This type of comment strikes me as increadibly unartistic when you really get down to it. Artists, since the beginning of time, have made incredible works using very simple, and seemingly "underdeveloped" mediums, and in some cases, they were able to do so because the medium was underdeveloped. It's like saying Black & White photographs are inferior to color photos, because they do not contain hues... while I happen to think B&W photography to be incredibly artistic, since it focuses the attention on form and texture, things that we aren't always aware of in everyday life. I don't see any difference here. Nintendo's system refocuses itself away from high quality graphics in order to capitalize on less traditionaly commercialized aspects of gaming, in order to bring attention to things like user involvement and gameplay design. I have no problem with graphically beautiful games. But after a while, their artistry ceases to stem from the "game" side of the equation, but from a "computer art" standpoint, which is a different art entirely. Video games, as art, is a marriage of different media... and I would agree that the focus has been, for far too long, been on technically perfected photorealistic visuals. Simply because it's an area of game developement that has some similarity to other artistic genres, doesn't mean that it's the only artistic area that can be developed in games. On the contrary, artistry in games comes from building something that isn't simply an offshoot from another commonly quoted genre.
I find it interesting that I believe the most visually artistic game of our day is Okami, a game that the GameCube could have easily done, but was, instead, done on the most underpowered system of its generation.
Now, as for Nintendo's attitude? There may be a hint of truth in the idea that Nintendo is pretty far off base in terms of thinking about games as high art. But that's sort of expected, seeing as though their first priority is to sell their system to mass audiences. Those with an artistically discerning philosophy are actually fairly few and far between. Hell, most of the populous finds "art" to be intimidating and unneccessary. Yet, the canvas is not yet a work of art until the artist makes his first stroke. Similarly Nintendo, as a hardware developer, isn't responsible for the artistry in games; although I'll give them that their game developement side is second to none in that area.
In closing, this guy sounds like a hack. If he can't figure out how the Wii can be used in an artistic manner, than he's a sorry excuse for an videogame artist.
This is slightly off topic, but it seemed like a good question to ask.
I ran into an unexpected hangup a few months back, when I needed to scan a few US dollar bills for use in a TV advertisement. The scanning program worked just fine, but when I opened it up in photoshop, it told me that the file contained counterfietable image data (or something to that extend), and wouldn't allow me to open the file. Does anyone know how and when Adobe started implementing a procedure that would check to see if paper money was being reproduced?
That couldn't be more true. People think of us in A/V fields as having cushy deadlines, but in actuality, we have thousands riding on the line every hour. I work in TV advertising, and, unfortunatly, we're a PC oriented business (ClearChannel owned... figures). Our IT people are simply broadcast techs that have been given a bit of IT training, and it's excruciating. My coworker's beige box goes down a few times a day, now, and the engineers have no idea what to do with it, but they're too cheap to really get down and take a good look (I really don't trust them to do a good job anyway). We lose lots of time and money every day with computer problems. Having a good IT staff is everything. Unfortunately, in agency type businesses like this one (TV station with an attatched agency), the A/V producers are at the bottom of the totom pole, below the sales staff... which makes no sense since they simply need boxes that will run email, Word, and Excel. I guess that's why... our problems are much more complicated to fix, so the IT staff ignores us.
That's why we A/V producers end up with Windows boxes... and we're incompatable with every other agency in town/state, because they were smart enough to use Macs. Sorry for bitching, I'm just sick and tired of Microsoft zealot IT staff who have no idea what they're doing. I'm not even allowed to run Firefox.
I dunno, man. DPs suround sound capabilities are light years ahead of anything else, and this was big news a few years back, there were studios switching in droves just for that reason alone.
Now, I'll admit, DPs interface isn't exactly very friendly towards audio recording, but I hear of more studios switching to it than away from it. I haven't really seen PT make much of any strides towards anything, at all, as of late. In someways, it's too bad, because I really like ProTools' audio recording/editing interface, it's a lot more intuitive than DPs. DP really suffers from being way too GUI happy, to the point of being highly unintuitive. MOTUs refusal to build any contextual menus (right mouse button) into the interface really pisses me off too, even Apple laid that one to rest years ago.
Still, from a funcionality perspective, there's no question that DP can do much more than PT, and I'm talking about audio, not just the midi side of things. And I have seen little to no change in PT for quite a few years now. I don't have DP5 yet, but I'm hoping they've cleared up some of their UI clunkiness.
4. Buy DigiDesign
5. Cancel ProTools for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions
This is quite silly. Apple is already at war with Avid (DigiDesign) on two fronts, and currently winning. In the video end of things, the entire industry is quickly switching to FCP, away from Avid. If they have not already overtaken Avid, they will very soon. Secondly, ProTools is in trouble, and not just from Apple, but from MOTU (Mark of the Unicorn), as Digital Performer is very quickly becoming the industry standard for many audio applications. Logic (Apple's multi-track editor) is also doing very well. Throw in the fact that Cubase is trouncing ProTools on the Windows end of things, and you have a very bad situation for DigiDesign. It probably still has the largest install base, but that is rapidly diminishing. They used to own a majority of the multi-track install base, and now they're lucky if their a simple plurality.
Bottom line is, Avid got caught sitting on their asses. They got fat and happy being the industry standard in two markets, and failed to notice that other developers were actually doing their homework. Both Avid Video and ProTools are vastly inferior to their Apple and MOTU counterparts. I used to be an avid ProTools user (no pun intended), until I got my hands on Digital Performer, and now I haven't even touched the damn thing in months. The multimedia audio industry (ie: film composition/sound effects) will laugh in your face if you say that your primary multi-track software is ProTools, and developers of softsynths and audio suite plugins are dropping ProTool support like flies.
Microsoft's aquisition of Avid would simply make matters worse, as they have a history of alienating creative fields. Instead of hurting Apple, it would just confirm everyone's suspicion that Avid is failing, and would send the last remaining ProTools and Avid users crying for DP5 or Logic, and FCP.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this article is posted on the eve of the launch of the biggest Wii game to hit since launch, Sonic and the Secret Rings? Who knows whether it'll be any good, but it's going to draw a lot of attention.
Oh, and Zonk, if you're going to troll, at least learn from the masters and do it well, okay? Sorry, I love ya man, but there's a point where it just becomes too obvious.
Yes, the Wii does save your game the moment you go to the Wii menu, which is great. It's really good for games that have infinite continues, unfortunately, a lot of early games didn't, so you're kinda fucked. I'm actually surprised that Nintendo didn't put in a save-state type system... though I guess they realized that that would significantly change the way you played the game. I would have liked to see a save state feature that you had the option of choosing before you start the game, but can't change... that way you can experience the thrill of flying by the seat of your pants, or if you prefer, go through it leasurely, restarting at various places as you go. Oh well, it starts to get complex, and as we know, Nintendo's all about the simplicity these days... which is probably not such a bad thing.
Unfortunately, graphics are never "good enough", there's always a significant part of the market that simply rates a game by its quantitative eye candy. Fortunately, we've been hearing some new voices in the mix recently, exclaiming that maybe eye candy isn't everything... and surprisingly enough, one of the 3 console manufacturers are behind them on that.
Also unfortunately, I think the market is being devided up, very simplisticly, into two camps: the eye candy players, and the casual gamers. Currently, there's a very strong "no more eye candy" voice in the casual gamer market... but it seems expected that once you get to a certain involvement of gaming, you automatically want super-snazzy graphics. I think that's BS. I think both sides are dominated by casual gamers, it's just that one demographic of casual gamer will turn on WarioWare for 15 minutes, while another will play 15 minutes of Halo at a party.
As with all types of entertainment, afficianados are a minority, and there's not a whole lot of output catered to them. I see a significant cry among gamering afficianados to cut it with the eye candy... but eye candy is the easiest to market: in a 30 second commercial, you can't begin to depict the long-term enjoyment of a battle system or introspective dialog, you have 30 seconds to get people's attention, who would rather being watching the actual SHOW, and one of the easiest ways to do that is by playing loud music and showing fast, snazzy looking visuals. Fortunately, I don't think that TV isn't the biggest medium for game marketing... display cases are probably the #1 tool, which is a little better.
BTW: I'm a TV advertisement producer... and if I sound jaded about it, it's because I am.
Gotchya, and I agree. Though, carefully planned repetition is incredible. I just love the feeling when, in a longer piece of music, an introductory melody comes back in after being taken through other material. Repetition is comfortable, and can be used for great effect, but many times it's just an excuse for laziness.
You know what I want to see? A game in which the whole skill/magic/battle system changes every few hours, but where abilities, stats and things you've gained, somehow translate into the next system, if indirectly (aquiring more XP in one system might translate to more skills in the next). The whole point is that you're constantly having to figure out how to use each new system to your advantage.
What are you talking about? Maybe EA and a number of smaller companies are doing this, but most of the biggies are exclusive. Think about all Microsoft's first/second party games (Bungie, Rare, etc), all the Nintendo first/second party games, now add the fact that Square-Enix, though not exclusive as a company, is exclusive on a game by game basis. That's 3 out of 4 of the largest game developers in the world (excluding EA). Sony's no small developer either, Blizzard and ID primarilly stick with PC, with an occational XBox port, Capcom, Kojima, and Rare are pretty much exclusive on a game by game basis. The list goes on and on.
The bottom line is, yes, there are many non-exclusive titles, but they're mostly all by smaller companies that can't aquire good exclusivity contracts, and a large percentage of those are uncreative fluff. Just think back on the last decade: out of every major title, how many of them were non-exclusive? Not many, and the one's that were non-exclusive were either PC ports to one system, or ported to only one other system.
That, again is incorrect (sorry for the Sonic thing, I never knew). The NES didn't launch with Super Mario Bros. The game was released about 3 years after the Japanese launch, and a good number of months after the US launch (the NES was originally packaged with Duckhunt and Gyromite). The fact is, the console simply was fairly underground until the release of the game, which is why it's often considered a launch title... it, litterally, launched the system.
I'll agree with you on one thing, I understand your frustration of a 12 hour story being told in 40, with tedious crap thrown in the mix. Now, personally, I love watching ongoing TV series, or lots of anime series that may take 20 hours to go through (I won't watch them one a week though... which is why I download 10 episodes of LOST or whatever anime strikes my fancy), because I really like the epic structure of an ongoing plot that subtlely changes and progresses over time. But what I want is some variety in my experience. I usually detest short games because they don't have the time to develop any unique character of their own, so if I end up playing five 10-hour games, have I really had more variety than a 50 hour repetative RPG? No, most likely not. What I want is PROGRESSION, and I don't just mean, "congradulations Billy, now your level 34!" because one number displayed on a menu screen is not going to keep my interest.
I'm a little weary of your "rewarding for work" example, because, essentially, even though I love the story part of the experience, I want more than just a story. The bottom line is that if the gameplay is simply an excuse to further the plot, then why have it at all? Xenogears and Xenosaga would have made a great animated series, but to be honest, they were terrible games because the gameplay was nothing more than an excuse to further the story. I'd like a game to be well-rounded, with an interesting and ever-changing story as well as interesting and ever-changing gameplay. I mean, isn't that WHY we play RPGs instead of simply watching TV shows or reading books? The more personally involved with the gameplay you become, the more immersed you become in the story as well... so RPGs have the potential to be an increadibly powerful form of storytelling.
But this is precisely the reason that I DON'T like Tactical RPGs... the gameplay might be great, and the story might be great, but the manner of progression doesn't immerse me in the experience. While being "open ended", I have no interaction with the world except in the form of fight sequences. Give me the opportunity to actually explore the world on my own, talk with people, but give me a great story that I can follow as well. Many people see Tactical RPGs as incredibly "free", but I find them incredibly stifling and uncontrollable, because my options consist of clicking on a new battle site or town and going straight into orthodox gameplay.
RPGs are about a balance of gameplay, story, and interactivity. The most effective games are able to marry the three, or at least switch back and forth between them seemlessly. I think Metroid Prime is quite possibly one of the best examples (even though some wouldn't consider it an RPG... it follows the same basic philosophy), in which the gameplay and story are perfectly married: you learn that the Metroids have been held captive by the Pirates in a sub-zero base because you go there yourself and are attacked by them. Halo/Marathon do this a bit too, so do Zelda. Turn based RPGs may not be able to perfectly marry gameplay and plot, but some do a great job at interspersing the two.
The bottom line is, if I'm playing an RPG, then I've obviously not come simply for the gameplay or I'd play a puzzle game or FPS in which that was the ONLY thing that happened, and I haven't come just for the story, because if I wanted that, I'd watch a movie or read a book. I've come because I want to experience the interactive marriage of these two aspects.
The larger issue, though, is that RPGs are still very unsophisticated and simplistic in their basic ideas. It is a relatively new art form, so I'll cut it some slack, but I think we could be getting more diversity than we have been. Video games, in general, are still in their infancy. 30 years from now, I can't wait to see what happens. The 1950s were amazing for film, so were the 70s. When we reach the stage of video game eras comperable to the film Noir or italian art film, we're going to have one hell of a powerful medium in which to view. And bet your life, it will happen.
It's very rare to have a system-seller game at launch. Out of all of the various different console launches over the years, I can only think of two such cases -- the SNES launch with Super Mario World, and the Xbox launch with Halo.
Actually, I'd say that a good number of consoles have a system-seller at launch. Nintendo has always had one, except for the GameCube (Super Mario World, Mario 64, and now Zelda:TP), and Smash Bros. Melee was quick on the heals of the GCN launch, if you want to count that. The Genesis had Sonic, which is unquestionably a huge system seller, and as you mentioned, the XBox had Halo. Sony, on the other hand, has NEVER had a system seller at launch.
So, I'd say it's pretty common to have a system seller at launch, Nintendo has always TRIED to, and they usually succeed, except with Luigi's Mansion, which was a dissaster (in terms of getting people to the stores). The advantage they have is that they have a very strong game software division that is entirely first party. Sony's game division is much weaker, and all Microsoft's top gaming divisions are practically second party (like Bungie and Rare), and the disconnect in infrastructure likely impedes a high level of communication between hardware and software divisions. Sega was the only other hardware manufacturer with a strong, connected, first party game division. In fact, it was so strong that they simply gutted their hardware division. Although neither the Saturn or the DreamCast saw system-sellers at launch.
It's all about BluRay. They would never sell it without BluRay because their media division forced them to do so. Now, the Cell processor, on the other hand, was their own fault. Unneccessary, and from what I've heard, detrimental to getting developers onboard and getting content out the door quickly.
But, unfortunately, Sony would never even begin to consider the possibility of creating a PS3 without BluRay. Honestly, in the minds of the big wigs, their game division could completely collapse, but it would all be worth it if BluRay became the new video media standard.
This scares me, it's bad enough having Microsoft as a defacto standard in many areas of the computer industry, but having Sony in control of an entire generation of digital media scares the fuck out of me. I have no love for Toshiba, but at least they're not Sony.
This is why I make a distinction between "true gamers" and "hardcore gamers". People who actually spend a lot of time and money on games rarely give a rat's ass about violence, and only care about graphics if it enhances the feel or functionality of the game. I think of the "Hardcore gamer" as the 16 year old kid who likes to impress his friends by splatting blood against the walls in a feeble attempt to look macho and badass.
Most real long-time gamers, who spend hours honing their skills and cracking all the puzzles aren't the ones slamming the Wii for being "sissy", this is primarilly by the "hardcore" teenagers, who feel their masculinity is threatened by playing games that don't involve massive amounts of gushing gore.
Just 'cause it's shown in HD doesn't mean it was filmed that way.
Well, if that were the case, we'd all be watching reel to reel, because movies are shot on FILM, which is much higher "definition" than the highest HD format. Unless we're talking soap operas or pr0n.
I don't think you have too much to worry about DVI going out... DVI and HDMI are identical in video quality, the only difference is that HDMI includes audio in the stream (up to 10 channels, if I remember correctly)... oh, and DRM, of course (this is slashdot, after all, gotta mention the DRM!)
Actually, this is EXACTLY what Apple was exploring in the mid-90s that almost made them go under... the 5-billion different option lineup. Where I do agree they have a few major holes in their lineup (I'm currently in the market for a new mac, and I really would like a mid-range stand-alone, myself, so I can undertsand the frustration), it's simply that those holes need to be filled, NOT that their whole business strategy is wrong. On the contrary, from a marketing standpoint, what they're doing is common sense: they're establishing a few base models with descreate name-recognition that they can advertise without spewing out a bunch of forgetable spec numbers.
What they have is a hierarchical lineup. When you get down to it, there are quite a few different computers to choose from: 2 Minis, 4 iMacs, 3 MacBooks, 3 MacBook Pros, and then the built-to-order Mac Pros. That's a lot of options, but from an ease of naming standpoint, there are only 5 discreate lines. Getting rid of the criptic numbered-names was the best thing that happened to Apple.
There are a couple things they could do to gain a few % more market share, although it might lose them money: take the minis down a notch to $400, $500, and $600, and create a headless line in the $1000-$1500 range (this would directly compete with the iMac line, but it might entice a few people onboard who are looking for lower-priced, expandable systems). It really bothered me when they desolved their $500 line, but I'm sure their marketting anylists found that it was more profitable to do so.
Putting in a lower-end "built-to-order" jeapordizes their model recognition. Undoubtedly, MANY people would go on and hand-pick their specs. And then you have a bunch of computers that look the same, but function differently, and create no differentiating model recognition. Model recognition is one of the most important aspects of marketting, and Apple are doing everything they can to hold on to that.
The bottom line is that Apple aren't low in market share due to their product line, or even their pricing (seriously, the $300-$500 PC market isn't really that substantial), it's due to tradition, stigma, and fear of change. People are used to Windows and some even equate user-friendliness to being "hippy-dippy" or "wussy". Another big one is that many corporations strike up deals with Microsoft. I work for clear channel. It's gotten so bad that if there's a microsoft version of a type of application, we are FORCED to use it. Litterally, it is AGAINST POLICY to use Firefox (I got chewed out for downloading it), because they've struck a deal with Microsoft, and in return, they get software that allows them to track employee's internet habits. It's really creepy out there, and some of the reasoning is extremely fucked up, but Microsoft has made it VERY difficult for people involved in corporations to switch away from them.
Because I've NEVER heard the Japanese-American interment camps discussed publicly, except on a rare occation on some PBS history special (which is then usually touted as liberal propoganda).
The fact is, we are only open to discussion of the civil rights movement and slavery because we were eventually able to bring closure to a lot of it. The civil rights movement was largely successful, and you don't see AS MANY hate crimes as before, and slavery was finally abolished by our own hands (or so we like to claim... most could really care less about slavery, to the north, the civil war was about control of resources, not about slavery). The only reason we can talk about our abuses aginst the indians is because it happened so long ago... and even then, we're a lot more open about slavery than we are about that.
The bottom line is, Germany is ashamed of their Nazi past because someone else had to come in and correct them on it. Abolishing slavery and civil rights were all corrected internally. But as for Japanese-American internment camps, forget it, you almost never hear about that, and every time it's brought up, it's blown off as leftist propoganda.
Oh jesus christ, I'm a hardcore gamer, do I have to prove myself? I have a PS2, a nice computer, and have been gaming for over a decade... you know, fuck it, I shouldn't have to defend myself.
It's just an analogy to get all these meatheads to understand that games should be enjoyable. Yeah, it's a cheap shot. But how else are we supposed to get the meatheads to listen, besides making references to slutty chicks?...well, I guess beer would work, too.
I think a good analogy would be, while the PS3, 360, and PC are all comparing dick sizes, Wii is walking around in a string bikini and DD size braw......I know which one I'D rather play with!
Lull of games, not in console purchases. There are some biggies around the corner, but for now Sonic is the only one with an official and believable release date. The fact that you still can't get a Wii is much more important, for sure, because once games start coming out (and they will), people will buy them. It looks like we're in for a long haul, though, before you Wiis sitting on the shelves "waiting" to be bought.
I've seriously never seen anything like this before.
You haven't played the one that really should win awards.
Play Okami... it's incredible. For originality of concept and art design (different than grahical prowess), there's nothing else like it. Now, I'd give game of the year to "Twilight Princess", but if we're talking awards for originality and follow through, Okami has everything else beat into a pulp. I loved FF12, but it has to take a 3rd place this year in my book. Haven't played Oblivion or Gears of Ware, but neither of them seem remotely like things I would like.
Yeah, I think "more than the sum of its parts" describes Zelda: TP, perfectly. People who haven't played it shouldn't comment. It's not "Just Another Zelda (TM)", and I'm not speaking of the little tweaks they made to gameplay and storyline. The game had heart, 'nuff said. It's as if it and FF12 (as good as it is) exchanged souls. Who cares if the story and gameplay are similar, what mattered to this game was that they finally decided to make characters worth fighting for, put emotion into the storyTELLING and created their own unique look & feel that other games in the series could only dream of accomplishing. The game is about subtlety, and you can't get that by just being an armchair critic. These are not the kind of comments usually reserved for Zelda titles, which tend to have stale characters, a fairly predictable look & feel, and pay very little attention to detail.
Sure, it doesn't win any awards on originality. But I'm tired of originality. Games are original enough in their gameplay elements, where games lag behind are in things like subtlety of character, depth of emotion, and their own unique feel. Twilight Princess delivers in spades. Who cares if it looks like Ocarina, the similarities are only on the most superficial levels.
While that may be the case, this was not a majority or an overwhelmingly vocal theory among analysts. We heard a lot from both sides. Most game analysts were cautious, but some thought to use it to push their opinion and personal philosophy about the future of gaming, and now they're looking silly because of it... well, at least the Wii haters, that is.
Currently, things are pretty slow for both systems, as we're currently in the post-launch lull. So now, both sides of the isle are worried that their system is going to die. All of this is to be expected... with every console there's a 3-4 month lull after the launch window, and everyone is screaming that their console is going to die unless they get some good games fast. Just go to the Nintendo forums, and you'll see a bunch of piss-ants crying about how the Wii is going to die now that there are "no good new games"... yeah, whatever. I'm sure the same is happening on the PS3 end of things, although the PS3 camp is a little more on the defensive right now, and probably won't outwardly say those kindsa things.
You make some good points, and it is wise to err on the side of caution. Then again, there are too many congressmen (on both sides of the isle) with a lot of power, who's power and longevity are being threatened by the president, who will do ANYTHING to make sure that such a coup will never happen. Never underestimate the wrath of an angry congressmen, you can be sure that some would have hired guns at the ready if such a thing took place. Although, there would be probably more efficient and effective ways of doing it......shit, is he listening to this?
Slashdot Mirror
This type of comment strikes me as increadibly unartistic when you really get down to it. Artists, since the beginning of time, have made incredible works using very simple, and seemingly "underdeveloped" mediums, and in some cases, they were able to do so because the medium was underdeveloped. It's like saying Black & White photographs are inferior to color photos, because they do not contain hues... while I happen to think B&W photography to be incredibly artistic, since it focuses the attention on form and texture, things that we aren't always aware of in everyday life. I don't see any difference here. Nintendo's system refocuses itself away from high quality graphics in order to capitalize on less traditionaly commercialized aspects of gaming, in order to bring attention to things like user involvement and gameplay design. I have no problem with graphically beautiful games. But after a while, their artistry ceases to stem from the "game" side of the equation, but from a "computer art" standpoint, which is a different art entirely. Video games, as art, is a marriage of different media... and I would agree that the focus has been, for far too long, been on technically perfected photorealistic visuals. Simply because it's an area of game developement that has some similarity to other artistic genres, doesn't mean that it's the only artistic area that can be developed in games. On the contrary, artistry in games comes from building something that isn't simply an offshoot from another commonly quoted genre.
I find it interesting that I believe the most visually artistic game of our day is Okami, a game that the GameCube could have easily done, but was, instead, done on the most underpowered system of its generation.
Now, as for Nintendo's attitude? There may be a hint of truth in the idea that Nintendo is pretty far off base in terms of thinking about games as high art. But that's sort of expected, seeing as though their first priority is to sell their system to mass audiences. Those with an artistically discerning philosophy are actually fairly few and far between. Hell, most of the populous finds "art" to be intimidating and unneccessary. Yet, the canvas is not yet a work of art until the artist makes his first stroke. Similarly Nintendo, as a hardware developer, isn't responsible for the artistry in games; although I'll give them that their game developement side is second to none in that area.
In closing, this guy sounds like a hack. If he can't figure out how the Wii can be used in an artistic manner, than he's a sorry excuse for an videogame artist.
This is slightly off topic, but it seemed like a good question to ask.
I ran into an unexpected hangup a few months back, when I needed to scan a few US dollar bills for use in a TV advertisement. The scanning program worked just fine, but when I opened it up in photoshop, it told me that the file contained counterfietable image data (or something to that extend), and wouldn't allow me to open the file. Does anyone know how and when Adobe started implementing a procedure that would check to see if paper money was being reproduced?
That couldn't be more true. People think of us in A/V fields as having cushy deadlines, but in actuality, we have thousands riding on the line every hour. I work in TV advertising, and, unfortunatly, we're a PC oriented business (ClearChannel owned... figures). Our IT people are simply broadcast techs that have been given a bit of IT training, and it's excruciating. My coworker's beige box goes down a few times a day, now, and the engineers have no idea what to do with it, but they're too cheap to really get down and take a good look (I really don't trust them to do a good job anyway). We lose lots of time and money every day with computer problems. Having a good IT staff is everything. Unfortunately, in agency type businesses like this one (TV station with an attatched agency), the A/V producers are at the bottom of the totom pole, below the sales staff... which makes no sense since they simply need boxes that will run email, Word, and Excel. I guess that's why... our problems are much more complicated to fix, so the IT staff ignores us.
That's why we A/V producers end up with Windows boxes... and we're incompatable with every other agency in town/state, because they were smart enough to use Macs. Sorry for bitching, I'm just sick and tired of Microsoft zealot IT staff who have no idea what they're doing. I'm not even allowed to run Firefox.
I dunno, man. DPs suround sound capabilities are light years ahead of anything else, and this was big news a few years back, there were studios switching in droves just for that reason alone.
Now, I'll admit, DPs interface isn't exactly very friendly towards audio recording, but I hear of more studios switching to it than away from it. I haven't really seen PT make much of any strides towards anything, at all, as of late. In someways, it's too bad, because I really like ProTools' audio recording/editing interface, it's a lot more intuitive than DPs. DP really suffers from being way too GUI happy, to the point of being highly unintuitive. MOTUs refusal to build any contextual menus (right mouse button) into the interface really pisses me off too, even Apple laid that one to rest years ago.
Still, from a funcionality perspective, there's no question that DP can do much more than PT, and I'm talking about audio, not just the midi side of things. And I have seen little to no change in PT for quite a few years now. I don't have DP5 yet, but I'm hoping they've cleared up some of their UI clunkiness.
This is quite silly. Apple is already at war with Avid (DigiDesign) on two fronts, and currently winning. In the video end of things, the entire industry is quickly switching to FCP, away from Avid. If they have not already overtaken Avid, they will very soon. Secondly, ProTools is in trouble, and not just from Apple, but from MOTU (Mark of the Unicorn), as Digital Performer is very quickly becoming the industry standard for many audio applications. Logic (Apple's multi-track editor) is also doing very well. Throw in the fact that Cubase is trouncing ProTools on the Windows end of things, and you have a very bad situation for DigiDesign. It probably still has the largest install base, but that is rapidly diminishing. They used to own a majority of the multi-track install base, and now they're lucky if their a simple plurality.
Bottom line is, Avid got caught sitting on their asses. They got fat and happy being the industry standard in two markets, and failed to notice that other developers were actually doing their homework. Both Avid Video and ProTools are vastly inferior to their Apple and MOTU counterparts. I used to be an avid ProTools user (no pun intended), until I got my hands on Digital Performer, and now I haven't even touched the damn thing in months. The multimedia audio industry (ie: film composition/sound effects) will laugh in your face if you say that your primary multi-track software is ProTools, and developers of softsynths and audio suite plugins are dropping ProTool support like flies.
Microsoft's aquisition of Avid would simply make matters worse, as they have a history of alienating creative fields. Instead of hurting Apple, it would just confirm everyone's suspicion that Avid is failing, and would send the last remaining ProTools and Avid users crying for DP5 or Logic, and FCP.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this article is posted on the eve of the launch of the biggest Wii game to hit since launch, Sonic and the Secret Rings? Who knows whether it'll be any good, but it's going to draw a lot of attention.
Oh, and Zonk, if you're going to troll, at least learn from the masters and do it well, okay? Sorry, I love ya man, but there's a point where it just becomes too obvious.
Yes, the Wii does save your game the moment you go to the Wii menu, which is great. It's really good for games that have infinite continues, unfortunately, a lot of early games didn't, so you're kinda fucked. I'm actually surprised that Nintendo didn't put in a save-state type system... though I guess they realized that that would significantly change the way you played the game. I would have liked to see a save state feature that you had the option of choosing before you start the game, but can't change... that way you can experience the thrill of flying by the seat of your pants, or if you prefer, go through it leasurely, restarting at various places as you go. Oh well, it starts to get complex, and as we know, Nintendo's all about the simplicity these days... which is probably not such a bad thing.
Unfortunately, graphics are never "good enough", there's always a significant part of the market that simply rates a game by its quantitative eye candy. Fortunately, we've been hearing some new voices in the mix recently, exclaiming that maybe eye candy isn't everything... and surprisingly enough, one of the 3 console manufacturers are behind them on that.
Also unfortunately, I think the market is being devided up, very simplisticly, into two camps: the eye candy players, and the casual gamers. Currently, there's a very strong "no more eye candy" voice in the casual gamer market... but it seems expected that once you get to a certain involvement of gaming, you automatically want super-snazzy graphics. I think that's BS. I think both sides are dominated by casual gamers, it's just that one demographic of casual gamer will turn on WarioWare for 15 minutes, while another will play 15 minutes of Halo at a party.
As with all types of entertainment, afficianados are a minority, and there's not a whole lot of output catered to them. I see a significant cry among gamering afficianados to cut it with the eye candy... but eye candy is the easiest to market: in a 30 second commercial, you can't begin to depict the long-term enjoyment of a battle system or introspective dialog, you have 30 seconds to get people's attention, who would rather being watching the actual SHOW, and one of the easiest ways to do that is by playing loud music and showing fast, snazzy looking visuals. Fortunately, I don't think that TV isn't the biggest medium for game marketing... display cases are probably the #1 tool, which is a little better.
BTW: I'm a TV advertisement producer... and if I sound jaded about it, it's because I am.
Gotchya, and I agree. Though, carefully planned repetition is incredible. I just love the feeling when, in a longer piece of music, an introductory melody comes back in after being taken through other material. Repetition is comfortable, and can be used for great effect, but many times it's just an excuse for laziness.
You know what I want to see? A game in which the whole skill/magic/battle system changes every few hours, but where abilities, stats and things you've gained, somehow translate into the next system, if indirectly (aquiring more XP in one system might translate to more skills in the next). The whole point is that you're constantly having to figure out how to use each new system to your advantage.
What are you talking about? Maybe EA and a number of smaller companies are doing this, but most of the biggies are exclusive. Think about all Microsoft's first/second party games (Bungie, Rare, etc), all the Nintendo first/second party games, now add the fact that Square-Enix, though not exclusive as a company, is exclusive on a game by game basis. That's 3 out of 4 of the largest game developers in the world (excluding EA). Sony's no small developer either, Blizzard and ID primarilly stick with PC, with an occational XBox port, Capcom, Kojima, and Rare are pretty much exclusive on a game by game basis. The list goes on and on.
The bottom line is, yes, there are many non-exclusive titles, but they're mostly all by smaller companies that can't aquire good exclusivity contracts, and a large percentage of those are uncreative fluff. Just think back on the last decade: out of every major title, how many of them were non-exclusive? Not many, and the one's that were non-exclusive were either PC ports to one system, or ported to only one other system.
That, again is incorrect (sorry for the Sonic thing, I never knew). The NES didn't launch with Super Mario Bros. The game was released about 3 years after the Japanese launch, and a good number of months after the US launch (the NES was originally packaged with Duckhunt and Gyromite). The fact is, the console simply was fairly underground until the release of the game, which is why it's often considered a launch title... it, litterally, launched the system.
I'll agree with you on one thing, I understand your frustration of a 12 hour story being told in 40, with tedious crap thrown in the mix. Now, personally, I love watching ongoing TV series, or lots of anime series that may take 20 hours to go through (I won't watch them one a week though... which is why I download 10 episodes of LOST or whatever anime strikes my fancy), because I really like the epic structure of an ongoing plot that subtlely changes and progresses over time. But what I want is some variety in my experience. I usually detest short games because they don't have the time to develop any unique character of their own, so if I end up playing five 10-hour games, have I really had more variety than a 50 hour repetative RPG? No, most likely not. What I want is PROGRESSION, and I don't just mean, "congradulations Billy, now your level 34!" because one number displayed on a menu screen is not going to keep my interest.
I'm a little weary of your "rewarding for work" example, because, essentially, even though I love the story part of the experience, I want more than just a story. The bottom line is that if the gameplay is simply an excuse to further the plot, then why have it at all? Xenogears and Xenosaga would have made a great animated series, but to be honest, they were terrible games because the gameplay was nothing more than an excuse to further the story. I'd like a game to be well-rounded, with an interesting and ever-changing story as well as interesting and ever-changing gameplay. I mean, isn't that WHY we play RPGs instead of simply watching TV shows or reading books? The more personally involved with the gameplay you become, the more immersed you become in the story as well... so RPGs have the potential to be an increadibly powerful form of storytelling.
But this is precisely the reason that I DON'T like Tactical RPGs... the gameplay might be great, and the story might be great, but the manner of progression doesn't immerse me in the experience. While being "open ended", I have no interaction with the world except in the form of fight sequences. Give me the opportunity to actually explore the world on my own, talk with people, but give me a great story that I can follow as well. Many people see Tactical RPGs as incredibly "free", but I find them incredibly stifling and uncontrollable, because my options consist of clicking on a new battle site or town and going straight into orthodox gameplay.
RPGs are about a balance of gameplay, story, and interactivity. The most effective games are able to marry the three, or at least switch back and forth between them seemlessly. I think Metroid Prime is quite possibly one of the best examples (even though some wouldn't consider it an RPG... it follows the same basic philosophy), in which the gameplay and story are perfectly married: you learn that the Metroids have been held captive by the Pirates in a sub-zero base because you go there yourself and are attacked by them. Halo/Marathon do this a bit too, so do Zelda. Turn based RPGs may not be able to perfectly marry gameplay and plot, but some do a great job at interspersing the two.
The bottom line is, if I'm playing an RPG, then I've obviously not come simply for the gameplay or I'd play a puzzle game or FPS in which that was the ONLY thing that happened, and I haven't come just for the story, because if I wanted that, I'd watch a movie or read a book. I've come because I want to experience the interactive marriage of these two aspects.
The larger issue, though, is that RPGs are still very unsophisticated and simplistic in their basic ideas. It is a relatively new art form, so I'll cut it some slack, but I think we could be getting more diversity than we have been. Video games, in general, are still in their infancy. 30 years from now, I can't wait to see what happens. The 1950s were amazing for film, so were the 70s. When we reach the stage of video game eras comperable to the film Noir or italian art film, we're going to have one hell of a powerful medium in which to view. And bet your life, it will happen.
Actually, I'd say that a good number of consoles have a system-seller at launch. Nintendo has always had one, except for the GameCube (Super Mario World, Mario 64, and now Zelda:TP), and Smash Bros. Melee was quick on the heals of the GCN launch, if you want to count that. The Genesis had Sonic, which is unquestionably a huge system seller, and as you mentioned, the XBox had Halo. Sony, on the other hand, has NEVER had a system seller at launch.
So, I'd say it's pretty common to have a system seller at launch, Nintendo has always TRIED to, and they usually succeed, except with Luigi's Mansion, which was a dissaster (in terms of getting people to the stores). The advantage they have is that they have a very strong game software division that is entirely first party. Sony's game division is much weaker, and all Microsoft's top gaming divisions are practically second party (like Bungie and Rare), and the disconnect in infrastructure likely impedes a high level of communication between hardware and software divisions. Sega was the only other hardware manufacturer with a strong, connected, first party game division. In fact, it was so strong that they simply gutted their hardware division. Although neither the Saturn or the DreamCast saw system-sellers at launch.
It's all about BluRay. They would never sell it without BluRay because their media division forced them to do so. Now, the Cell processor, on the other hand, was their own fault. Unneccessary, and from what I've heard, detrimental to getting developers onboard and getting content out the door quickly.
But, unfortunately, Sony would never even begin to consider the possibility of creating a PS3 without BluRay. Honestly, in the minds of the big wigs, their game division could completely collapse, but it would all be worth it if BluRay became the new video media standard.
This scares me, it's bad enough having Microsoft as a defacto standard in many areas of the computer industry, but having Sony in control of an entire generation of digital media scares the fuck out of me. I have no love for Toshiba, but at least they're not Sony.
This is why I make a distinction between "true gamers" and "hardcore gamers". People who actually spend a lot of time and money on games rarely give a rat's ass about violence, and only care about graphics if it enhances the feel or functionality of the game. I think of the "Hardcore gamer" as the 16 year old kid who likes to impress his friends by splatting blood against the walls in a feeble attempt to look macho and badass.
Most real long-time gamers, who spend hours honing their skills and cracking all the puzzles aren't the ones slamming the Wii for being "sissy", this is primarilly by the "hardcore" teenagers, who feel their masculinity is threatened by playing games that don't involve massive amounts of gushing gore.
Well, if that were the case, we'd all be watching reel to reel, because movies are shot on FILM, which is much higher "definition" than the highest HD format. Unless we're talking soap operas or pr0n.
I don't think you have too much to worry about DVI going out... DVI and HDMI are identical in video quality, the only difference is that HDMI includes audio in the stream (up to 10 channels, if I remember correctly)... oh, and DRM, of course (this is slashdot, after all, gotta mention the DRM!)
Actually, this is EXACTLY what Apple was exploring in the mid-90s that almost made them go under... the 5-billion different option lineup. Where I do agree they have a few major holes in their lineup (I'm currently in the market for a new mac, and I really would like a mid-range stand-alone, myself, so I can undertsand the frustration), it's simply that those holes need to be filled, NOT that their whole business strategy is wrong. On the contrary, from a marketing standpoint, what they're doing is common sense: they're establishing a few base models with descreate name-recognition that they can advertise without spewing out a bunch of forgetable spec numbers.
What they have is a hierarchical lineup. When you get down to it, there are quite a few different computers to choose from: 2 Minis, 4 iMacs, 3 MacBooks, 3 MacBook Pros, and then the built-to-order Mac Pros. That's a lot of options, but from an ease of naming standpoint, there are only 5 discreate lines. Getting rid of the criptic numbered-names was the best thing that happened to Apple.
There are a couple things they could do to gain a few % more market share, although it might lose them money: take the minis down a notch to $400, $500, and $600, and create a headless line in the $1000-$1500 range (this would directly compete with the iMac line, but it might entice a few people onboard who are looking for lower-priced, expandable systems). It really bothered me when they desolved their $500 line, but I'm sure their marketting anylists found that it was more profitable to do so.
Putting in a lower-end "built-to-order" jeapordizes their model recognition. Undoubtedly, MANY people would go on and hand-pick their specs. And then you have a bunch of computers that look the same, but function differently, and create no differentiating model recognition. Model recognition is one of the most important aspects of marketting, and Apple are doing everything they can to hold on to that.
The bottom line is that Apple aren't low in market share due to their product line, or even their pricing (seriously, the $300-$500 PC market isn't really that substantial), it's due to tradition, stigma, and fear of change. People are used to Windows and some even equate user-friendliness to being "hippy-dippy" or "wussy". Another big one is that many corporations strike up deals with Microsoft. I work for clear channel. It's gotten so bad that if there's a microsoft version of a type of application, we are FORCED to use it. Litterally, it is AGAINST POLICY to use Firefox (I got chewed out for downloading it), because they've struck a deal with Microsoft, and in return, they get software that allows them to track employee's internet habits. It's really creepy out there, and some of the reasoning is extremely fucked up, but Microsoft has made it VERY difficult for people involved in corporations to switch away from them.
Are you kidding about the US?
Because I've NEVER heard the Japanese-American interment camps discussed publicly, except on a rare occation on some PBS history special (which is then usually touted as liberal propoganda).
The fact is, we are only open to discussion of the civil rights movement and slavery because we were eventually able to bring closure to a lot of it. The civil rights movement was largely successful, and you don't see AS MANY hate crimes as before, and slavery was finally abolished by our own hands (or so we like to claim... most could really care less about slavery, to the north, the civil war was about control of resources, not about slavery). The only reason we can talk about our abuses aginst the indians is because it happened so long ago... and even then, we're a lot more open about slavery than we are about that.
The bottom line is, Germany is ashamed of their Nazi past because someone else had to come in and correct them on it. Abolishing slavery and civil rights were all corrected internally. But as for Japanese-American internment camps, forget it, you almost never hear about that, and every time it's brought up, it's blown off as leftist propoganda.
Oh jesus christ, I'm a hardcore gamer, do I have to prove myself? I have a PS2, a nice computer, and have been gaming for over a decade... you know, fuck it, I shouldn't have to defend myself.
...well, I guess beer would work, too.
It's just an analogy to get all these meatheads to understand that games should be enjoyable. Yeah, it's a cheap shot. But how else are we supposed to get the meatheads to listen, besides making references to slutty chicks?
"The Wii is like Beer!"
You're right...
...I know which one I'D rather play with!
I think a good analogy would be, while the PS3, 360, and PC are all comparing dick sizes, Wii is walking around in a string bikini and DD size braw...
Lull of games, not in console purchases. There are some biggies around the corner, but for now Sonic is the only one with an official and believable release date. The fact that you still can't get a Wii is much more important, for sure, because once games start coming out (and they will), people will buy them. It looks like we're in for a long haul, though, before you Wiis sitting on the shelves "waiting" to be bought.
I've seriously never seen anything like this before.
You haven't played the one that really should win awards. Play Okami... it's incredible. For originality of concept and art design (different than grahical prowess), there's nothing else like it. Now, I'd give game of the year to "Twilight Princess", but if we're talking awards for originality and follow through, Okami has everything else beat into a pulp. I loved FF12, but it has to take a 3rd place this year in my book. Haven't played Oblivion or Gears of Ware, but neither of them seem remotely like things I would like.
Yeah, I think "more than the sum of its parts" describes Zelda: TP, perfectly. People who haven't played it shouldn't comment. It's not "Just Another Zelda (TM)", and I'm not speaking of the little tweaks they made to gameplay and storyline. The game had heart, 'nuff said. It's as if it and FF12 (as good as it is) exchanged souls. Who cares if the story and gameplay are similar, what mattered to this game was that they finally decided to make characters worth fighting for, put emotion into the storyTELLING and created their own unique look & feel that other games in the series could only dream of accomplishing. The game is about subtlety, and you can't get that by just being an armchair critic. These are not the kind of comments usually reserved for Zelda titles, which tend to have stale characters, a fairly predictable look & feel, and pay very little attention to detail.
Sure, it doesn't win any awards on originality. But I'm tired of originality. Games are original enough in their gameplay elements, where games lag behind are in things like subtlety of character, depth of emotion, and their own unique feel. Twilight Princess delivers in spades. Who cares if it looks like Ocarina, the similarities are only on the most superficial levels.
While that may be the case, this was not a majority or an overwhelmingly vocal theory among analysts. We heard a lot from both sides. Most game analysts were cautious, but some thought to use it to push their opinion and personal philosophy about the future of gaming, and now they're looking silly because of it... well, at least the Wii haters, that is.
Currently, things are pretty slow for both systems, as we're currently in the post-launch lull. So now, both sides of the isle are worried that their system is going to die. All of this is to be expected... with every console there's a 3-4 month lull after the launch window, and everyone is screaming that their console is going to die unless they get some good games fast. Just go to the Nintendo forums, and you'll see a bunch of piss-ants crying about how the Wii is going to die now that there are "no good new games"... yeah, whatever. I'm sure the same is happening on the PS3 end of things, although the PS3 camp is a little more on the defensive right now, and probably won't outwardly say those kindsa things.
You make some good points, and it is wise to err on the side of caution. Then again, there are too many congressmen (on both sides of the isle) with a lot of power, who's power and longevity are being threatened by the president, who will do ANYTHING to make sure that such a coup will never happen. Never underestimate the wrath of an angry congressmen, you can be sure that some would have hired guns at the ready if such a thing took place. Although, there would be probably more efficient and effective ways of doing it... ...shit, is he listening to this?