonable to assume that they'll update both lines around the same time, in order to tie their successes even more closely together.
Mod parent up. Damn, that was great. It's too bad you posted AC, because your score fell to zero, and so many people won't notice this insightful post.
I couldn't agree more with everything you're saying. I'm just sick and tired of people making up their minds before any results come in. When this thread first started, it was full of "no shit" and "duh" comments, which just really pissed me off, because science is a very very complicated thing that takes some serious and critical thinking.
I'm also sick and tired of the black & white responses that the press and the public are looking for. I've heard people go as far in making flippent comments as to say, "I've been playing violent games since I was 9, and I've never killed anyone, so they must be okay." This is simply rediculous, but it's the same attitude I see in the public every day. Psychology is all a series of grey areas, there are no such thing as hard and fast rules. Of course playing a violent video game won't turn average joe into a gun-toting psychopath, but there's a legitimate question as to whether it might make average joe just slightly more aggressive or irratable in some way that makes other's lives just that much more unpleasant. When you look at a society, little things like this can have major cultural consequences, so it's important to discuss openly, and not jump to conclusions. And I'm not suggesting that it DOES, but we have to be open to the possibility that it might, and be prepared to discuss what to do about it, if it is indeed the case.
Our culture wants everything in black & white terms: good and evil, right and wrong, guilty and innocent. In this day, you're either a crimina or you're an angel. It's all a huge "Us and Them" game, a way of separating ourselves from everyone we don't understand. These studies are important because they tell a lot about how we learn and grow as a society. To ignore the finer points just because they don't help us to stroke our ego, by being "the good guys", is to do violence to the very idea of personal and societal growth.
How about an FF3-like remake of Chrono Trigger? I really wanted them to do this with FF6, but that's extremely unlikely, since it was just released for the GBA, but I could settle for Chrono Trigger. Both FF6 and CT were games that really felt like they were meant to be set in a 3D world, but were forced to use the 2D graphics of the time. I don't think it's at all, out of the question, seeing as though they already grouped CT in with the last remake of the series. Now that the GBA is dead, and we've gotten a taste of FFIII on the DS, they can't justify simply using the same same sprite-based engine like they did for FF4-6.
Zero Mission wasn't "more like the original Metroid", it was a complete remake. It shared the same BASIC level architecture... although it changed so much that at times it's almost impossible to tell. It basically used a slightly altered varient of the Super Metroid engine, which was completely different from the original. Having played both, and Super Metroid, I'll say that Metroid Zero Mission is a completely different game than the original. Don't think you've played the original metroid if you've played ZM. It's a lot more like Super Metroid, in terms of gameplay, graphics, and look & feel. After all, Super Metroid is sort of a remake of the original... takes place in the same area, battles some of the same bosses, and has basically the same basic premise.
That said, I loved Zero Mission, and thought that, except for its shorter length... was, minute to minute, every bit as good as Super Metroid. Definitely one of the best games for the GBA (MUCH better than that abomination, Metroid Fusion). But yes, a remake of Super Metroid for the DS would be great. But even more, I'd like to see a NEW side-scrolling Metroid game. Don't get me wrong, Prime is one of the best games ever made... but its gameplay makes it a totally different series, and I want more sidescrolling action to augment my 3D game library.
Jesus dude, I own the game, and I played a lot of Mario 64 (the original), not too long ago. It's an update, not a remake, trust me. They ADDED multipul characters (of which you can choose to always play as Mario), and slightly altered the power-up system (I'll remind you that the power-up systems in both versions of the game are an extremely minor part of the gameplay, unlike the games in the rest of the series). After that, they ADDED one more star to each course, without altering the courses. Made very very few gameplay changes. It was an update with a few added goodies, like Super Mario World Advanced. Even the graphics are pretty much identical. You want a remake? Metroid Zero Mission is a remake. Mario 64 DS and Mario 3 All-stars, those are updates.
The DS seems incredibly capable at handling material originally made for the N64. MarioKart DS had identical gameplay and look&feel to MarioKart 64, used many of the same levels, and had about the same quality of graphics, or maybe just a bit better. Sure, they had to port the code... that's why it's called a PORT.
And by: "at the expense of good new games", I'm making a jab at the PSPs relitively weak library, as compared to the DS... of whose library you would be sacrificing if you chose to get a PSP, instead, just so you could play Mario 64, in all its original, "single-character glory."
Seriously, call me back when I can play Majora's Mask.
Interesting point, I forgot about the quality increase. You're probably right. Although, once the industry gets a taste of the profits from $1.29 songs, it'll be hard to convince them to back off.
Actually, seeing as though the GameCube is about twice as powerful as the PS2, not to mention that the hardware anti-aliasing made it look even more than that, an FF game on just the GameCube would be a huge step up. All people really care about is progress in graphics, and having the next FF game on the Wii would be exactly that, and by quite a bit. Actually, the differences between 8-12 have all been fairly minor, even the graphics of FF9 are not too far behind that of FFX. FF12 looked extremely glitchy, because the PS2 was fairly inferior, graphically, that an "overclocked GameCube" (of which the Wii is actually quite a bit more than just that), would be a huge sigh of relief. FF12 sold JUST FINE, just 6 months ago, on a system that was able to produce graphics that were about the quality of the GameCube's launch titles.
I think you underestimate the jRPG playing community, graphics are really not as important as you might think. This is a genre that began with text-based gameplay and progressed to sub-standard NES and SNES graphics, and on to extremely block and subpar 3D graphics (FF7 was a hit, but no one claimed that it was a graphical wonder). The important thing is immersion, and that comes from a host of things, but mostly: story, characters, writing, design, music... and yes, graphics. But the graphics of an overclocked gamecube would be more than suitable for the next release. You can bet that if it went to the Wii, people would snatch it up like you wouldn't believe, I don't think you'd hear much complaining. Remember that this is largely the same audience that snatched up Twilight Princess and, for the most part, absolutely loved it.
People remember the graphics of a game, mostly, for its most dazzling graphical moments... all of which are done with pre-rendered CG that will look identical on all consoles (under ED resolution). Snazzy real-time graphics are far more the baby of the FPS community than of the RPG playing community. After all, a lot of the time we're content being burried beneath menus, or reading text boxes, anyway. You're just putting way too much stock in it. Yes, an OverClocked GameCube will more than suffice.
Although, this is interesting, and there is some merit to the study, it only studies one part of the issue, natural tendancies as apposed to cultural ones. As someone else said, "Quake 2 is a far cry from today's GTA games", and I echo this. For its time Quake 2 was pretty violent, but culturally, it has become pretty much fully accepted and with no particular concern. What's probably more of a problem, however, is children who are constantly being asked to push the envilope of cultural acceptability of violence. I have no problem with going against cultural norms, as a whole, but children who are expected to accept violent entertainment at the edge of the cultural norm, may act very differently than ones that are expected to accept violent entertainment which has become culturally acceptable.
The bottom line is that eventually our culture comes to terms with some form of devient behavior. It's not that we morally condone it, but we become able to rationally assess it, without it becoming a sick fascination. The concern isn't so much that the violent imagery, itself, is a problem, so much as that our cravings for greater and greater violent imagery can pose a problem. We should look at this topic rationally and without reservation, there are no "duh's" or "no shit's" here. It's a valid concern. While I admit that most people, in their habbits, are healthy in their entertainment, I've also witnessed teenagers who play games specifically for the blood... which is sad, and a bit disconcerting. Violence can be used to portray strong messages, but in of itself (just like any type of stimuli) has no merrit.
I think this study is very good because it explore the natural disposition factor to violence in entertainment, and I'm sure that this is exactly WHY they chose Quake 2 to use, instead of the latest extremely violent games. That'll probably come next.
Nintendo's major 3rd part issues came from two ligitimate concerns that had more to do with their overall vision of video gaming, than any immediate bottom line return. The first was closed licensing, which is hard to debate, at this point, was a bad thing... in fact, it pretty much saved video gaming. The more controversial (even today) decision was to continue with cartridges for one more generation. While some great things came out of CDs, there was a very ligitimate concern that Nintendo had about having immediate, and not fragmented, gameplay due to the slow speed of optical drives. It did bring a new problem to the game industry that is just as much an issue now, as it was then.
In the long run, however, Nintendo was able to hold back, and teach developers how to properly impliment memory storage routines in order to mask load times. The result is two systems, now, that use optical media and have almost no wait times. Furthermore, it tought developers how to be creative with in-game 3D engines, instead of always resorting to prerendered FMVs to do the work for them. They may have fallen from the lead spot for two generations, but it may end up paying off in the long-run. I don't think Nintendo would be as solid as it is today, had they abandoned cartridge media and gone optical. Someone had to go optical (Sony and Sega did) in order to innovate on that front, but I think it was very wise for one company to remain behind for one generation, in order to fix all the details first.
Slashdot Mirror
Different strokes for different folks. When I was young, a tiny little arcade game could keep me busy for hours. Now, if I'm going to play something, I want something I can really sink my teeth into. I play an hour or so before bed, after a long day at the office... sorta my equivalent to how a lot of people read before bed. I don't know what's hard to understand about that, people read books that take them weeks, 20 minutes here, 20 minutes there... a lot of people do the same with games.
And you're right, a lot of these new gamers that Nintendo's been recruiting are going to be turned off by epic games... at first... but once they get a good taste for gaming, a lot of them are going to be begging for more and more complex material. There's always a lot of room for longer games, they may be MORE comfortable to some new gamers, since they're closer to the film and literature they're used to.
Bottom line is, everyone is entertained differently. Mindless fun isn't... well... very fun for me. In every genre, if it has no substance or depth, I get bored really fast. That's just me, but you'd be surprised how many people have similar entertainment habits.
Time, dude, it takes time.
Think back a short time ago, it's early 2004, and Nintendo has just announced a little portable with two screens and a stylus. I just about beat my head against the wall with laughter, I thought it was such a rediculus idea. The comments ranged from anger, to pitty, to Nintendo doomsday scenarios. Not a single positive comment. Come holiday 2004: a few people bought it, played it for 2 days, and tucked it safely away for later. Fast forward to April, 2007... it's the best selling console of all time, first and third party developers have come up with amazing usage of the new interface, and some even believe that it may be in direct competition with the TV based consoles of its generation (for the first time in handheld history).
The DS was a joke for the first 9 months of its existance... and I can tell you that the Wii is FAR from that. It'll take time, but developers these days seem to be really up for the challenge. The Wii's potential is enormous, and it's already doing fairly well (comparitively to other consoles at the same point) already.
All I'm saying is, the Wii is breaking all logical expectations. I don't think anyone, especially Nintendo, invisioned this amount of success. And if you thought it was going to be any better than this, in terms of game library, by this point... you need to study your history.
Dude, I think he understands what WarioWare: Smooth Moves is. The fact is, no, it wasn't really all that great of a game. It was lots of fun for a couple of hours, but soon all my friends and I go back to smash bros or watching each other play Zelda (which is fun in of itself). The GameCube version was much more condusive to party play, and let's face it... we don't buy WarioWare for the single-player mode.
All I'm saying is this:
WarioWare ($50) - 5 hours of gameplay
Final Fantasy XII ($60) - 140 hours of gameplay.
And I'd say that I pretty much enjoyed every hour of FF12 more than every hour of WarioWare, so I'm not thinking that WW was exactly the best value for its money. Don't get me wrong, its a great concept, and includes a couple hours of real fun, but after that... "meh".
Bottom line is, Zelda was an epic game that made great use of the controller. Why are we being limited to ONLY short-lived arcade-style games, now?
Ahhhh, but there's a pretty simple answer to that question: the inevitable post-launch draught. Epic games take A LONG TIME to make, so of course the first things to hit the shelves are the easy to produce, quick to throw away, minigame collections and arcade titles. Ports also are first to come along, as the innitial design process (the most time consuming part) is already done. So there we go: the Wii has all the "small" games, and the PS3 has all the ports for their post-launch draughts.
So, while I may not be playing my Wii on a regular basis (it's actually on loan to a friend at the moment), I'm not worried in the slightest. All consoles start off as "potential with no content", hell, just look at the 360! Next week, we get Super Paper Mario... the second "epic-sized" game to hit the Wii. It should all be uphill from here.
Bingo. I think the 360 is a great compliment to the Wii, no need to double functionality. Bottom line is, Sony or Microsoft are not going to get anywhere close to the level of usability that Nintendo's motion sensing has, anytime soon. Rather than do something halfassed, play to your strengths (traditional gaming styles, high quality graphics, online mutliplayer).
Similarly, I'd like to see Nintendo stay away from online multiplayer until they think they can do it really well. They took the same attitude with optical media load times (stuck with cartridges for one more generation) and I think we're going to see that pay off in the long run.
Also, I don't think the Wii is going to be big, come 2010. The Wii is a short life-span console, by design, and will be replaced with a beefier, HD capable system sometime around 2010. I don't think Nintendo has to worry about whether the system is going to hold up for 5 years, they probably view it as a transitional system. With all the money they're making from it, that could happen sooner rather than later.
As for "Apple chic", I'm not sure if it hurts Apple or not. Obviously, it doesn't really indear Macs to corporate big shots, who wouldn't want to be caught dead with something labeled "cute". But as a business strategy, it's rallied a lot of younger people to their side. The bottom line is that corporate-types have ALWAYS resisted creative/design philosophies. Doesn't matter if it's a Mac or whatever... the fact that it's designed, specifically, for creative work, actually hurts its reputation within the admin block of the business world. Administrative staff are used to looking at numbers, figures, and results... and not all that Macs have to offer can be quantified so easily in that manner. They're more expensive because a lot of time and money goes into interface R&D, higher grade componants to insure a more fluid creative experience: less distractions, etc.
For instance, an adminstrative person looks at hardware upkeep costs. They note that Windows machines tend to need a higher amount of upkeep, but that the hardware is cheeper, so it actually costs less to fix in the long term, even figuring in the lost time by employees. A designer, however, will take into account the fact that all the lost time isn't just lost money from the bottom line, but that having to stop and restart projects interrupts the creative process.
As I mentioned, I work as a TV Producer. The entire company is Windows based; not a Mac within miles of here. Our IT staff are basically radio/tv engineers who have some basic computer training. Macs are like cryptonite to engineers, they'd rather die than have a Mac be set in front of them. The idea of allowing production to use Final Cut might as well be akin to proposing serial homicide. They're such windows zealots that, it goes as far as: if there's a microsoft version of a particular type of program, no matter how unusable, we have to use it. I'm sure if Microsoft came out with a competitor to Photoshop, we'd be required to use it. It's a wonder we don't do our production in Windows Movie Maker. I once downloaded Firefox and almost got fired. So I'm frusterated, and sick and tired of the bullshit.
Actually, I'll agree with him here. I think you missunderstood him. He's stating the superiority of NT and 2000 over the other Windows OSs. I'll echo that: NT, 2000, and XP are god's gift to computing, in comparison to 95, 98 and ME. They're nothing compared to OS X, of course, but at least those OSs are the first semi-functional OSs of the Windows line.
I guess my reasoning for being a "Mac fanboy" (if you must call me that) is neither due to their hardware or software... it's their design philosophy that I really admire and support. They've chosen to go down a path where they've agknowledged that basic utilitarianism only goes so far. They spend a huge amount of time on designing interfaces (both hardware and software) that are intuitive and elegant. As a media producer, myself, I really relate to this line of thinking. There are some basic creative principals at play here, and as someone who is striving day in and day out to achieve elegent designs, I'd say Apple's work is pretty in tune with the way I approach my work.
Linux will never be able to satisfy my thinking that way. It's simply too clear-cut utilitarian. There's not enough structure, not enough unity in its design philosophy. It's like a building in which every room was designed by a different architect in a different style. Each one may be elegant and functional, but when you step back, the gestalt is grotesque and ununified. Form follows function, yes... but when you have no overarching form, you lose the wholeness of the functionality as well. A computer is just as much a work of creative design as is a building's architecture. Both are functional works of creativity, but functionality is directly related to aesthetics.
My reasoning might be a little bit out there, but I suspect that at some level, this is one of the subconcious reasons why many people like me are drawn to Apple (and Nintendo's) work.
Actually, there is a "many". The fact is, the Mac is a niche machine... it's a business machine made specifically for design fields. If you're buying a mac, then there's a very good chance you're some kind of artist/designer. Seeing that you have break from the norm to get one, it's likely that you're a bit more serious about what you do than the average computer user. The Mac Pro machines are great for companies to buy, but for us that would like to take our work home with us, a lot of us can't really afford to throw $2,500 on a computer (designer possitions are usually very underpaid). That's why the Mac, as a concept, is a terrible gaming platform... it's not made for playing around. It's friendly design comes from the fact that creative types have a lot more appreciation for elegant and sophisticated design... don't let that fool you into thinking it's the everyman computer.
Me, I'm a TV producer who's main work, at home, is in music composition. I need a beefy system capable of handling Digital Performer with a number of software synth instances. That takes power and RAM. But most importantly, it requires a computer that can grow sufficiantly along with the industry (which is becoming more and more complicated by the day). I don't need the state-of-the-art, but I need something that won't be obsolete in a year.
Especially since the Mac Pro is the ONLY Mac, on the market right now, not built on portable architecture. The iMac's 3GB RAM limit is a deal killer for me, the slower clock speeds of the processors are a deal killer for others, and the repair work costs may be a deal killer for others. That said, why must I pay $2.5k for a "non-portable" computer? Apple's come a long way on improving its pricing on the consumer end of things, but their pro-level stuff has just fallen from grace. I was hoping that with this 8-core machine, they'd drop the entire line's pricepoint by $500, but it seems that they just want to build on top of it.
I'm sure there's a niche for an 8-core, 3.0Ghz machine. But there's a much greater cry for a low-level tower, and it's fairly obvious that Apple is purposefully ignoring these pleas, simply because they feel that those that are crying for one, will eventually suck it up and spend the $2,500. They're probably right, too, I'm going to have to do this. It just seems that at a point where they've really been concentrating on expanding their install-base, they'd be better off forgetting about the bottom line for a sec. Damn share-holders.
1) I build experience in creative thinking by studying many different fields, arts, ways of thinking, etc.
2) I get all you coders to make the games for me.
3) I hire some middle men who can tell you to make the games for me, without sounding like an asshole (like me).
I think I'm set for life.
Bingo. Programming is a tool. Knowing how to use a hammer doesn't make you a good architect. That said, playing games is important. You're not going to write an interesting piece of music unless you listen to a lot of music, same with every genre. Learn to understand the success and failings of those who came before you. Then get out, and use your own life experiences to build on those things that you feel worked... it's like any art form, you're better off learning much more than just how to create in that medium.
That's why I dropped out of my composition major and got my degree in multi-media music and sound design, I know have a lot more diverse experiences I can draw from to create good music... even if it is just straightforward orchestral scores.
That's the thing, so many people who want to be game designers go out and get CS degrees. This is probably about as far as you want to get to break into the video game field. For every programmer, there are like 10 designers behind him: graphic artists, game theorists, UI developers, screen-writers, composers, sound technicians, etc.
It's basically like if everyone who wanted to be in cinema went to study cinematography. Cinematography may be the thing that actually produces the final product, but a film is worthless without everything else involved.
You'd be way better off studying commercial design philosophy, getting a liberal arts degree, and maybe some psychology under your belt. Those things will enable you to think more in terms of how to create original and markettable gaming techniques.
Most games these days are built on pre-built engines. All the development is high-level software... nothing that you're going to pick up in learning C++. Now, don't get me wrong, in learning C++ you'll also learn some valuable thinking skills in order to get you working quickly under various circumstances, but your best skills are going to come from walking away from your computer/game system, and just learning how to think in terms of elegant design and functionality. People play games to have fun, after all... if it feels like a game is made by people who do nothing but sit behind screens and type in numbers, it's not going to be a fun experience.
Well, Amtrack is completely stuck, because they don't OWN any tracks. That's right, our only nationally endorsed rail system has to pay all it's dues to local and statewide private transport companies, who could care less about speed and environmental concerns. Amtrack itself really isn't to blame, it's the government who refuses to consider building interstate rail systems that function worth a damn.
People mistake "not first place" for "not doing very well". Yes, Dragon Quest is Japans favorite jRPG series, and Final Fantasy is the favorite jRPG of the rest of the world, but don't mistake that for "Final Fantasy doesn't do as well in Japan". Final Fantasy does extremely well in japan, at something like the 5th best selling games in the country (mostly after DQ, Pokemon, and Mario).
Per capita, Final Fantasy does even better in Japan than it does in the rest of the world, it just so happens that one other jRPG tops it there. In the US, about 20 or so other series top it in sales, but it happens to be our favorite jRPG. Keep in mind that Japan has quite a large population (something like 1/3rd of the US), with a much larger percentage of gamers. So, to brush off Final Fantasy's sales in Japan as being "not very important" simply because Dragon Quest outsells it, is to really miss the big picture.
There's a good reason why they're always written, first, in Japanese, and then translated. Square is big enough, with enough english writers, that if they thought Final Fantasy was more important to the US, they wouldn't hesitate to do them first in English, and then translate them over to Japanese. But the fact remains, Japan is still the capital of the world when it comes to the Final Fantasy series.
That said, and because of the high popularity of the series, it could practically make the 360 the system of choice overnight. Not only would it give the Japanese one of their favorite series, it would tell them that the 360 is now a system ripe for Japanese-style games. Currently, it's still viewed as the meathead, baka gaijin (stupid westerner) system with a completely un-japanese aesthetic. But with Mistwalker and Squeenix, that might be viewed as a turning point.
To quote the fortune teller from the Orson Wells film noir, "Touch of Evil":
"You have no future; you're future is all used up."
Some of those seem realistic, some of those are a bit excessive. Multipul touch screens could be very awkward and combersomb, it would lead to a lot of problematic UIs; it's just better to just force the game developers come up with interfaces that don't require two touch screens. Multi-touch, on the other hand, sounds completely acceptable (as long as it's ecconomically feasable, which I'm guessing it would be). You can almost completely forget about rumble though... it's a little asked for feature that requires additional weight, and people are demanding that handhelds be smaller and lighter. Better to simply include an optional rumble GBA cartridge, like what was done with Metroid Pinball. All your other things make perfect sense.
Nintendo is really searching for ways of tieing the DS and the Wii together, because it ensures that more people will get both. That's why there's a very similar look & feel in the design between both. Things like accellerometer (tilt detection), Channels, Miis, Virtual Console, and internal storage, I think you can be sure are fairly high on the list for the next handheld.
But don't expect it to be out anytime soon... I'd say early '09 at the earliest. The Lite just came out less than a year ago, and remember that the GBA, as a line, had a good 4-5 year run, and the DS is doing even better than that. I expect that the Wii will have a shorter lifespan than most consoles (they'll make a WiiHD in a few years), and I think it would be reasonable to assume that they'll update both lines around the same time, in order to tie their successes even more closely together.
Mod parent up. Damn, that was great. It's too bad you posted AC, because your score fell to zero, and so many people won't notice this insightful post.
I couldn't agree more with everything you're saying. I'm just sick and tired of people making up their minds before any results come in. When this thread first started, it was full of "no shit" and "duh" comments, which just really pissed me off, because science is a very very complicated thing that takes some serious and critical thinking.
I'm also sick and tired of the black & white responses that the press and the public are looking for. I've heard people go as far in making flippent comments as to say, "I've been playing violent games since I was 9, and I've never killed anyone, so they must be okay." This is simply rediculous, but it's the same attitude I see in the public every day. Psychology is all a series of grey areas, there are no such thing as hard and fast rules. Of course playing a violent video game won't turn average joe into a gun-toting psychopath, but there's a legitimate question as to whether it might make average joe just slightly more aggressive or irratable in some way that makes other's lives just that much more unpleasant. When you look at a society, little things like this can have major cultural consequences, so it's important to discuss openly, and not jump to conclusions. And I'm not suggesting that it DOES, but we have to be open to the possibility that it might, and be prepared to discuss what to do about it, if it is indeed the case.
Our culture wants everything in black & white terms: good and evil, right and wrong, guilty and innocent. In this day, you're either a crimina or you're an angel. It's all a huge "Us and Them" game, a way of separating ourselves from everyone we don't understand. These studies are important because they tell a lot about how we learn and grow as a society. To ignore the finer points just because they don't help us to stroke our ego, by being "the good guys", is to do violence to the very idea of personal and societal growth.
How about an FF3-like remake of Chrono Trigger? I really wanted them to do this with FF6, but that's extremely unlikely, since it was just released for the GBA, but I could settle for Chrono Trigger. Both FF6 and CT were games that really felt like they were meant to be set in a 3D world, but were forced to use the 2D graphics of the time. I don't think it's at all, out of the question, seeing as though they already grouped CT in with the last remake of the series. Now that the GBA is dead, and we've gotten a taste of FFIII on the DS, they can't justify simply using the same same sprite-based engine like they did for FF4-6.
Zero Mission wasn't "more like the original Metroid", it was a complete remake. It shared the same BASIC level architecture... although it changed so much that at times it's almost impossible to tell. It basically used a slightly altered varient of the Super Metroid engine, which was completely different from the original. Having played both, and Super Metroid, I'll say that Metroid Zero Mission is a completely different game than the original. Don't think you've played the original metroid if you've played ZM. It's a lot more like Super Metroid, in terms of gameplay, graphics, and look & feel. After all, Super Metroid is sort of a remake of the original... takes place in the same area, battles some of the same bosses, and has basically the same basic premise.
That said, I loved Zero Mission, and thought that, except for its shorter length... was, minute to minute, every bit as good as Super Metroid. Definitely one of the best games for the GBA (MUCH better than that abomination, Metroid Fusion). But yes, a remake of Super Metroid for the DS would be great. But even more, I'd like to see a NEW side-scrolling Metroid game. Don't get me wrong, Prime is one of the best games ever made... but its gameplay makes it a totally different series, and I want more sidescrolling action to augment my 3D game library.
Jesus dude, I own the game, and I played a lot of Mario 64 (the original), not too long ago. It's an update, not a remake, trust me. They ADDED multipul characters (of which you can choose to always play as Mario), and slightly altered the power-up system (I'll remind you that the power-up systems in both versions of the game are an extremely minor part of the gameplay, unlike the games in the rest of the series). After that, they ADDED one more star to each course, without altering the courses. Made very very few gameplay changes. It was an update with a few added goodies, like Super Mario World Advanced. Even the graphics are pretty much identical. You want a remake? Metroid Zero Mission is a remake. Mario 64 DS and Mario 3 All-stars, those are updates.
The DS seems incredibly capable at handling material originally made for the N64. MarioKart DS had identical gameplay and look&feel to MarioKart 64, used many of the same levels, and had about the same quality of graphics, or maybe just a bit better. Sure, they had to port the code... that's why it's called a PORT.
And by: "at the expense of good new games", I'm making a jab at the PSPs relitively weak library, as compared to the DS... of whose library you would be sacrificing if you chose to get a PSP, instead, just so you could play Mario 64, in all its original, "single-character glory."
Seriously, call me back when I can play Majora's Mask.
Interesting point, I forgot about the quality increase. You're probably right. Although, once the industry gets a taste of the profits from $1.29 songs, it'll be hard to convince them to back off.
Actually, seeing as though the GameCube is about twice as powerful as the PS2, not to mention that the hardware anti-aliasing made it look even more than that, an FF game on just the GameCube would be a huge step up. All people really care about is progress in graphics, and having the next FF game on the Wii would be exactly that, and by quite a bit. Actually, the differences between 8-12 have all been fairly minor, even the graphics of FF9 are not too far behind that of FFX. FF12 looked extremely glitchy, because the PS2 was fairly inferior, graphically, that an "overclocked GameCube" (of which the Wii is actually quite a bit more than just that), would be a huge sigh of relief. FF12 sold JUST FINE, just 6 months ago, on a system that was able to produce graphics that were about the quality of the GameCube's launch titles.
I think you underestimate the jRPG playing community, graphics are really not as important as you might think. This is a genre that began with text-based gameplay and progressed to sub-standard NES and SNES graphics, and on to extremely block and subpar 3D graphics (FF7 was a hit, but no one claimed that it was a graphical wonder). The important thing is immersion, and that comes from a host of things, but mostly: story, characters, writing, design, music... and yes, graphics. But the graphics of an overclocked gamecube would be more than suitable for the next release. You can bet that if it went to the Wii, people would snatch it up like you wouldn't believe, I don't think you'd hear much complaining. Remember that this is largely the same audience that snatched up Twilight Princess and, for the most part, absolutely loved it.
People remember the graphics of a game, mostly, for its most dazzling graphical moments... all of which are done with pre-rendered CG that will look identical on all consoles (under ED resolution). Snazzy real-time graphics are far more the baby of the FPS community than of the RPG playing community. After all, a lot of the time we're content being burried beneath menus, or reading text boxes, anyway. You're just putting way too much stock in it. Yes, an OverClocked GameCube will more than suffice.
Although, this is interesting, and there is some merit to the study, it only studies one part of the issue, natural tendancies as apposed to cultural ones. As someone else said, "Quake 2 is a far cry from today's GTA games", and I echo this. For its time Quake 2 was pretty violent, but culturally, it has become pretty much fully accepted and with no particular concern. What's probably more of a problem, however, is children who are constantly being asked to push the envilope of cultural acceptability of violence. I have no problem with going against cultural norms, as a whole, but children who are expected to accept violent entertainment at the edge of the cultural norm, may act very differently than ones that are expected to accept violent entertainment which has become culturally acceptable.
The bottom line is that eventually our culture comes to terms with some form of devient behavior. It's not that we morally condone it, but we become able to rationally assess it, without it becoming a sick fascination. The concern isn't so much that the violent imagery, itself, is a problem, so much as that our cravings for greater and greater violent imagery can pose a problem. We should look at this topic rationally and without reservation, there are no "duh's" or "no shit's" here. It's a valid concern. While I admit that most people, in their habbits, are healthy in their entertainment, I've also witnessed teenagers who play games specifically for the blood... which is sad, and a bit disconcerting. Violence can be used to portray strong messages, but in of itself (just like any type of stimuli) has no merrit.
I think this study is very good because it explore the natural disposition factor to violence in entertainment, and I'm sure that this is exactly WHY they chose Quake 2 to use, instead of the latest extremely violent games. That'll probably come next.
Nintendo's major 3rd part issues came from two ligitimate concerns that had more to do with their overall vision of video gaming, than any immediate bottom line return. The first was closed licensing, which is hard to debate, at this point, was a bad thing... in fact, it pretty much saved video gaming. The more controversial (even today) decision was to continue with cartridges for one more generation. While some great things came out of CDs, there was a very ligitimate concern that Nintendo had about having immediate, and not fragmented, gameplay due to the slow speed of optical drives. It did bring a new problem to the game industry that is just as much an issue now, as it was then.
In the long run, however, Nintendo was able to hold back, and teach developers how to properly impliment memory storage routines in order to mask load times. The result is two systems, now, that use optical media and have almost no wait times. Furthermore, it tought developers how to be creative with in-game 3D engines, instead of always resorting to prerendered FMVs to do the work for them. They may have fallen from the lead spot for two generations, but it may end up paying off in the long-run. I don't think Nintendo would be as solid as it is today, had they abandoned cartridge media and gone optical. Someone had to go optical (Sony and Sega did) in order to innovate on that front, but I think it was very wise for one company to remain behind for one generation, in order to fix all the details first.