I did not say that Twinking was similar to or equal to cheating. This is about the thirteenth time It's been assumed I'm anti-twinking just because I asked questions or made observations.
What I did say is that the attitudes and principles of the players who twink are remarkably similar to those of this cheater. I am not comparing twinking and cheating but the actual players who twink and cheat, an important difference.
And yes, I don't get mad when someone else grabs the good weapons before I can and then torches me with them. That would be silly. However, your analogy breaks because you aren't pickup up equipment in WSG, AB or AV and then beating the tar out of under equipped players. A more appropriate analogy would be the opponent spawning with rocket launchers, beam sabers, rail guns or whatever is the appropriate death weapon for the particular FPS while the player is stuck spawning with a pistol.
For the record, I don't think twinking is inherrently wrong, stupid, noobish or any other of a slew of negative stigmas. Like you said it is in the game mechanics and Blizzard has actually gone on the record stating they do not want to discourage players from optimizing their characters. I do think that many of the arguments presented for twinking as pertaining to battleground are paper thin and would be far more persuasive if they were elaborated on instead of left hanging as their proponents switch from debate to senseless assumption and name calling. The attitude displayed by many players who twink is as much at fault for the largely negative image it presents as the cries of players who see it as unfair.
I hope you will respond and we can have an interesting discussion about this, because few others seem to want to take the time to actually answer my queries.
The principles the cheater presents are remarkably similar to arguments for twinking in WoW. Players claim they do it for a variety of reasons, but a very common one is to "even things out" since the other side probably has twinks.
Also interesting is the similarity in attitude. Anyone posting anti-twink messages generally gets called a "loser" and more offensive terms and is labeled as jealous because they can't get the funds to twink. The cheater says the equivalent, calling people who complain about cheaters some nasty things while saying they are envious because they can't cheat or aren't "smart" enough to.
There's also the classic "If they (being the game creators) didn't want me to cheat (or twink) they would have built an anti-cheat engine (equipment based team selector)" argument. As well as the "I have 1337 skills and even without cheats I'll pwn you" argument.
While there are certainly mature people who do things like twinking because they are bored or because they enjoy fighting other twinks, I think it's obvious (especially if you've ever fought them) that the vast majority are without skill and make up for it with whatever advantage can be afforded to an unskilled moron. If everyone actually cheated, they'd stop playing because they wouldn't be able to win.
The fact that the cheater is 24, lacks a girlfriend (quite defensive about it too), and quotes a hideous translation from a dub of a mainstream cartoon show doesn't lend us to have faith in his intelligence.
I see a lot of people mentioning that at $250, Nintendo is pricing their system dangerously close to Microsoft's core system. While that is true, there are a few things to remember.
1. The vast majority of electronics store will have the full Xbox 360 package in the limelight. Barring a shortage, they're going to push you towards the more expensive model. I can't think of any electronics store I've been in since summer started that had a core package in plain sight. Stacks of the $400 system everywhere, but the green box is nowhere to be found. For someone walking in, the Core and Wii comparison may never happen.
2. The Wii package is more complete. While many people will probably pick up another game, a controller, and maybe a points card for some VC games none of that is necessary for the console to be usable. You can pay your $250, go home, and have fun. Either Xbox 360 requires that at the very least you buy a game or something off of Live for your $300-$400 to give any return.
3. Packaging. Looking at the Wii's packaging reminds me of the iPod or anything from Apple. It's right there on the box, it's obvious what is in the box. You don't have to lift or move the box to understand what it is. Nifty as the Xbox 360 boxes are, they have a distinct "new fangled technology" feel to them. For those of us that already know what it is, it's not a problem. The uninitiated may look at the box and feel intimidated.
I'm sure there'll be people who are going to say, "Hey, that Xbox isn't much more. I think I'll grab that." It would be silly to rule that out, even if the Wii was $199. However, I doubt that the number of people who fit into this category will be significant enough to hurt Nintendo or help Microsoft much.
If the PS3 controller is any indication, Sony doesn't "get" the Wii, and probably doesn't consider it a threat. They're probably blindly celebrating their upcoming victory in Japan and in the US, oblivious to the fact that Nintendo is also celebrating. I would be too if I found out my only real competitor on my home soil would have a maximum of 100,000 units sold, leaving everyone else disappointed, annoyed and angry.
Seriously, if Iwata and Miyamoto aren't blind drunk right now they will be tonight.
Any Christian, Muslim, Jew, Jehova's Witness, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist etc. who hasn't ever had a moment where they realised and confronted the fact that in the end you can never prove, let alone conclusively prove, the existance of God or any story of creation is a sad person indeed.
I appreciate everything people do to try to prove God. I enjoy philosophy and science a great myself. The bottom line is, and it's spelled out pretty clearly in most religions, that it comes down to faith. If you believe in God because you think there's empirical evidence to his existance, you're bound for a rude awakening when you frantically search for that evidence as reassurance that you'll still exist in some way, shape or form following the shedding of your mortal coil.
Ultimately, it is a narrow mind and world view that favors one interpretation of scripture over a natural mechanic we can see clearly. Creationism isn't the only way to read Genesis.
And I find it highly unlikely that Jesus is going to say at the Judgement, "That dude? Sure he sinned, but he loved me whole heartedly, followed my teachings as best he could, and hey I DIED for him.... wait... Evolution? You believed in Evolution? What the HELL were you thinking? Where'd I leave my blowtorch..."
Or...
"That dude? I have never seen a more pompous and self-centered jerk. I mean, you thought Sodom and Gomorrah were hellholes? Look in this guy's heart. I can't bear to even gaze upon his face... wait... Creationism? He believed that? Well! That changes everything! Here's a white robe, milk and honey, and a ticket to the pearly gates!"
That's not to say that all evolution believing people are nice/God fearing and all Creationists are arrogant scumbags. The point is I don't see Evolution/Creationism as being a deciding factor in the fate of your soul, or even a straw that breaks the camel's back.
I like underdogs, I like obscure cult classics, and I love innovation. When I finally got word that BG&E was a great game, I bought it and tried it. It was a good game, but unfortunately it completely failed to hold my interest.
Now, the graphics and the gameplay seemed pretty solid, as did the story. However, at the same time these things all worked together to kill my interest. It was weird, because I wanted the game to succeed. I liked the idea of a game without blood, sex, and overdone violence. Unfortunately this game seemed to suffer from some assumptions I see often made about games that avoid those things.
I don't know about you guys, but back in the old days of the Atari and later the NES, games were difficult. Not impossible, not masochistic, but hard. Yet, these games were also for kids. Just because Contra was nearly impossible for a three year old with just three lives didn't mean kids didn't play that game.
Today, any game lacking blood, sex and graphic violence somehow has to be A) easy B) simple and C) uncomplicated. While these traits aren't overabundant in BG&E, they are there. Ultimately I found the story rather straitforward, the gameplay rather simple, and at that point all that was left were the graphics (something I rarely care about). The game was simply too easy for me.
I traded it in after a day.
I suppose kids would love it, but just because they would doesn't mean they can't appreciate something with a little more depth.
"I don't think that this is [Microsoft's] fault. They have tried as hard as they can to succeed, but cultural bias has precluded success."
Now, I'm not saying that it's easy to make a name for yourself in the Japanese market. However, it's hardly impossible. One need only look at the success of Disney and the iPod in Japan to see that foreign companies can do well. It takes more than "trying hard", it takes trying right. If a brick wall only 3 feet across were laid in Microsoft's path, they'd bang their head into it until it crumbled rather than walk around it like sanity dictates. Microsoft may have touched on things they need to do to capture the hearts of Japanese gamers, but they certainly haven't shown they understand well what they should be doing.
The unfortunate truth these analysts dance around is the long term problems Microsoft faces if they can't make inroads into Japan. If Nintendo and Sony are allowed to repeatedly capture the Japanese market with no contest but each other, they will both have an unchallenged supply of resources to combat Microsoft with on American and European soil. If Microsoft can only fight on the defensive their only hope is for the Japanese market to dry up, leaving Nintendo and Sony without their reserves. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Nintendo has done a decent job of revitalizing the Japanese market. With both Sony and Nintendo having records of previous US market dominance, Microsoft NEEDS to be able to take a significant portion of Japanese marketshare or they will eventually lose by attrition.
I disagree on the point concerning gameplay. It's certainly not a horrible game for its gameplay. It may not have the most incredible gameplay ever, but what it has is at the very worst decent.
One of the major reasons ED may have failed to live up to some players expectations is the genre its in. Most people were likely expecting another Resident Evil like game, or Silent Hill. Instead, they got an Adventure game with a little Action thrown in, and a healthy dose of insanity.
For Counter-Strike playing twitch happy ritalin addicts, it's entire boring and pointless. For people who remember when video games were not synonymous with twitchfest, it's a beautiful game. Hence the dichotomy in the reviews.
There's a reason we have 5 to 7 day forecasts from the Weather Channel or the NOAA. There isn't a good way to keep predicting once you go that far, too much depends on what happens in the days preceding it. The further down the road you go, the greater difference "small" changes a few miles back make.
To predict as far ahead as this guy has is akin to predicting what the weather will be one month ahead. All the science in the world will be about as accurate as throwing darts at a board with pictures of various conditions. This is especially true as two systems haven't even had their launches yet. Without those pivotal events behind us yet, trying to predict past them is a smoke and mirrors divination at best.
I worked in a toy store a while back, and if those retro joysticks were 1/10th as durable as any Nintendo offering they might be worth it. The things were about as durable as an orange is resistant to a steamroller.
Not to mention the clutter that 10 5-in-1 joysticks brings versus 1 Wii.
Honestly, I can think of a huge number of games which I'd willing spend that much on. They were worth $50 to me way back when, and playing them again is worth $4 - $10 in my mind.
I've come to the conclusion that aside from interaction with some of my pre-existing friends, raiding has no desirable qualities. And aside from one character specifically created so that I could interact with my friends, I have no intention of raiding whatsoever. I don't see the point of spending hours beating the same bosses over and over again for the sake of loot over the sake of social interaction.
When I hit level 60 with my other characters, I'll be more likely to spend my time randomly helping low levels and joining whatever random raids on enemy faction cities and outposts happen to be underway. Why? Because it can be fun, it doesn't require my soul, and I don't have to be celibate for the rest of my life.
Firstly, Japan is not the rest of the world. That is your only example (although mentioned Europe, you brought no figures), and Japan is well known for turning a cold shoulder towards foreign companies (though not always). If you'd also brought up numbers of other markets such as Australia and the EU, your claim about the "rest of the world" might be better. As it is, your argument would be better put as "the all important market of Japan".
Secondly, note something within your own statistics. The Nintendo DS, a handheld with good but technically inferior power made up for with a large dose of innovation, outsold the PSP, a handheld with many media functions and supirior power, 10 to every 1.
The point there is, Sony is not only competing with Microsoft. Nintendo continually claims they aren't competing directly with Sony and Microsft. In a sense that is true, because they are largely aiming for people who don't already play games or who gave up playing them. However, Nintendo is competing with them for developers. When developers see that one console is selling ten times what another is, an OLDER console no less, they aren't going to ignore that.
I highly doubt that the PS3 won't sell well at launch, despite the over optimism the analysts seem to ooze. The PSP sold well at launch too. However, we now see Nintendo's DS not only competing but in many ways thrashing the PSP. The potential exists for a similar event with the new generation of consoles.
Somewhere in the archives of/. lies an article pointing out how the vast majority of games sales are done in the presence of a parent or guardian. While I failed to find the article and study, I'm sure there are more skilled people than I who can.
However, for the cases when a parent isn't present there is this article that shows while progress is being made, more work must be done.
In any case, I have to agree with you on the influence parents have. Every kid and child ultimately decides for themselves what their actions will be, but parents can influence those decisions greatly. My parents set up strict rules about the use of video games in the house, severely limiting the amount of time we could play. We their children certainly sidestepped that by often visiting a friend's house. But, because my parents didn't simply say, "Because" when asked "Why?" and instead explained that it was a nice day and we have those Super Soakers for a reason, or because we'd played to much and had homework we should do, or in any case bothered to show us respect and explain rather than just exert totalitarian control, we their children grew up respecting them and what they stood for.
Because of that upbringing, my choices were influenced out of the deep respect I have for my parents. There's little greater control a parent can have than when your gentle words and deeds are recalled to a child's mind as they stare at the highly desirable violent video game and remember how their beloved parents would feel about that game.
This is doubly important because parents themselves aren't be informed as to what video games are and are not violent beforehand. My mother once looked at the cover for Doom and tried to recommend it to me when I was 12. I immediately told her it wasn't appropriate. Thus, parents don't have to worry about occaisionally being confused or uninformed as their own children can act as a failsafe for such circumstances.
Trying to explain a game like Katamari Damancy is like trying to describe an anime. Pick any, and you'll suddenly realize how ridiculous it sounds. Whether it's Dragon Ball Z, Bleach, Mobile Suit Gundam, or Evangelion, you'll be hard pressed to find one that makes sense upon description.
The best idea is just to engineer a situation where you can sit them down and get them to watch 2 episode (or in this case play for 20 minutes). It's like Nintendo says, "Playing is believing".
Nintendo wouldn't let Phil anywhere near the blueprints!
More seriously, it's entirely possible that instead of being motivated by copycatism, Sony changed to the DualShake controller due to their bleak prospects in the suit filed against them concerning their DualShock patent infringement.
1) This survey was published the 25th, which means it was conducted in less than a span of two weeks following E3. Not everyone, even avid game players, goes crazy refreshmonkeying websites reporting on it. As such, there is a certain amount of diffusion that has to take place before this group of gamers learns about what happened at E3.
2) It's hard to argue too much with Famitsu, because it's the single largest video game related publication in Japan. In a nation where renting video games is outlawed, they need a source to trust for which games are worth buying. Famitsu is where most gamers look to. At the very least, Famitsu readers make up the "hardcore" crowd in Japan. If the very crowd Sony can be said to be targeting isn't putting their faith in Sony...
1) There's a difference between a wide selection and a wide variety. I may have 200 different kinds of peanut butter I can buy at the grocery store, but they're still all peanut butter. I'm not saying the PS3 won't have a large selection, or variety, I'm just saying we don't know if it will.
2) You make a great point about how over the life of a console, the actual cost of the console itself pales in comparison to the additive cost of the games (if you buy a great many). Here's the thing, we know for a fact that games for the PS3 and Xbox 360 will cost $60 new. The price for Wii games will be lower, though I'm not overly optimistic and personally only see them staying at $50 (although some would say they'll be priced similarly to DS games around $35). Over the course of 20-50 purchases that price difference adds up. With my estimation, that's $200-$500 more you'd pay for an equivalent number of PS3 or Xbox 360 games than for a Wii. If we go for the optimistic view, the figure changes to $500-$1250 more. The benefit Nintendo offers isn't just a cheaper console, but cheaper games too.
3) Most people don't have $500-$600 just sitting around. Regardless of the relative unimportance of the console's cost in the long run, it's not easy to spend half a grand. Your everyday Joe, even college students, can compulsively pay $50-$60 for a game. They can even compulsively buy $200 consoles. However, as a price gets higher the "ease" with which one can just go ahead and buy something decreases drastically. $300 gives some pause, $400 requires some careful thought, but $500 and $600 are extremely difficult to say, "Oh what the heck, I'll buy it!" to.
That's not to say there are people whose compulsivity knows no bounds. Those people exist. I'm also not implying that the only way consoles are bought are through compulsion, that's certainly not true. $500 or $600 will cause people to stop and think before buying when they might not have otherwise. They may well decide to buy anyway, with logic very much like yours, but they may well look at the other options and decide they like them better.
Console price may not be the "driving" factor, but it is a major one.
...if this is the best dirt to be dug up on Nintendo's new console, if the worst we can say of Nintendo is "Their console is named funny and was in strange boxes!", then we should retire from the business. You might as well complain that Mother Theresa hurt the image of Theresas everywhere by looking old.
That's actually what's surprised me so much. When I was given a Nintendo for Christmas, it had already been out for a while. When I bought a Sega Genesis, it had been around for a year and a half, maybe two years. When I got my Playstation it was only $150. My gamecube was used and two years old, and my PS2 was a broken disc read error on ebay that I fixed up two years after that.
I don't exactly have a record of buying things at launch. Yet here I am counting the days until I can reserve the damn thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever modded this Flamebait obviously doesn't have a sense of humor.
I did not say that Twinking was similar to or equal to cheating. This is about the thirteenth time It's been assumed I'm anti-twinking just because I asked questions or made observations.
What I did say is that the attitudes and principles of the players who twink are remarkably similar to those of this cheater. I am not comparing twinking and cheating but the actual players who twink and cheat, an important difference.
And yes, I don't get mad when someone else grabs the good weapons before I can and then torches me with them. That would be silly. However, your analogy breaks because you aren't pickup up equipment in WSG, AB or AV and then beating the tar out of under equipped players. A more appropriate analogy would be the opponent spawning with rocket launchers, beam sabers, rail guns or whatever is the appropriate death weapon for the particular FPS while the player is stuck spawning with a pistol.
For the record, I don't think twinking is inherrently wrong, stupid, noobish or any other of a slew of negative stigmas. Like you said it is in the game mechanics and Blizzard has actually gone on the record stating they do not want to discourage players from optimizing their characters. I do think that many of the arguments presented for twinking as pertaining to battleground are paper thin and would be far more persuasive if they were elaborated on instead of left hanging as their proponents switch from debate to senseless assumption and name calling. The attitude displayed by many players who twink is as much at fault for the largely negative image it presents as the cries of players who see it as unfair.
I hope you will respond and we can have an interesting discussion about this, because few others seem to want to take the time to actually answer my queries.
The principles the cheater presents are remarkably similar to arguments for twinking in WoW. Players claim they do it for a variety of reasons, but a very common one is to "even things out" since the other side probably has twinks.
Also interesting is the similarity in attitude. Anyone posting anti-twink messages generally gets called a "loser" and more offensive terms and is labeled as jealous because they can't get the funds to twink. The cheater says the equivalent, calling people who complain about cheaters some nasty things while saying they are envious because they can't cheat or aren't "smart" enough to.
There's also the classic "If they (being the game creators) didn't want me to cheat (or twink) they would have built an anti-cheat engine (equipment based team selector)" argument. As well as the "I have 1337 skills and even without cheats I'll pwn you" argument.
While there are certainly mature people who do things like twinking because they are bored or because they enjoy fighting other twinks, I think it's obvious (especially if you've ever fought them) that the vast majority are without skill and make up for it with whatever advantage can be afforded to an unskilled moron. If everyone actually cheated, they'd stop playing because they wouldn't be able to win.
The fact that the cheater is 24, lacks a girlfriend (quite defensive about it too), and quotes a hideous translation from a dub of a mainstream cartoon show doesn't lend us to have faith in his intelligence.
I see a lot of people mentioning that at $250, Nintendo is pricing their system dangerously close to Microsoft's core system. While that is true, there are a few things to remember.
1. The vast majority of electronics store will have the full Xbox 360 package in the limelight. Barring a shortage, they're going to push you towards the more expensive model. I can't think of any electronics store I've been in since summer started that had a core package in plain sight. Stacks of the $400 system everywhere, but the green box is nowhere to be found. For someone walking in, the Core and Wii comparison may never happen.
2. The Wii package is more complete. While many people will probably pick up another game, a controller, and maybe a points card for some VC games none of that is necessary for the console to be usable. You can pay your $250, go home, and have fun. Either Xbox 360 requires that at the very least you buy a game or something off of Live for your $300-$400 to give any return.
3. Packaging. Looking at the Wii's packaging reminds me of the iPod or anything from Apple. It's right there on the box, it's obvious what is in the box. You don't have to lift or move the box to understand what it is. Nifty as the Xbox 360 boxes are, they have a distinct "new fangled technology" feel to them. For those of us that already know what it is, it's not a problem. The uninitiated may look at the box and feel intimidated.
I'm sure there'll be people who are going to say, "Hey, that Xbox isn't much more. I think I'll grab that." It would be silly to rule that out, even if the Wii was $199. However, I doubt that the number of people who fit into this category will be significant enough to hurt Nintendo or help Microsoft much.
If the PS3 controller is any indication, Sony doesn't "get" the Wii, and probably doesn't consider it a threat. They're probably blindly celebrating their upcoming victory in Japan and in the US, oblivious to the fact that Nintendo is also celebrating. I would be too if I found out my only real competitor on my home soil would have a maximum of 100,000 units sold, leaving everyone else disappointed, annoyed and angry.
Seriously, if Iwata and Miyamoto aren't blind drunk right now they will be tonight.
Hence, faith.
Any Christian, Muslim, Jew, Jehova's Witness, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist etc. who hasn't ever had a moment where they realised and confronted the fact that in the end you can never prove, let alone conclusively prove, the existance of God or any story of creation is a sad person indeed.
I appreciate everything people do to try to prove God. I enjoy philosophy and science a great myself. The bottom line is, and it's spelled out pretty clearly in most religions, that it comes down to faith. If you believe in God because you think there's empirical evidence to his existance, you're bound for a rude awakening when you frantically search for that evidence as reassurance that you'll still exist in some way, shape or form following the shedding of your mortal coil.
Ultimately, it is a narrow mind and world view that favors one interpretation of scripture over a natural mechanic we can see clearly. Creationism isn't the only way to read Genesis.
And I find it highly unlikely that Jesus is going to say at the Judgement, "That dude? Sure he sinned, but he loved me whole heartedly, followed my teachings as best he could, and hey I DIED for him.... wait... Evolution? You believed in Evolution? What the HELL were you thinking? Where'd I leave my blowtorch..."
Or...
"That dude? I have never seen a more pompous and self-centered jerk. I mean, you thought Sodom and Gomorrah were hellholes? Look in this guy's heart. I can't bear to even gaze upon his face... wait... Creationism? He believed that? Well! That changes everything! Here's a white robe, milk and honey, and a ticket to the pearly gates!"
That's not to say that all evolution believing people are nice/God fearing and all Creationists are arrogant scumbags. The point is I don't see Evolution/Creationism as being a deciding factor in the fate of your soul, or even a straw that breaks the camel's back.
I like underdogs, I like obscure cult classics, and I love innovation. When I finally got word that BG&E was a great game, I bought it and tried it. It was a good game, but unfortunately it completely failed to hold my interest.
Now, the graphics and the gameplay seemed pretty solid, as did the story. However, at the same time these things all worked together to kill my interest. It was weird, because I wanted the game to succeed. I liked the idea of a game without blood, sex, and overdone violence. Unfortunately this game seemed to suffer from some assumptions I see often made about games that avoid those things.
I don't know about you guys, but back in the old days of the Atari and later the NES, games were difficult. Not impossible, not masochistic, but hard. Yet, these games were also for kids. Just because Contra was nearly impossible for a three year old with just three lives didn't mean kids didn't play that game.
Today, any game lacking blood, sex and graphic violence somehow has to be A) easy B) simple and C) uncomplicated. While these traits aren't overabundant in BG&E, they are there. Ultimately I found the story rather straitforward, the gameplay rather simple, and at that point all that was left were the graphics (something I rarely care about). The game was simply too easy for me.
I traded it in after a day.
I suppose kids would love it, but just because they would doesn't mean they can't appreciate something with a little more depth.
From TFA:
"I don't think that this is [Microsoft's] fault. They have tried as hard as they can to succeed, but cultural bias has precluded success."
Now, I'm not saying that it's easy to make a name for yourself in the Japanese market. However, it's hardly impossible. One need only look at the success of Disney and the iPod in Japan to see that foreign companies can do well. It takes more than "trying hard", it takes trying right. If a brick wall only 3 feet across were laid in Microsoft's path, they'd bang their head into it until it crumbled rather than walk around it like sanity dictates. Microsoft may have touched on things they need to do to capture the hearts of Japanese gamers, but they certainly haven't shown they understand well what they should be doing.
The unfortunate truth these analysts dance around is the long term problems Microsoft faces if they can't make inroads into Japan. If Nintendo and Sony are allowed to repeatedly capture the Japanese market with no contest but each other, they will both have an unchallenged supply of resources to combat Microsoft with on American and European soil. If Microsoft can only fight on the defensive their only hope is for the Japanese market to dry up, leaving Nintendo and Sony without their reserves. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Nintendo has done a decent job of revitalizing the Japanese market. With both Sony and Nintendo having records of previous US market dominance, Microsoft NEEDS to be able to take a significant portion of Japanese marketshare or they will eventually lose by attrition.
I disagree on the point concerning gameplay. It's certainly not a horrible game for its gameplay. It may not have the most incredible gameplay ever, but what it has is at the very worst decent.
One of the major reasons ED may have failed to live up to some players expectations is the genre its in. Most people were likely expecting another Resident Evil like game, or Silent Hill. Instead, they got an Adventure game with a little Action thrown in, and a healthy dose of insanity.
For Counter-Strike playing twitch happy ritalin addicts, it's entire boring and pointless. For people who remember when video games were not synonymous with twitchfest, it's a beautiful game. Hence the dichotomy in the reviews.
There's a reason we have 5 to 7 day forecasts from the Weather Channel or the NOAA. There isn't a good way to keep predicting once you go that far, too much depends on what happens in the days preceding it. The further down the road you go, the greater difference "small" changes a few miles back make.
To predict as far ahead as this guy has is akin to predicting what the weather will be one month ahead. All the science in the world will be about as accurate as throwing darts at a board with pictures of various conditions. This is especially true as two systems haven't even had their launches yet. Without those pivotal events behind us yet, trying to predict past them is a smoke and mirrors divination at best.
I worked in a toy store a while back, and if those retro joysticks were 1/10th as durable as any Nintendo offering they might be worth it. The things were about as durable as an orange is resistant to a steamroller.
Not to mention the clutter that 10 5-in-1 joysticks brings versus 1 Wii.
Honestly, I can think of a huge number of games which I'd willing spend that much on. They were worth $50 to me way back when, and playing them again is worth $4 - $10 in my mind.
Well said.
I've come to the conclusion that aside from interaction with some of my pre-existing friends, raiding has no desirable qualities. And aside from one character specifically created so that I could interact with my friends, I have no intention of raiding whatsoever. I don't see the point of spending hours beating the same bosses over and over again for the sake of loot over the sake of social interaction.
When I hit level 60 with my other characters, I'll be more likely to spend my time randomly helping low levels and joining whatever random raids on enemy faction cities and outposts happen to be underway. Why? Because it can be fun, it doesn't require my soul, and I don't have to be celibate for the rest of my life.
Were I 14, I might think differently.
Firstly, Japan is not the rest of the world. That is your only example (although mentioned Europe, you brought no figures), and Japan is well known for turning a cold shoulder towards foreign companies (though not always). If you'd also brought up numbers of other markets such as Australia and the EU, your claim about the "rest of the world" might be better. As it is, your argument would be better put as "the all important market of Japan".
Secondly, note something within your own statistics. The Nintendo DS, a handheld with good but technically inferior power made up for with a large dose of innovation, outsold the PSP, a handheld with many media functions and supirior power, 10 to every 1.
The point there is, Sony is not only competing with Microsoft. Nintendo continually claims they aren't competing directly with Sony and Microsft. In a sense that is true, because they are largely aiming for people who don't already play games or who gave up playing them. However, Nintendo is competing with them for developers. When developers see that one console is selling ten times what another is, an OLDER console no less, they aren't going to ignore that.
I highly doubt that the PS3 won't sell well at launch, despite the over optimism the analysts seem to ooze. The PSP sold well at launch too. However, we now see Nintendo's DS not only competing but in many ways thrashing the PSP. The potential exists for a similar event with the new generation of consoles.
Somewhere in the archives of /. lies an article pointing out how the vast majority of games sales are done in the presence of a parent or guardian. While I failed to find the article and study, I'm sure there are more skilled people than I who can.
However, for the cases when a parent isn't present there is this article that shows while progress is being made, more work must be done.
In any case, I have to agree with you on the influence parents have. Every kid and child ultimately decides for themselves what their actions will be, but parents can influence those decisions greatly. My parents set up strict rules about the use of video games in the house, severely limiting the amount of time we could play. We their children certainly sidestepped that by often visiting a friend's house. But, because my parents didn't simply say, "Because" when asked "Why?" and instead explained that it was a nice day and we have those Super Soakers for a reason, or because we'd played to much and had homework we should do, or in any case bothered to show us respect and explain rather than just exert totalitarian control, we their children grew up respecting them and what they stood for.
Because of that upbringing, my choices were influenced out of the deep respect I have for my parents. There's little greater control a parent can have than when your gentle words and deeds are recalled to a child's mind as they stare at the highly desirable violent video game and remember how their beloved parents would feel about that game.
This is doubly important because parents themselves aren't be informed as to what video games are and are not violent beforehand. My mother once looked at the cover for Doom and tried to recommend it to me when I was 12. I immediately told her it wasn't appropriate. Thus, parents don't have to worry about occaisionally being confused or uninformed as their own children can act as a failsafe for such circumstances.
All in all it boils down to proper parenting.
I bow to your supirior descriptive skills.
In any case, for everyone descriptionally challenged, I think my method is a viable alternative.
Trying to explain a game like Katamari Damancy is like trying to describe an anime. Pick any, and you'll suddenly realize how ridiculous it sounds. Whether it's Dragon Ball Z, Bleach, Mobile Suit Gundam, or Evangelion, you'll be hard pressed to find one that makes sense upon description.
The best idea is just to engineer a situation where you can sit them down and get them to watch 2 episode (or in this case play for 20 minutes). It's like Nintendo says, "Playing is believing".
There is no justice in this world if the parent isn't moderated funny.
Nintendo wouldn't let Phil anywhere near the blueprints!
More seriously, it's entirely possible that instead of being motivated by copycatism, Sony changed to the DualShake controller due to their bleak prospects in the suit filed against them concerning their DualShock patent infringement.
Just a couple of notes.
1) This survey was published the 25th, which means it was conducted in less than a span of two weeks following E3. Not everyone, even avid game players, goes crazy refreshmonkeying websites reporting on it. As such, there is a certain amount of diffusion that has to take place before this group of gamers learns about what happened at E3.
2) It's hard to argue too much with Famitsu, because it's the single largest video game related publication in Japan. In a nation where renting video games is outlawed, they need a source to trust for which games are worth buying. Famitsu is where most gamers look to. At the very least, Famitsu readers make up the "hardcore" crowd in Japan. If the very crowd Sony can be said to be targeting isn't putting their faith in Sony...
A Wii by any other name sells just as cheap.
Just a few points.
1) There's a difference between a wide selection and a wide variety. I may have 200 different kinds of peanut butter I can buy at the grocery store, but they're still all peanut butter. I'm not saying the PS3 won't have a large selection, or variety, I'm just saying we don't know if it will.
2) You make a great point about how over the life of a console, the actual cost of the console itself pales in comparison to the additive cost of the games (if you buy a great many). Here's the thing, we know for a fact that games for the PS3 and Xbox 360 will cost $60 new. The price for Wii games will be lower, though I'm not overly optimistic and personally only see them staying at $50 (although some would say they'll be priced similarly to DS games around $35). Over the course of 20-50 purchases that price difference adds up. With my estimation, that's $200-$500 more you'd pay for an equivalent number of PS3 or Xbox 360 games than for a Wii. If we go for the optimistic view, the figure changes to $500-$1250 more. The benefit Nintendo offers isn't just a cheaper console, but cheaper games too.
3) Most people don't have $500-$600 just sitting around. Regardless of the relative unimportance of the console's cost in the long run, it's not easy to spend half a grand. Your everyday Joe, even college students, can compulsively pay $50-$60 for a game. They can even compulsively buy $200 consoles. However, as a price gets higher the "ease" with which one can just go ahead and buy something decreases drastically. $300 gives some pause, $400 requires some careful thought, but $500 and $600 are extremely difficult to say, "Oh what the heck, I'll buy it!" to.
That's not to say there are people whose compulsivity knows no bounds. Those people exist. I'm also not implying that the only way consoles are bought are through compulsion, that's certainly not true. $500 or $600 will cause people to stop and think before buying when they might not have otherwise. They may well decide to buy anyway, with logic very much like yours, but they may well look at the other options and decide they like them better.
Console price may not be the "driving" factor, but it is a major one.
...if this is the best dirt to be dug up on Nintendo's new console, if the worst we can say of Nintendo is "Their console is named funny and was in strange boxes!", then we should retire from the business. You might as well complain that Mother Theresa hurt the image of Theresas everywhere by looking old.
That's actually what's surprised me so much. When I was given a Nintendo for Christmas, it had already been out for a while. When I bought a Sega Genesis, it had been around for a year and a half, maybe two years. When I got my Playstation it was only $150. My gamecube was used and two years old, and my PS2 was a broken disc read error on ebay that I fixed up two years after that.
I don't exactly have a record of buying things at launch. Yet here I am counting the days until I can reserve the damn thing.
Incredible.
Mostly because Sony and Microsoft fanboys slam Nintendo on its market share in the US.
Honestly, your point is the only argument against Nintendo in the area of profitability that has ever made any sense. Be proud.