I believe the terminology is a little off there, but I'm not completely sure, myself. NTSC refers to the resolution and framerate, not the field rate, so both 480i and 480p are both considered NTSC standards. Now, I was previously under the impression that all North American (and Japanese) standards are refered to as NTSC, including 720p, 1080i and 1080p, but I gather from reading this that NTSC only refers to 480i and 480p. I've never heard NTSC exclusively used to define 480i, though.
I was unaware, until today, that S-video does not allow for progressive scan transmission. My question is, then, what is S-video's main advantage over composite? Is it simply that separating the luminance and chrominance components causes less video artifacts? I've never really noticed a huge difference myself. Maybe I should look around for a component-capable set.
"Component video" has been out for ever. VGA is a type of component video. Any video format that transmits data in separate RGB channels is considered component. Even S-Video is sometimes considered a component video feed (I don't understand why, since it's "luminance/chrominance". BetaCAM is a component video format (even though, once again, it's only luminance/chrominance").
That said, the current 3-cable analog RGB format is quite new. In fact, many CRT tubes are still sold without "component" connectors. i remember that only 10 years ago you had to pay a premium just to get an S-video connector. No TV I own currently has component in, and even many DVD players still do not have component out. Since HDMI is around the corner as a new standard, I think analog component is going to be a very short lived format, and probably not worth a whole lot of fuss over. The biggest difference is whether you can recieve progressive scan, in which S-video handles fairly cleanly. At this point is probably best to skip over analog component and go for HDMI or DVI (which are the same video format, HDMI just includes 6 channels of audio as well).
Not to mention that it's a choice between a $200 Wii and a $600 PS3. Price Point for the Wii is ~$225 in Japan, and ALL video game console equipment is more expensive in Japan (because it's a hotter market over there), seeing as though Nintendo always rounds to the nearest $50 mark, it WILL launch at $200, a third the price of the PS3, with twice the fun!
I've played ALL the Metroids. The only one I haven't finished is the original (which I have mixed feelings about). Super Metroid is obviously the centerpiece of the 2D series, although Zero Mission was a very fine game that came very close to the wonder and amazement of Super Metroid, albight much shorter. But yes, "Echos: A Link to the Past" totally destroyed the style. It felt like it was trying WAY too hard. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of backstory to Metroid games, Prime did an excellent job, but the story should always be beholden to the mood and the atmosphere, not the other way around. They made a few agrigious errors in storyline that really lead the game down the wrong path. First, they had NPCs... a total no-no in Metroid games, which revolve around a non-conversational style similar to that of 2001: A Space Odyssey (where the "Alien" series also gets it's style). Secondly, Metroid isn't all-out fantasy/horror: Echos was too "gooy", way too much stuff that resembled a tacky fantasy/horror movie. Third, and this is probably my biggest complaint, is that the unvailing of the different areas was WAY too linear. You played through the Aygon phase, then the Swamp land phase, then the lower swamp phase, then the super happy, techy with Sonic the Hedgehog influence music Sanctuary phase. A good Metroid has you coming back and forth through old areas and new areas to find what you're looking for. Fusion was the same way... and I have a lot of the same problems with that game: NPCs, commentary by Samus (NOOOO!!!!), survival horror element, linear gameplay.
I'm kinda worried about Corruption. I still think they could pull it off, but the "multipul planets" idea totally ruined Hunters for me (among other things), they have an NPC that constantly TALKS to you (voice acted), plus the game looks like it's trying to be too "hard core". I'll still get it, play it, and probably enjoy it to a greater or lesser extent, but I am worried that they won't get it right. Prime may be Retro's one great legacy. Oh, and the music for Prime is exceptional. It follows the basic principals of the original series, while still trying new things (Phendrana), one of the greatest game scores ever. Echos was shit.
Are you a mirror image of me??? Seriously, I'm 100% with everything you just said. WW was okay, but the sailing bored me to hell, and Metroid Prime (the first one), is probably my favorite adventure game of all time... yes, even slightly better than Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask (probably my favorite Zelda). Metroid Prime has to be one of the FUNNEST boss battles ever created. After I beat it once, I went back and beat it another 5-10 times in the next few weeks... how often does a game make you want to do that? Hell, with Echos, I was ready to quit long before I even got to Metroid Prime/Dark Samus... fucking terrible boss battle sequence. Echos had very few fun boss battles:(
Metroid Prime was the FIRST game I got when I got my GameCube (along with Smash Bros), and unfortunately, it's been the best (excepting maybe Skies of Arcadia, which I played and beat before getting my own cube), I swear, that game is worth the price of the GameCube alone!
but I don't think a large percentage of the population is going to be too happy to have to listen to "21st Century Schiziod Man" every time they turn on their computer!
Alaska... cost of living is pretty high here. About 8 years ago, when I DID work at McDonalds, it was $7/hour, which was practically minimum wage. I'm guessing that inflation has driven that up a few notches by now though.
Unfortunately, hosing costs are through the roof right now, rent for a single bedroom apartment is like $800/month, so $8/h isn't going to get you much.
I'm really glad to hear this. We all get the idea that games are developed in an airtight room with no outside input. But it looks like companies are really doing their part to get REAL data on what works and what doesn't work in terms of gamers using the Wiimote. Of course, some game manufacturers aren't going to get it right on the first try, but with a high amount of beta testing (especially since the early release of the Dev kits allowed for a liberal amount of time) I think we're likely to see some fairly honed precision control for the Wii fairly early on.
I think you're over dramatizing Sony's legacy. Maybe that was PARTIALLY true about 10 years ago, when Sony stood for top quality products, cool "fashion" and style, but it isn't that anymore. People bought the PS2 primarily because they loved the games that came out for it, not because they equated the brand as being at all part of their personal identity.
Sony has never had the style "legacy" that Apple, Mercedes Benz, BMW, had... they didn't even have the style legacy that Ford, GM, and Starbucks had. People used to buy Sony products because they thought they were well built and functional (which they really were, back in the day), and then later, Sony started getting into the realm of fashion accessories... portable CD players with bright stripes that matched your Nike Air shoes. Nike... there's a good one for ya. Huge fad, EVERYONE had to have Nike air shoes, they were all over the place. Nike had built a "legacy" people said... and sure, they're still kicking around, but the fad passed, and they're just another shoe company. To have a legacy, you have to have followers that DEFINE themselves as "[blank] people": "Mac People", "Ford People", that kind of stuff. Maybe you live in a different country, but I've NEVER met anyone who defined themself as a "Sony" person. Sure, they may LOVE the Playstation (as do I), but if the types of games they play suddenly were to appear all on the GameCube... most of them would be Nintendo people in a heartbeat. That's just common consumer information, not ingrained brand identity. There are "Square People", no question, there are "Nintendo People", I've even seen a few "Polyphony People" around here... because these are the creators of the entertainment they love.
Seriously, when was the last time you saw a metalhead flock around Electra records just because Metallica and Dream Theater are signed on with them? I know I haven't, and I've travelled in that circle for YEARS. Similarly, consoles are like record labels. Nintendo and Sega have (had in Sega's case) a unique thing going on, because they were just as well known for their games as for their consoles, and many people equate the two, so the consoles started taking on the image of having the same design philosophy as their games... THEN people start being "Nintendo People" in the sense of getting Nintendo consoles. But you don't find the same thing in the Sony world.
Square signs back to Nintendo (it could happen, they're not a Sony exclusive), you won't see any Final Fantasy fans bat an eye, you'll just hear a lot of comments like, "here Wii come!".
A comparison cannot be made between Sega and Sony, for example, assuming that game companies are going to back out leaving Sony titleless, because every PS2 owner did not run out and buy a PS3 on that first day.
And why not? I'd say the Genesis was a pretty big smash hit, Sega had a lot of momentum coming off of it, and they blew it on the Saturn, partially because they were concentrating on the wrong functionality (2D graphics) when other, more adgile developers (the Sony gaming division, at the time) were innovating, and looking ahead to what was coming next in the gaming market.
Let's get it straight, the DreamCast failed because of the Saturn. No question about it, Sega dropped the ball on that one and were never able to return. They got their act together on the DreamCast, but by that time, it was too late. So no, a comparison can't be made, because the failour of the PS3 will not be do to lackluster results of the PS2.
As I've said before: previous success, in itself, is NOT a good enough reason to assume continued success. This is practically the only strong defense I'm hearing about the PS3, "because the PS2 did so well". Well, the Genesis did really well, The SNES did incredibly well, SUVs did really well during the early 00s... and GMs laying off thousands for assuming their continued success. The scale is a little different now, but there are SOME parallels that can be drawn between Sony and Sega. I don't think its entirely unreasonable.
So, if someone can come up with an arguement other than, "because the PS2 had a huge fanbase/developer base", let's hear it, because I haven't heard it yet. Audiences and developers, alike, are very fickle, it wouldn't be unthinkable for a large percentage of each to suddenly abandon their previous attitudes toward a product when the boat starts a'rockin.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. It would be perfectly ligitimage to quote marketting statistics, with reasonable margin of error, or things like historical marketting situations very similar to this that have resulted in obvious trends. The problem is, he has done neither of these things, or any other kind of data or even marketting psychology explanations to back up his claims.
Basically, this artical reads like: "The PS3 will not fail because... because, well, just look at the PS2! It did great! So Sony can't POSSIBLY do THAT badly!"
I'm sorry to say (or not), that previous success, in itself, is NOT a ligitimate reason in predicting the success of a future product. Just look at the SUV market. The "continued success" excuse was used for years by US auto manufacturers, and now their laying off thousands of employees because of it. Empires DO crumble under their own weight, and fairly frequently.
Yes, Playstation fanboys will be good little consumer whores and run out and buy it as soon as it hits the shelves, the only problem is:
A console's livelihood can't be based souly on sales to fanboys. Fanboys are a VERY small part of the market, the PS3 is priced for fanboys, yes, and that's what they'll get, nothing else. 80% of their gaming market... GONE. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
They're losing fanboys like CRAZY, do to not being able to keep promises and devaluing the "game system" aspect of the console in favor of "home entertainment system".
So, their pricing is aimed at fanboys, and their marketting is aimed at all-encompassing (even outside of gaming)... yeah, this sounds like a GREAT idea to me! So no, I do not see good things for Sony this round. Launch will be painfull to watch. Prediction: fanboys hold off buying it until they can first play it at their friends' house... only problem is, their friends are doing the same thing!
Maybe Some of them???!!!! Some of them?! How about MOST of them. I'm a diehard Sony gamer. My gaming world centers are Japanese RPGs, which are solidly in Sony's domain, I loved the Playstation and Playstation 2, I'm a huge Final Fantasy fan, I even have a pretty good job (for someone my age: 25), and could actually afford throwing down $600. Am I going to do it? Hell no! Not out of spite, but I just don't want to pay that much! I figure, if someone like ME isn't going to buy it, how the hell is the rest of the gaming community? Especially seeing as though a large percentage of the gaming community is under 20 years old, and maybe making $8/h part-time at the local McDonald's. The PS3 is priced for fanatics... and even then (like me), they're pushing it.
Ahhhh! So THAT'S why the PowerBook was featured in An Inconvenient Truth so much! I wondered if there was some sorta Apple endorsement being made by Al Gore. It seems that it may not be quite as much the normal product placement, as Al really is a part of Apple. Interesting... Way to go Al!
Wait a minute... game DESIGNERS shouldn't be programmers, in fact, I'd say that knowing a programming language would just get in the way of the creative concepts that go into making games. Shouldn't game designers have more of a background in human psychology, literature, problem solving, drama, cinematography/videography, and the arts?
I think the worlds of the developer and the designer, at least in terms of the larger, mainstream markets, should be kept completely separate. Designing and developing are both creative endevours, but from very different perspectives. Designers come up with the fundimental ideas, and developers create ingenous solutions to bring those ideas to fruition. Knowing just the mear basics of how computers work is probably a good thing for designers, but any more, and they may be hindered by the ideas of what "can" and "can't" be done from a development perspective... and that should be up to the developers to worry about that.
Games are works of creativity... call it art, call it craft, whatever, there's a lot of both that goes into them. From my observations, pure IT people generally know very little about "what makes people tick", which is what is required to produce an engaging video game. I say this out of a bit of spite for my current engineering staff (I'm a TV producer), who think they know everything about what I need, and deliver software with increadibly unfriendly interfaces.
The only thing I'd trust a programmer to design would be to come up with some of the brain bending puzzles in games like Zelda... which are along the same lines of thought as problem solving in code. And even then, only under the supervision of an artistic director.
I just finished playing through Suikoden V—superb game, btw. But for everyone who doesn't know the series, each game contains 108 playable characters (characters you can put in your main party, entourage party, or live in your home base and serve a purpose). Collecting them can be as simple as just walking up to them at any time, and talking with them... or it can be as complex as having gotten another character, followed by another character, and then talking to another character 5 times, once each after a major event happens, and then you have to go to a certain room at a certain point in the game, and you'll get them. Even one of the biggest side characters, who actually appears in the plotline and has one of the greatest backstories (the detective and his crew), requires talking with him 5 times, once after each main event... and there are only 6 major events in the phase alotted.
Getting the ending in which something terrible DOESN'T happen at the end (I'm not spoiling it), requires getting ALL 108 characters. I played the game WITH the guide, determined to get all 108... but I was only able to get 105: one mysteriously DIED during a fight sequence, another was tagging along with her, so he left, and a third I couldn't get due to a glitch in the game! This is the second game in the series I've played, but from what I've heard, ALL of them are insane to complete 108 with. I logged 115 hours on the thing on my first time through, it's a LONG game. Huge commitment, but one of the best (if not THE best) RPGs for the PS2.
After that, I'm replaying Zelda: Wind Waker... a series that's known for having some really tricky and brain twisting puzzles, even when replaying them... and yet somehow, I'm not feeling as aggrivated as I once did.
And this is about voice menus as apposed to touch-tone menus.
It's not the "wow" factor, it's the fact that it makes the company look and seem more professional, more cutting edge, and thus (subconcioiusly) more ligitimate. There's a lot of money in trying to make a company's outward appearence seem bigger, and more important. Even if it IS a large company to begin with, businesses will do what they can to make it even more apparent how solid they are. Voice menus are "cutting edge" in people's minds, they provide a certain grandios factor. The idea of speaking to a machine, and it recognizing your voice is an old one... and the technology has been around for over 25 years now, but it has only seen the consumer market, in mass quantity, in the last 5 or so, and it will take A LONG time for people to think of it as old hat. Not until we've gotten rid of our keyboards, and are effortlessly dictating all documents to our desktop computers, will voice menus start feeling banal and everyday. By then, companies will have to move onto other things to make themselves look more important.
Duh... Metroid is not part of the launch lineup anymore
You make some good points, but this is wrong. Metroid is still in the launch day lineup, unless something's changed in the last 24 hours since I last checked.
When I said 2% of all games sold... I meant that, not 2% of all titles. Obviously, more than 2/3rds of the games released at launch are 3rd party. But a huge majority of the sales will be for Zelda, Metroid, Wii Sports, and Mario Galaxy (I know, not a launch DAY title, but still within the launch window). But I am mistaken, Red Steel is NOT 1st party, so that percentage does change a bit. I'll still stick with that at least 80% of all the games sold within the first few months after launch will be those first party titles.
Oh, and the first Nintendo DS online game was Animal Crossing, NOT MarioKart, and still, a fairly early release, not a year.
Folks, this is really a non issue, for a number of reasons:
Nintendo's primary hits are always first party, especially at launch... especially at THIS launch. Zelda, Metroid, Red Steel, Wii Sports, Excite Truck, all first party. The first party list makes up a good 98% of the games sold at or around launch. Some of these games (Zelda), won't offer online play, because they're not the kind of game that would in the first place. 2% of sold titles not offering online play at launch is nothing to get worked up about.
PS2 had, what, 4 online games in its entire lifespan... only one of those (FF11) being anything close to a hit, and the system still cleanly won the last generation of console wars. This isn't going to change overnight, come some day in October.
Consoles + Online is a PROCESS, as my boss commonly says, "evolution, not revolution," its going to take time and a shift in priorities (among consumers) for online play to become a major bullet point.
The demographic that has commonly played Nintendo systems is not typically one that's too keen on online play. Nintendo has been trying to change that, with the DS, but the consumer market, itself, has been resisting this. So many DS games have online play, some even have pretty good online play... yet the DS mainly sells for its single-player value. The Wii will as well, online play will be just an additional feature.
I, for one, am hoping for as LITTLE online emphasis as possible. I've seen way too many games (Metroid Prime 2, Metroid Prime Hunters) crippled by a drive for them to have multiplayer or online play, with not enough emphasis on single-player fun. Single-player is the meat of the console gaming market, followed by party-style play. I hope that online play never takes hold in the console market, because it tends to do more harm then good to single-player efforts. Unfortunately, it seems that online play is here to stay. I just hope that game manufacturers don't feel pressured into doing online play when it's not in their original adjenda.
Am I one of the only ones who thinks that it was actually a pretty decent film? Strip it of the Nintendo advertising, and it still is mostly about a few kids trying to help their autistic brother to a championship across the country, for the one thing he's a master at. It's based on "Tommy" by The Who, just replace "pinball wizard" with "video game wizard". Instead of being deaf, dumb, and blind, he's just deaf and dumb. Instead of his state being induced by having seen his mother having sex with some guy, he saw his twin sister die right in front of him. For a large scale drama, aimed at kids, it wasn't half bad at all. Only reason people couldn't take it very seriously is because of all the advertising, which was unfortunate.
I bet there will be some graphical improvements for the Wii version. The bottom line is, Nintendo is ONLY releasing a GC version because they said they would over a year ago, and they don't want to piss off the gaming community... but Zelda is a Wii launch title, and they want to use it to sell Wii's. For that reason (and the fact that they've had almost a year since the GC version was finished), I think you can be pretty sure that the Wii version will probably be more polished, have a higher polygon count, and may have some added content. Nintendo REALLY wants you to spend that extra $200 for the Wii version, and Zelda being probably their biggest franchise this side of Mario, is going to sell Wii's.
That's what I'm saying. Now, Nintendo can make enemy AIs that require more precision in swordplay than was required in WW. I don't know if will happen this time around, since most of the game was originally designed for a traditional, button mashing system, but in the future, when the Zelda titles are exclusively Wii, I would hope we would start to see some of this.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the terminology is a little off there, but I'm not completely sure, myself. NTSC refers to the resolution and framerate, not the field rate, so both 480i and 480p are both considered NTSC standards. Now, I was previously under the impression that all North American (and Japanese) standards are refered to as NTSC, including 720p, 1080i and 1080p, but I gather from reading this that NTSC only refers to 480i and 480p. I've never heard NTSC exclusively used to define 480i, though.
I was unaware, until today, that S-video does not allow for progressive scan transmission. My question is, then, what is S-video's main advantage over composite? Is it simply that separating the luminance and chrominance components causes less video artifacts? I've never really noticed a huge difference myself. Maybe I should look around for a component-capable set.
"Component video" has been out for ever. VGA is a type of component video. Any video format that transmits data in separate RGB channels is considered component. Even S-Video is sometimes considered a component video feed (I don't understand why, since it's "luminance/chrominance". BetaCAM is a component video format (even though, once again, it's only luminance/chrominance").
That said, the current 3-cable analog RGB format is quite new. In fact, many CRT tubes are still sold without "component" connectors. i remember that only 10 years ago you had to pay a premium just to get an S-video connector. No TV I own currently has component in, and even many DVD players still do not have component out. Since HDMI is around the corner as a new standard, I think analog component is going to be a very short lived format, and probably not worth a whole lot of fuss over. The biggest difference is whether you can recieve progressive scan, in which S-video handles fairly cleanly. At this point is probably best to skip over analog component and go for HDMI or DVI (which are the same video format, HDMI just includes 6 channels of audio as well).
Not to mention that it's a choice between a $200 Wii and a $600 PS3. Price Point for the Wii is ~$225 in Japan, and ALL video game console equipment is more expensive in Japan (because it's a hotter market over there), seeing as though Nintendo always rounds to the nearest $50 mark, it WILL launch at $200, a third the price of the PS3, with twice the fun!
I've played ALL the Metroids. The only one I haven't finished is the original (which I have mixed feelings about). Super Metroid is obviously the centerpiece of the 2D series, although Zero Mission was a very fine game that came very close to the wonder and amazement of Super Metroid, albight much shorter. But yes, "Echos: A Link to the Past" totally destroyed the style. It felt like it was trying WAY too hard. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of backstory to Metroid games, Prime did an excellent job, but the story should always be beholden to the mood and the atmosphere, not the other way around. They made a few agrigious errors in storyline that really lead the game down the wrong path. First, they had NPCs... a total no-no in Metroid games, which revolve around a non-conversational style similar to that of 2001: A Space Odyssey (where the "Alien" series also gets it's style). Secondly, Metroid isn't all-out fantasy/horror: Echos was too "gooy", way too much stuff that resembled a tacky fantasy/horror movie. Third, and this is probably my biggest complaint, is that the unvailing of the different areas was WAY too linear. You played through the Aygon phase, then the Swamp land phase, then the lower swamp phase, then the super happy, techy with Sonic the Hedgehog influence music Sanctuary phase. A good Metroid has you coming back and forth through old areas and new areas to find what you're looking for. Fusion was the same way... and I have a lot of the same problems with that game: NPCs, commentary by Samus (NOOOO!!!!), survival horror element, linear gameplay.
I'm kinda worried about Corruption. I still think they could pull it off, but the "multipul planets" idea totally ruined Hunters for me (among other things), they have an NPC that constantly TALKS to you (voice acted), plus the game looks like it's trying to be too "hard core". I'll still get it, play it, and probably enjoy it to a greater or lesser extent, but I am worried that they won't get it right. Prime may be Retro's one great legacy. Oh, and the music for Prime is exceptional. It follows the basic principals of the original series, while still trying new things (Phendrana), one of the greatest game scores ever. Echos was shit.
Are you a mirror image of me??? Seriously, I'm 100% with everything you just said. WW was okay, but the sailing bored me to hell, and Metroid Prime (the first one), is probably my favorite adventure game of all time... yes, even slightly better than Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask (probably my favorite Zelda). Metroid Prime has to be one of the FUNNEST boss battles ever created. After I beat it once, I went back and beat it another 5-10 times in the next few weeks... how often does a game make you want to do that? Hell, with Echos, I was ready to quit long before I even got to Metroid Prime/Dark Samus... fucking terrible boss battle sequence. Echos had very few fun boss battles :(
Metroid Prime was the FIRST game I got when I got my GameCube (along with Smash Bros), and unfortunately, it's been the best (excepting maybe Skies of Arcadia, which I played and beat before getting my own cube), I swear, that game is worth the price of the GameCube alone!
but I don't think a large percentage of the population is going to be too happy to have to listen to "21st Century Schiziod Man" every time they turn on their computer!
Alaska... cost of living is pretty high here. About 8 years ago, when I DID work at McDonalds, it was $7/hour, which was practically minimum wage. I'm guessing that inflation has driven that up a few notches by now though.
Unfortunately, hosing costs are through the roof right now, rent for a single bedroom apartment is like $800/month, so $8/h isn't going to get you much.
I'm really glad to hear this. We all get the idea that games are developed in an airtight room with no outside input. But it looks like companies are really doing their part to get REAL data on what works and what doesn't work in terms of gamers using the Wiimote. Of course, some game manufacturers aren't going to get it right on the first try, but with a high amount of beta testing (especially since the early release of the Dev kits allowed for a liberal amount of time) I think we're likely to see some fairly honed precision control for the Wii fairly early on.
Fuck Harry Potter... this would actually make the Wind Waker FUN!!!
I think you're over dramatizing Sony's legacy. Maybe that was PARTIALLY true about 10 years ago, when Sony stood for top quality products, cool "fashion" and style, but it isn't that anymore. People bought the PS2 primarily because they loved the games that came out for it, not because they equated the brand as being at all part of their personal identity.
Sony has never had the style "legacy" that Apple, Mercedes Benz, BMW, had... they didn't even have the style legacy that Ford, GM, and Starbucks had. People used to buy Sony products because they thought they were well built and functional (which they really were, back in the day), and then later, Sony started getting into the realm of fashion accessories... portable CD players with bright stripes that matched your Nike Air shoes. Nike... there's a good one for ya. Huge fad, EVERYONE had to have Nike air shoes, they were all over the place. Nike had built a "legacy" people said... and sure, they're still kicking around, but the fad passed, and they're just another shoe company. To have a legacy, you have to have followers that DEFINE themselves as "[blank] people": "Mac People", "Ford People", that kind of stuff. Maybe you live in a different country, but I've NEVER met anyone who defined themself as a "Sony" person. Sure, they may LOVE the Playstation (as do I), but if the types of games they play suddenly were to appear all on the GameCube... most of them would be Nintendo people in a heartbeat. That's just common consumer information, not ingrained brand identity. There are "Square People", no question, there are "Nintendo People", I've even seen a few "Polyphony People" around here... because these are the creators of the entertainment they love.
Seriously, when was the last time you saw a metalhead flock around Electra records just because Metallica and Dream Theater are signed on with them? I know I haven't, and I've travelled in that circle for YEARS. Similarly, consoles are like record labels. Nintendo and Sega have (had in Sega's case) a unique thing going on, because they were just as well known for their games as for their consoles, and many people equate the two, so the consoles started taking on the image of having the same design philosophy as their games... THEN people start being "Nintendo People" in the sense of getting Nintendo consoles. But you don't find the same thing in the Sony world.
Square signs back to Nintendo (it could happen, they're not a Sony exclusive), you won't see any Final Fantasy fans bat an eye, you'll just hear a lot of comments like, "here Wii come!".
If anything is irrational here, it's this statement:
Reminds me of a song by a little-known rock band I've listened to, called, The Who, you should listen to it sometime.And why not? I'd say the Genesis was a pretty big smash hit, Sega had a lot of momentum coming off of it, and they blew it on the Saturn, partially because they were concentrating on the wrong functionality (2D graphics) when other, more adgile developers (the Sony gaming division, at the time) were innovating, and looking ahead to what was coming next in the gaming market.
Let's get it straight, the DreamCast failed because of the Saturn. No question about it, Sega dropped the ball on that one and were never able to return. They got their act together on the DreamCast, but by that time, it was too late. So no, a comparison can't be made, because the failour of the PS3 will not be do to lackluster results of the PS2.
As I've said before: previous success, in itself, is NOT a good enough reason to assume continued success. This is practically the only strong defense I'm hearing about the PS3, "because the PS2 did so well". Well, the Genesis did really well, The SNES did incredibly well, SUVs did really well during the early 00s... and GMs laying off thousands for assuming their continued success. The scale is a little different now, but there are SOME parallels that can be drawn between Sony and Sega. I don't think its entirely unreasonable.
So, if someone can come up with an arguement other than, "because the PS2 had a huge fanbase/developer base", let's hear it, because I haven't heard it yet. Audiences and developers, alike, are very fickle, it wouldn't be unthinkable for a large percentage of each to suddenly abandon their previous attitudes toward a product when the boat starts a'rockin.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. It would be perfectly ligitimage to quote marketting statistics, with reasonable margin of error, or things like historical marketting situations very similar to this that have resulted in obvious trends. The problem is, he has done neither of these things, or any other kind of data or even marketting psychology explanations to back up his claims.
Basically, this artical reads like: "The PS3 will not fail because... because, well, just look at the PS2! It did great! So Sony can't POSSIBLY do THAT badly!"
I'm sorry to say (or not), that previous success, in itself, is NOT a ligitimate reason in predicting the success of a future product. Just look at the SUV market. The "continued success" excuse was used for years by US auto manufacturers, and now their laying off thousands of employees because of it. Empires DO crumble under their own weight, and fairly frequently.
- A console's livelihood can't be based souly on sales to fanboys. Fanboys are a VERY small part of the market, the PS3 is priced for fanboys, yes, and that's what they'll get, nothing else. 80% of their gaming market... GONE. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
- They're losing fanboys like CRAZY, do to not being able to keep promises and devaluing the "game system" aspect of the console in favor of "home entertainment system".
So, their pricing is aimed at fanboys, and their marketting is aimed at all-encompassing (even outside of gaming)... yeah, this sounds like a GREAT idea to me! So no, I do not see good things for Sony this round. Launch will be painfull to watch. Prediction: fanboys hold off buying it until they can first play it at their friends' house... only problem is, their friends are doing the same thing!Maybe Some of them???!!!! Some of them?! How about MOST of them. I'm a diehard Sony gamer. My gaming world centers are Japanese RPGs, which are solidly in Sony's domain, I loved the Playstation and Playstation 2, I'm a huge Final Fantasy fan, I even have a pretty good job (for someone my age: 25), and could actually afford throwing down $600. Am I going to do it? Hell no! Not out of spite, but I just don't want to pay that much! I figure, if someone like ME isn't going to buy it, how the hell is the rest of the gaming community? Especially seeing as though a large percentage of the gaming community is under 20 years old, and maybe making $8/h part-time at the local McDonald's. The PS3 is priced for fanatics... and even then (like me), they're pushing it.
Ahhhh! So THAT'S why the PowerBook was featured in An Inconvenient Truth so much! I wondered if there was some sorta Apple endorsement being made by Al Gore. It seems that it may not be quite as much the normal product placement, as Al really is a part of Apple. Interesting... Way to go Al!
Wait a minute... game DESIGNERS shouldn't be programmers, in fact, I'd say that knowing a programming language would just get in the way of the creative concepts that go into making games. Shouldn't game designers have more of a background in human psychology, literature, problem solving, drama, cinematography/videography, and the arts?
I think the worlds of the developer and the designer, at least in terms of the larger, mainstream markets, should be kept completely separate. Designing and developing are both creative endevours, but from very different perspectives. Designers come up with the fundimental ideas, and developers create ingenous solutions to bring those ideas to fruition. Knowing just the mear basics of how computers work is probably a good thing for designers, but any more, and they may be hindered by the ideas of what "can" and "can't" be done from a development perspective... and that should be up to the developers to worry about that.
Games are works of creativity... call it art, call it craft, whatever, there's a lot of both that goes into them. From my observations, pure IT people generally know very little about "what makes people tick", which is what is required to produce an engaging video game. I say this out of a bit of spite for my current engineering staff (I'm a TV producer), who think they know everything about what I need, and deliver software with increadibly unfriendly interfaces.
The only thing I'd trust a programmer to design would be to come up with some of the brain bending puzzles in games like Zelda... which are along the same lines of thought as problem solving in code. And even then, only under the supervision of an artistic director.
I just finished playing through Suikoden V—superb game, btw. But for everyone who doesn't know the series, each game contains 108 playable characters (characters you can put in your main party, entourage party, or live in your home base and serve a purpose). Collecting them can be as simple as just walking up to them at any time, and talking with them... or it can be as complex as having gotten another character, followed by another character, and then talking to another character 5 times, once each after a major event happens, and then you have to go to a certain room at a certain point in the game, and you'll get them. Even one of the biggest side characters, who actually appears in the plotline and has one of the greatest backstories (the detective and his crew), requires talking with him 5 times, once after each main event... and there are only 6 major events in the phase alotted.
Getting the ending in which something terrible DOESN'T happen at the end (I'm not spoiling it), requires getting ALL 108 characters. I played the game WITH the guide, determined to get all 108... but I was only able to get 105: one mysteriously DIED during a fight sequence, another was tagging along with her, so he left, and a third I couldn't get due to a glitch in the game! This is the second game in the series I've played, but from what I've heard, ALL of them are insane to complete 108 with. I logged 115 hours on the thing on my first time through, it's a LONG game. Huge commitment, but one of the best (if not THE best) RPGs for the PS2.
After that, I'm replaying Zelda: Wind Waker... a series that's known for having some really tricky and brain twisting puzzles, even when replaying them... and yet somehow, I'm not feeling as aggrivated as I once did.
And this is about voice menus as apposed to touch-tone menus.
It's not the "wow" factor, it's the fact that it makes the company look and seem more professional, more cutting edge, and thus (subconcioiusly) more ligitimate. There's a lot of money in trying to make a company's outward appearence seem bigger, and more important. Even if it IS a large company to begin with, businesses will do what they can to make it even more apparent how solid they are. Voice menus are "cutting edge" in people's minds, they provide a certain grandios factor. The idea of speaking to a machine, and it recognizing your voice is an old one... and the technology has been around for over 25 years now, but it has only seen the consumer market, in mass quantity, in the last 5 or so, and it will take A LONG time for people to think of it as old hat. Not until we've gotten rid of our keyboards, and are effortlessly dictating all documents to our desktop computers, will voice menus start feeling banal and everyday. By then, companies will have to move onto other things to make themselves look more important.
You make some good points, but this is wrong. Metroid is still in the launch day lineup, unless something's changed in the last 24 hours since I last checked.
When I said 2% of all games sold... I meant that, not 2% of all titles. Obviously, more than 2/3rds of the games released at launch are 3rd party. But a huge majority of the sales will be for Zelda, Metroid, Wii Sports, and Mario Galaxy (I know, not a launch DAY title, but still within the launch window). But I am mistaken, Red Steel is NOT 1st party, so that percentage does change a bit. I'll still stick with that at least 80% of all the games sold within the first few months after launch will be those first party titles.
Oh, and the first Nintendo DS online game was Animal Crossing, NOT MarioKart, and still, a fairly early release, not a year.
- Nintendo's primary hits are always first party, especially at launch... especially at THIS launch. Zelda, Metroid, Red Steel, Wii Sports, Excite Truck, all first party. The first party list makes up a good 98% of the games sold at or around launch. Some of these games (Zelda), won't offer online play, because they're not the kind of game that would in the first place. 2% of sold titles not offering online play at launch is nothing to get worked up about.
- PS2 had, what, 4 online games in its entire lifespan... only one of those (FF11) being anything close to a hit, and the system still cleanly won the last generation of console wars. This isn't going to change overnight, come some day in October.
- Consoles + Online is a PROCESS, as my boss commonly says, "evolution, not revolution," its going to take time and a shift in priorities (among consumers) for online play to become a major bullet point.
- The demographic that has commonly played Nintendo systems is not typically one that's too keen on online play. Nintendo has been trying to change that, with the DS, but the consumer market, itself, has been resisting this. So many DS games have online play, some even have pretty good online play... yet the DS mainly sells for its single-player value. The Wii will as well, online play will be just an additional feature.
I, for one, am hoping for as LITTLE online emphasis as possible. I've seen way too many games (Metroid Prime 2, Metroid Prime Hunters) crippled by a drive for them to have multiplayer or online play, with not enough emphasis on single-player fun. Single-player is the meat of the console gaming market, followed by party-style play. I hope that online play never takes hold in the console market, because it tends to do more harm then good to single-player efforts. Unfortunately, it seems that online play is here to stay. I just hope that game manufacturers don't feel pressured into doing online play when it's not in their original adjenda.Am I one of the only ones who thinks that it was actually a pretty decent film? Strip it of the Nintendo advertising, and it still is mostly about a few kids trying to help their autistic brother to a championship across the country, for the one thing he's a master at. It's based on "Tommy" by The Who, just replace "pinball wizard" with "video game wizard". Instead of being deaf, dumb, and blind, he's just deaf and dumb. Instead of his state being induced by having seen his mother having sex with some guy, he saw his twin sister die right in front of him. For a large scale drama, aimed at kids, it wasn't half bad at all. Only reason people couldn't take it very seriously is because of all the advertising, which was unfortunate.
I bet there will be some graphical improvements for the Wii version. The bottom line is, Nintendo is ONLY releasing a GC version because they said they would over a year ago, and they don't want to piss off the gaming community... but Zelda is a Wii launch title, and they want to use it to sell Wii's. For that reason (and the fact that they've had almost a year since the GC version was finished), I think you can be pretty sure that the Wii version will probably be more polished, have a higher polygon count, and may have some added content. Nintendo REALLY wants you to spend that extra $200 for the Wii version, and Zelda being probably their biggest franchise this side of Mario, is going to sell Wii's.
That's what I'm saying. Now, Nintendo can make enemy AIs that require more precision in swordplay than was required in WW. I don't know if will happen this time around, since most of the game was originally designed for a traditional, button mashing system, but in the future, when the Zelda titles are exclusively Wii, I would hope we would start to see some of this.