"Nintendo did produce the GBA adabptor for the Cube, and GB adabptor for the SNES. They can make what the they want, and what will benifit them."
Yeah, but those were peripherals, each costing over $50. It's a lot more feasible when you're getting reimbursed that much for the hardware. An NES slot on the SNES would have required a lot of hardware changes and probably would have increased the cost of the console considerably.
"If the revolution handles cube games, it will be a first for nintendo. Just because they say it now, does not mean it will be true."
First of all, backward compatibility is one of the few confirmed details about the Revolution. It would be suicide for Nintendo to draw so much attention to a feature that isn't already finalized. Secondly, what is the purpose of this if it doesn't support GameCube games? The Revolution will support wireless controllers and SD Flash memory by default, so there's no purpose for all that extra hardware, other than backward compatibility.
Nintendohasrepeatedlyemphasizedbackwardcompatibility. There is no way that any company would announce a feature more than six separate times, build it into a prototype, wave it around in front of thousands of people, and then drop it. It would be sheer lunacy.
Care to point out where anyone mentioned a "right-wing Christian organization"? I recently attended a discussion by a leading professor in this area of research, and though his results haven't been published yet, his research was finding that there were noticeable links between violent media and psychological effects linked to aggression. Many scientific studies have found that violent media does affect people, but the magnitude of the effect is undetermined. Maybe the effect is small enough to be discounted - we just don't know yet - but it is there.
I'm sure you're not alone in your situation. My experience has been rather similar to yours, I would guess. These kind of responses are always common on sites like this, because as a whole, I would assume that Slashdot users are typically more mature in their thinking than the average teenager.
I'm not suggesting a video game ban or anything that extreme, but I do think there's a problem when parents are buying games for their kids without understanding the content. The Hot Coffee fiasco would have never existed if every parent knew exactly what the game was about. Some kids (note: I'm not saying all, not even most) can't handle violent or sexual content. Their parents should have the right to know what their kids are playing. Maybe it's the fault of the parents, maybe it's the fault of the ESRB, but for some reason or another, that's not happening, and it should be fixed. That's the entire purpose of the ESRB.
"Are you serious? A lot of great literature has been banned."
Sure, but you'll read it because it's great, not because it's been banned.
It's immature to think that any media is made better for the sole reason of it being "dirty/sexual/obscene". If it's good, it should be read on its own merits, whether or not obscenity is a part of that. If it sucks, all the sex scenes in the world can't redeem it.
Studies have shown that games do increase aggression in kids. Maybe not to the levels that incite violent crime, but probably things like schoolyard fights. I suppose you could argue that things like that don't matter to society, but that would be a little shortsighted, IMO. If keeping some snot-nosed kid from having one video game will stop another kid from being bullied at school, isn't that worth it?
All I'm saying is that just because a game doesn't lead a kid to murder doesn't mean it has no effect on anyone.
"I had an English teacher who told me that you should ALWAYS read banned books, because whomever banned them got to read them, and why can they read something you can't."
Am I the only one who finds that kind of statement incredibly immature? "Jimmy has a GI Joe! Why can't I have a GI Joe, too?" It sounds like something I would expect from a two-year-old, not a middle-aged teacher.
Since this Hot Coffee incident, people keep making comments like, "Gee, I better find out what game Jack Thompson is going after next, because it must be good." No, it doesn't. BMX XXX, anyone? Anyone who honestly holds that opinion must be more immature than the teenagers that everyone is trying to shelter.
Clearly that's not the best solution either, but it seems like some common ground could be reached.
I think part of the problem lies with reviewers. A lot of reviewers are starting to have high expectations for music. It's not a big deal when they take notice of high quality music, but when they mark down games without licenced music or orchestral music, it starts to be detrimental to smaller developers.
For example, Burnout 2 had a decent instrumental soundtrack. It probably was pretty cheap to produce, but it was appropriate for the game. Thanks to EA, Burnout 3 has a fully licensed soundtrack. If, for some reason, Criterion decided to give Burnout 4 an instrumental soundtrack again, it would most likely be criticized, regardless of its actual quality.
Good music can be expressed through an full orchestra or through MIDI samples. Licensed "mainstream" music isn't even really necessary in this era, since most people would rather replace the music with their own library anyway. Those things are fine, but if smaller-budget games start being ignored because they don't have the latest Green Day album included, it would be a problem, in my opinion.
I agree completely. RPGs in their current form are limited in their appeal. Not everyone enjoys playing D&D on a worldwide scale.
Before MMOG's really take off, they'll need to expand into other genres. Like you said, first-person shooters will likely be the next genre to go MMO. GTA-esque games may soon follow, and more casual games like Animal Crossing could be very popular with non-gamers. MMO racing games and certain sports games (like the Tony Hawk series) could evolve into their own niche, with different "gangs" forming and markets for car/skateboard upgrades.
RPG's lend themselves easily to the MMO design, since they aren't very latency-dependent and their statistic-based design translates easily to a large number of players. But as hardware and network connections get more powerful, some of the more mainstream genres will adopt the MMO format, and likely overtake MMORPGs in subscriptions.
I believe part of the success of MMORPGs right now is because they're really the only decent option for MMO gaming. I know several WoW players that would most likely switch if they could find similar community and exploration elements in a FPS, for example.
"If the rating system bows to this idiot, the gaming industry needs to respond by only producing AO games. If the top five studios went in together, they coudl do it. If the rating people refuse to 'overrate' games, include hidden content the same way Rockstar did...content you can't possibly get to, but is included in the data files anyway. Scan in hardcode porn and put it in the texture file or whatever.
And then watching retail stores that refuse to carry AO games either give in or get made irrelevant, thus making the entire rating system irrelevant."
That wouldn't work. First of all, there are very few developers that would deliberately stoop to Rockstar's level. Electronic Arts (the top software publisher in America) makes E- and T-rated games almost exclusively; they're not going to all of a sudden start making hardcore porn Harry Potter games because of something this minor. Nintendo (the second biggest software publisher) has published very few M-rated games, and none of them contained the sexual content that would warrant an AO rating. Even the more violence-oriented studios like Bungie, Capcom, and Konami generally shy away from blatantly sexual themes.
Even if Rockstar could somehow muster a band of sex-loving buddies to make AO-only games with them, people would just stop buying their products and buy the more readily available stuff, i.e. Madden, Halo, and Zelda. Over 90% of current games are rated T or lower, and those games aren't going to magically go away if every M game gets bumped up to AO.
Secondly, making those games easily available probably won't "train parents to purchase" them. The rating is still "Adults Only", which is very specific in its restrictions. Parents like to think their kids are "mature", but "adult" is almost always associated with pornographic content, which won't go over well with a lot of parents. If small retailers somehow were forced to carry AO games, they'd probably place them in a separate "adult" section like many rental places do, which would be just as deterring to parents as anything.
"If people's favorite games DON'T become backwards compatible, they're going to raise hell and end up not buying a 360."
Microsoft has already stated (as the article addresses) that the first games to be supported will be the best-sellers. This ensures that most "favorite" games will be supported. Who do you think means more to Microsoft: the 500,000 or so who bought SF Anniversary Collection, or the 6 million+ that bought Halo 2? They'll most likely support games from the top down, sales-wise. If you're a big fan of low-selling games, you might be out of luck, but you'll be in the minority.
Just to clarify: I own a GameCube, and I'll probably buy a Revolution soon after its launch. I'm not predicting its failure or anything; I just think it's far too early to declare the Revolution "right" and the PS3 and Xbox 360 "wrong".
I doubt the Revolution will be the next Virtual Boy, but there's a chance (however slight) that it could be. We just don't know what the Revolution will be yet. It could turn out to be an amazing leap in gameplay like we saw between the SNES and N64... or it could be a gimmicky failure. The only clue we have toward an actual Revolution game is a 15-second clip of Metroid Prime running on a GameCube development kit. The final game will probably look nothing like that.
We've seen some visual evidence (prerendered or not) that Gears of War and Killzone 2 exist, and that they'll feature improvements over current-gen first-person shooters. We've seen plenty of other PS3 and Xbox 360 games. Nobody can say the same about the Revolution yet. The list of announced Revolution games is slim, and until Nintendo makes some official announcements, there's no way of comparing it to the competition.
I have very high hopes for the Revolution, especially after seeing the impressive turn the DS has taken. But they're just that -- hopes. There's no proof yet. Any number of things could go wrong: the WiFi service could be poorly implemented, game downloads could be expensive or lacking in number, the controller could be inadequate for "traditional games", third-party support could be weak, and first-party games could appear "gimmicky". I'm fairly confident that Nintendo won't make those kind of mistakes, but they have made some odd business decisions in the past. Until Nintendo has fully unveiled the Revolution's controller, playable games, and further details on what makes it so "revolutionary", it's completely unfair to claim its superiority over the PS3 or Xbox 360.
"And GB games not running on the GBA? Details please."
There were a few Game Boy Color games that didn't run on the GBA, but most of them were Japan-only. For example, Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble doesn't work properly on the SP because the cartridge slot is inverted. I remember a lot of problems with the color pallete differences, too (GBC games appeared too dark on the GBA). There were also quite a few hardware compatibility issues involving link cables. Overall, there were no glaring flaws, but the support wasn't 100% perfect.
I'm not too familiar with the PS2's backward compatibility, but from what I understand most of the problematic games tended to be rather obscure. I'm guessing that well over 90% of games worked fine, and those few that didn't work were ignored by most people anyway.
Ha ha ha! You, sir, are hilarious. I'm about the furthest from an Xbox fanboy of anyone I know. I apologize: I didn't realize that rational thinking automatically makes me a slave to Microsoft.
Look, as much you want Microsoft to go bankrupt on the Xbox 360, wishing that every Xbox fanboy was dead isn't going to make that happen. Microsoft is still a very successful company, and like it or not, they still make reasonably rational business decisions. Why would they deliberately tick off over half of their existing userbase? So people like you could mock them? Right.
I agree that there's no point to announcing specs too early. All I'm saying is that we can't claim that "Nintendo is doing everything right" until we actually know what they're doing. Every time Sony and Microsoft make a minor mistake, somebody makes a comment about how Nintendo hasn't screwed anything up with the Revolution yet. Maybe they have, they just haven't announced it yet.
And ideally, Nintendo would release Rev dev kits to third parties a year before launch but not announce any details until about six months prior. They could keep supporting the GameCube for those last six months, then spring the news of the Revolution at a more opportune time. As a gamer, it's pretty hard to play your "boring" current-gen system for another year when the manufacturer has just announced a huge successor. I like how Nintendo unveiled the DS about six months before it launched, gradually revealing more information leading up to its launch. It kept people interested, but it didn't prematurely steal the GBA's thunder. If only the launch lineup would have been more substantial, it would have been one of the most interesting launches in recent history.
Donkey Konga != Donkey Kong. If anything Konga is a sequel to Namco's "Taiko No Tatsujin" for the PS2. The only resemblance it bears to any previous Donkey Kong game is the main character.
Luigi's Mansion is definitely not Mario, either. LM is more of a Ghostbusters-esque game than a traditional Mario platformer. Again: same characters, completely different game.
If you're really that interested in more than four original games, and not just trolling, look up Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness, Super Monkey Ball, Tales of Symphonia, Zelda: Four Swords Adventures, Ikaruga, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Baten Kaitos, Sega Soccer Slam, Beach Spikers, and Wario Ware. Upcoming original GameCube games include Geist, Mario Superstar Baseball, Battallion Wars, Fire Emblem, Chibi Robo, Super Mario Strikers, and Odama. Though many of them are technically sequels or part of existing franchises, they all provide drastic gameplay evolutions over their predecessors.
And the GP never listed 100 good original PS2-exclusive games, probably because they exist only in his imagination. I'm having a hard time finding more than fifteen on GameRankings.com.
I'm confused. Are you trying to troll, or are you just masking your valid questions with troll-like whining? I can't really tell. But since you requested intelligent discussion, I'll bite. It might be long, though.
First of all, the sequel argument. You say you have 100 original PS2 masterpieces, right? A quick glance at any top-rated PS2 games list reveals dozens of sequels. Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, Tony Hawk, Burnout, Devil May Cry, SSX, Soul Calibur, Madden, Ratchet & Clank, Prince of Persia, Tekken, Final Fantasy... I could literally go on for pages. Does that make them bad games? Of course not. For example, Final Fantasy X is drastically different from the original Final Fantasy. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is a completely different (yet equally great) game compared to its ancestor. The same applies to Nintendo. Sure, Zelda and Mario have been around for around twenty years, but each iteration of those franchises is almost always unique. Zelda: Twilight Princess has very little relation to the original Zelda, apart from the main character and gameplay style. Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat resembles the 1981 classic only in its name. The game is a completely different experience.
Online: You're right. It's kind of a shame that the GameCube wasn't taken fully online, though one look at the Xbox division's finances will give you the primary reason. The console that's marketed as the ultimate online experience has only about 10% of its userbase playing online, all while Microsoft is losing millions of dollars supporting it. Sony also supports networked games, but from what I've seen and played, it's much less refined, and ultimately a less rewarding experience than Xbox Live. Solutions? Most GameCube owners I know use their consoles primarily for local multiplayer and single player games, opting to use computers for online games, where the concept has been far more supported than on any console.
The controller? Everyone has their own opinion, but at the time of its release, the GameCube was widely considered to have the most ergonomic controller of all three next-gen systems. This opinion may have changed once Microsoft released the Controller S, but the controller is still far from "crap". I have semi-large hands, and I've never had a problem with its size. Its button placement is unique, and superior for certain game styles. The controller was designed to make it easy to press multiple buttons with one thumb, and many games support the feature nicely. Unfortunately, a lot of developers have lazily ported games from the PS2 and Xbox without altering the control setup to support the design. As for your "10 year old son" comment, it was immature and unnecessary for an "intelligent" post, and the "fanboi" and "holy war" comments probably won't help avoid flames either.
Now, the "sexual activity standpoint", or feminine appeal department. I know several GameCube owners with girlfriends or wives, and many of them say that their significant others enjoy playing games like Animal Crossing and Mario Kart rather than traditional, violent games. Nintendo has always striven to produce games that appeal to everyone, and females are no exception to that. I hear that the recent DS title Nintendogs has had unprecedented success with Japanese women.
I also can't help but question your credibility when you claim that your wife married you for your PS2, not to mention the fact that you have both a "super hot wife", a 10 year old son, and a "super hot girlfriend". But whatever. I guarantee you that sexual activity is not the primary selling point for the majority of console owners, though.
Really, is it that hard to understand that people enjoy different types of games? Personally, I would never spend $50 on a Madden game every year, but I know that many people do. It doesn't take a whole lot of explanation. People like it, just like people like Nintendo games. Apparently the press does too, because the GameCube has been home to many of the top-ranked games of this generation. Maybe you don't see the appeal of the GC, but it doesn't take much thinking to see how someone else might.
Oh, and just for the record, this entire thread is completely off-topic.
You can speculate about the Revolution all you want, but until Nintendo shows some real specs and real games, it means nothing. If the Revolution winds up as the Virtual Boy 2, Microsoft's limited Xbox compatibility will be a non-issue.
Nintendo's pretty safe right now because all they've announced are trivial things: retro games, WiFi support, GameCube compatibility. These things don't make or break the system. But we know nothing about the actual games. According to Nintendo execs, it'll be an improvement over current games, but if it's a step backward, at least the 360 and PS3 will provide marginally improved traditional games.
"Emulation sucks. When consumers get backwards compatibility, they expect 100%. That's what they've been getting so far."
Backward compatibility has never been flawless on consoles. The PS2 can't play every PS1 game. The GBA can't perfectly run every GB game, and the DS can't handle multiplayer GBA games.
We don't know how well the PS3 will handle b/c, but Sony claims that it'll play both PS2 and PS1 games. Given the PS2's support, it's almost certain that not every single game will be flawlessly supported. Nintendo's Revolution is supposed to be backward compatible, and from the looks of things it may contain the GameCube's chipset. Its NES, SNES, and N64 support will certainly be emulation, though, so we can expect that certain games might not work.
Basically, this feature has never been ideally implemented. There are always slight problems with it, but the most important thing is to please the biggest crowd. What would be more beneficial to the fans -- no support at all, or support for the six million copies of Halo 2 that were just sold? For every guy that's ticked about Fusion Frenzy not working, there will be twenty buyers that are fine with playing Halo 2 and couldn't care less whether every obscure game is supported. The semi-casual gamer is the Xbox's primary revenue source, and they'll only be concerned about the big games anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that Halo and GT3 are definitely not obscure, but I wouldn't define them as mainstream. It sounds like we're defining the term in different ways. Personally, I believe the current industry is still young enough that "mainstream" can't yet be determined by sales of individual games.
Take your music analogy, for example. The percentage of "gamers" buying video games is a lot higher than the percentage of "music buffs" buying music. Most music buyers wouldn't consider themselves "hardcore" music fans. The games industry is gradually expanding, but currently the share of hardcore players is disproportionally large compared to other entertainment media. Gaming is still very confined to the stereotypical late-teens/early-twenties male buyer, and the top sales charts reflect that buyer segment. In contrast, top music lists feature anything from Mariah Carey to Ludacris, from Weezer to Toby Keith. There's a much broader audience that can't be pinned into a small market segment, and most pop music doesn't appeal to the so-called "hardcore".
As for total game vs. CD sales, simple number comparisons don't really work, mainly due to the sheer volume of different musicians versus the relatively small number of games. If you like country music, there are literally thousands of artists to choose from (some of them more appealing than others, probably), but if you're an Xbox owner who likes FPS's, you'll buy Halo. There are a few other choices, but not nearly as many.
"If it was difficult to know who was going to be the dominant player in the console market, no one would ever sign an exclusive contract. The fact that console fanboys don't even start their silly and pointless debates until long after the battle has been decided is somewhat amusing but irrelevant.
"
So who's signing all these exclusive contracts with Sony, the obvious leader? Square-Enix? Rockstar? Konami, Capcom, Namco, Sega? EA or Ubisoft? If Sony is already predestined to win the next console war, why are all these third parties creating games for Microsoft and Nintendo? Wouldn't it be beneficial for them to exclusively support the clear-cut winner, drive the other two out of the market, and be left with a unified userbase? Or maybe the winner isn't so obvious.
Oh, and: "The two key components needed for domination are amount exclusive IP and manufacturing cost versus performance."
Then how come the Xbox (with a high manufacturing cost) and the GameCube (with a low manufacturing cost) have been neck-and-neck for four years? Why is the PS3 slated to be the most expensive next-gen console if Sony is so efficient in that area?
You sound so confident that the industry is extremely predictable, but it doesn't take long for the tides to turn. Sony started this generation with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and GTA as exclusives; now they're not. More franchises are moving multiplatform as time goes on, and there's absolutely no way for you to predict the big hits of the next generation. Nobody predicted that Halo would outsell most PS2 games. Who are you to say that Gears of War (for example) can't do the same?
Slashdot Mirror
"Nintendo did produce the GBA adabptor for the Cube, and GB adabptor for the SNES. They can make what the they want, and what will benifit them."
Yeah, but those were peripherals, each costing over $50. It's a lot more feasible when you're getting reimbursed that much for the hardware. An NES slot on the SNES would have required a lot of hardware changes and probably would have increased the cost of the console considerably.
"If the revolution handles cube games, it will be a first for nintendo. Just because they say it now, does not mean it will be true."
First of all, backward compatibility is one of the few confirmed details about the Revolution. It would be suicide for Nintendo to draw so much attention to a feature that isn't already finalized. Secondly, what is the purpose of this if it doesn't support GameCube games? The Revolution will support wireless controllers and SD Flash memory by default, so there's no purpose for all that extra hardware, other than backward compatibility.
Nintendo has repeatedly emphasized backward compatibility. There is no way that any company would announce a feature more than six separate times, build it into a prototype, wave it around in front of thousands of people, and then drop it. It would be sheer lunacy.
"Does anybody have some links?"
. htm e o_Game_FAQs.html s /walsh.html
Sure, here's a few after a quick Googling. I'm sure there are better ones, but I don't have time to find them right now.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_56903
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/54/65223.htm
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Vid
http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/paper
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
Care to point out where anyone mentioned a "right-wing Christian organization"? I recently attended a discussion by a leading professor in this area of research, and though his results haven't been published yet, his research was finding that there were noticeable links between violent media and psychological effects linked to aggression. Many scientific studies have found that violent media does affect people, but the magnitude of the effect is undetermined. Maybe the effect is small enough to be discounted - we just don't know yet - but it is there.
I'm sure you're not alone in your situation. My experience has been rather similar to yours, I would guess. These kind of responses are always common on sites like this, because as a whole, I would assume that Slashdot users are typically more mature in their thinking than the average teenager.
I'm not suggesting a video game ban or anything that extreme, but I do think there's a problem when parents are buying games for their kids without understanding the content. The Hot Coffee fiasco would have never existed if every parent knew exactly what the game was about. Some kids (note: I'm not saying all, not even most) can't handle violent or sexual content. Their parents should have the right to know what their kids are playing. Maybe it's the fault of the parents, maybe it's the fault of the ESRB, but for some reason or another, that's not happening, and it should be fixed. That's the entire purpose of the ESRB.
"Are you serious? A lot of great literature has been banned."
Sure, but you'll read it because it's great, not because it's been banned.
It's immature to think that any media is made better for the sole reason of it being "dirty/sexual/obscene". If it's good, it should be read on its own merits, whether or not obscenity is a part of that. If it sucks, all the sex scenes in the world can't redeem it.
Studies have shown that games do increase aggression in kids. Maybe not to the levels that incite violent crime, but probably things like schoolyard fights. I suppose you could argue that things like that don't matter to society, but that would be a little shortsighted, IMO. If keeping some snot-nosed kid from having one video game will stop another kid from being bullied at school, isn't that worth it?
All I'm saying is that just because a game doesn't lead a kid to murder doesn't mean it has no effect on anyone.
"I had an English teacher who told me that you should ALWAYS read banned books, because whomever banned them got to read them, and why can they read something you can't."
Am I the only one who finds that kind of statement incredibly immature? "Jimmy has a GI Joe! Why can't I have a GI Joe, too?" It sounds like something I would expect from a two-year-old, not a middle-aged teacher.
Since this Hot Coffee incident, people keep making comments like, "Gee, I better find out what game Jack Thompson is going after next, because it must be good." No, it doesn't. BMX XXX, anyone? Anyone who honestly holds that opinion must be more immature than the teenagers that everyone is trying to shelter.
"Where is the supposed wave of game-fueled juvenile crime? If you look at the numbers, at least in the US, it ain't happening. "
Not every act of aggression is illegal, and there are plenty of instances of violence that aren't recorded "in the numbers".
Clearly that's not the best solution either, but it seems like some common ground could be reached.
I think part of the problem lies with reviewers. A lot of reviewers are starting to have high expectations for music. It's not a big deal when they take notice of high quality music, but when they mark down games without licenced music or orchestral music, it starts to be detrimental to smaller developers.
For example, Burnout 2 had a decent instrumental soundtrack. It probably was pretty cheap to produce, but it was appropriate for the game. Thanks to EA, Burnout 3 has a fully licensed soundtrack. If, for some reason, Criterion decided to give Burnout 4 an instrumental soundtrack again, it would most likely be criticized, regardless of its actual quality.
Good music can be expressed through an full orchestra or through MIDI samples. Licensed "mainstream" music isn't even really necessary in this era, since most people would rather replace the music with their own library anyway. Those things are fine, but if smaller-budget games start being ignored because they don't have the latest Green Day album included, it would be a problem, in my opinion.
I agree completely. RPGs in their current form are limited in their appeal. Not everyone enjoys playing D&D on a worldwide scale.
Before MMOG's really take off, they'll need to expand into other genres. Like you said, first-person shooters will likely be the next genre to go MMO. GTA-esque games may soon follow, and more casual games like Animal Crossing could be very popular with non-gamers. MMO racing games and certain sports games (like the Tony Hawk series) could evolve into their own niche, with different "gangs" forming and markets for car/skateboard upgrades.
RPG's lend themselves easily to the MMO design, since they aren't very latency-dependent and their statistic-based design translates easily to a large number of players. But as hardware and network connections get more powerful, some of the more mainstream genres will adopt the MMO format, and likely overtake MMORPGs in subscriptions.
I believe part of the success of MMORPGs right now is because they're really the only decent option for MMO gaming. I know several WoW players that would most likely switch if they could find similar community and exploration elements in a FPS, for example.
Maybe he'd like this shirt better.
"If the rating system bows to this idiot, the gaming industry needs to respond by only producing AO games. If the top five studios went in together, they coudl do it. If the rating people refuse to 'overrate' games, include hidden content the same way Rockstar did...content you can't possibly get to, but is included in the data files anyway. Scan in hardcode porn and put it in the texture file or whatever.
And then watching retail stores that refuse to carry AO games either give in or get made irrelevant, thus making the entire rating system irrelevant."
That wouldn't work. First of all, there are very few developers that would deliberately stoop to Rockstar's level. Electronic Arts (the top software publisher in America) makes E- and T-rated games almost exclusively; they're not going to all of a sudden start making hardcore porn Harry Potter games because of something this minor. Nintendo (the second biggest software publisher) has published very few M-rated games, and none of them contained the sexual content that would warrant an AO rating. Even the more violence-oriented studios like Bungie, Capcom, and Konami generally shy away from blatantly sexual themes.
Even if Rockstar could somehow muster a band of sex-loving buddies to make AO-only games with them, people would just stop buying their products and buy the more readily available stuff, i.e. Madden, Halo, and Zelda. Over 90% of current games are rated T or lower, and those games aren't going to magically go away if every M game gets bumped up to AO.
Secondly, making those games easily available probably won't "train parents to purchase" them. The rating is still "Adults Only", which is very specific in its restrictions. Parents like to think their kids are "mature", but "adult" is almost always associated with pornographic content, which won't go over well with a lot of parents. If small retailers somehow were forced to carry AO games, they'd probably place them in a separate "adult" section like many rental places do, which would be just as deterring to parents as anything.
"If people's favorite games DON'T become backwards compatible, they're going to raise hell and end up not buying a 360."
Microsoft has already stated (as the article addresses) that the first games to be supported will be the best-sellers. This ensures that most "favorite" games will be supported. Who do you think means more to Microsoft: the 500,000 or so who bought SF Anniversary Collection, or the 6 million+ that bought Halo 2? They'll most likely support games from the top down, sales-wise. If you're a big fan of low-selling games, you might be out of luck, but you'll be in the minority.
"In an instant more than a thousand will be converted,"
;)
An obvious reference to J Allard's goal of converting one billion gamers to the Xbox 360. It's more than a thousand, right?
Just to clarify: I own a GameCube, and I'll probably buy a Revolution soon after its launch. I'm not predicting its failure or anything; I just think it's far too early to declare the Revolution "right" and the PS3 and Xbox 360 "wrong".
I doubt the Revolution will be the next Virtual Boy, but there's a chance (however slight) that it could be. We just don't know what the Revolution will be yet. It could turn out to be an amazing leap in gameplay like we saw between the SNES and N64... or it could be a gimmicky failure. The only clue we have toward an actual Revolution game is a 15-second clip of Metroid Prime running on a GameCube development kit. The final game will probably look nothing like that.
We've seen some visual evidence (prerendered or not) that Gears of War and Killzone 2 exist, and that they'll feature improvements over current-gen first-person shooters. We've seen plenty of other PS3 and Xbox 360 games. Nobody can say the same about the Revolution yet. The list of announced Revolution games is slim, and until Nintendo makes some official announcements, there's no way of comparing it to the competition.
I have very high hopes for the Revolution, especially after seeing the impressive turn the DS has taken. But they're just that -- hopes. There's no proof yet. Any number of things could go wrong: the WiFi service could be poorly implemented, game downloads could be expensive or lacking in number, the controller could be inadequate for "traditional games", third-party support could be weak, and first-party games could appear "gimmicky". I'm fairly confident that Nintendo won't make those kind of mistakes, but they have made some odd business decisions in the past. Until Nintendo has fully unveiled the Revolution's controller, playable games, and further details on what makes it so "revolutionary", it's completely unfair to claim its superiority over the PS3 or Xbox 360.
"And GB games not running on the GBA? Details please."
There were a few Game Boy Color games that didn't run on the GBA, but most of them were Japan-only. For example, Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble doesn't work properly on the SP because the cartridge slot is inverted. I remember a lot of problems with the color pallete differences, too (GBC games appeared too dark on the GBA). There were also quite a few hardware compatibility issues involving link cables. Overall, there were no glaring flaws, but the support wasn't 100% perfect.
I'm not too familiar with the PS2's backward compatibility, but from what I understand most of the problematic games tended to be rather obscure. I'm guessing that well over 90% of games worked fine, and those few that didn't work were ignored by most people anyway.
Heh, I feel kinda stupid now. I thought for sure that he put way too much time into that post to just be joking. Thanks for pointing it out, though.
Ha ha ha! You, sir, are hilarious. I'm about the furthest from an Xbox fanboy of anyone I know. I apologize: I didn't realize that rational thinking automatically makes me a slave to Microsoft.
Look, as much you want Microsoft to go bankrupt on the Xbox 360, wishing that every Xbox fanboy was dead isn't going to make that happen. Microsoft is still a very successful company, and like it or not, they still make reasonably rational business decisions. Why would they deliberately tick off over half of their existing userbase? So people like you could mock them? Right.
I agree that there's no point to announcing specs too early. All I'm saying is that we can't claim that "Nintendo is doing everything right" until we actually know what they're doing. Every time Sony and Microsoft make a minor mistake, somebody makes a comment about how Nintendo hasn't screwed anything up with the Revolution yet. Maybe they have, they just haven't announced it yet.
And ideally, Nintendo would release Rev dev kits to third parties a year before launch but not announce any details until about six months prior. They could keep supporting the GameCube for those last six months, then spring the news of the Revolution at a more opportune time. As a gamer, it's pretty hard to play your "boring" current-gen system for another year when the manufacturer has just announced a huge successor. I like how Nintendo unveiled the DS about six months before it launched, gradually revealing more information leading up to its launch. It kept people interested, but it didn't prematurely steal the GBA's thunder. If only the launch lineup would have been more substantial, it would have been one of the most interesting launches in recent history.
Donkey Konga != Donkey Kong. If anything Konga is a sequel to Namco's "Taiko No Tatsujin" for the PS2. The only resemblance it bears to any previous Donkey Kong game is the main character.
Luigi's Mansion is definitely not Mario, either. LM is more of a Ghostbusters-esque game than a traditional Mario platformer. Again: same characters, completely different game.
If you're really that interested in more than four original games, and not just trolling, look up Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness, Super Monkey Ball, Tales of Symphonia, Zelda: Four Swords Adventures, Ikaruga, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Baten Kaitos, Sega Soccer Slam, Beach Spikers, and Wario Ware. Upcoming original GameCube games include Geist, Mario Superstar Baseball, Battallion Wars, Fire Emblem, Chibi Robo, Super Mario Strikers, and Odama. Though many of them are technically sequels or part of existing franchises, they all provide drastic gameplay evolutions over their predecessors.
And the GP never listed 100 good original PS2-exclusive games, probably because they exist only in his imagination. I'm having a hard time finding more than fifteen on GameRankings.com.
I'm confused. Are you trying to troll, or are you just masking your valid questions with troll-like whining? I can't really tell. But since you requested intelligent discussion, I'll bite. It might be long, though.
First of all, the sequel argument. You say you have 100 original PS2 masterpieces, right? A quick glance at any top-rated PS2 games list reveals dozens of sequels. Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, Tony Hawk, Burnout, Devil May Cry, SSX, Soul Calibur, Madden, Ratchet & Clank, Prince of Persia, Tekken, Final Fantasy... I could literally go on for pages. Does that make them bad games? Of course not. For example, Final Fantasy X is drastically different from the original Final Fantasy. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is a completely different (yet equally great) game compared to its ancestor. The same applies to Nintendo. Sure, Zelda and Mario have been around for around twenty years, but each iteration of those franchises is almost always unique. Zelda: Twilight Princess has very little relation to the original Zelda, apart from the main character and gameplay style. Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat resembles the 1981 classic only in its name. The game is a completely different experience.
Online: You're right. It's kind of a shame that the GameCube wasn't taken fully online, though one look at the Xbox division's finances will give you the primary reason. The console that's marketed as the ultimate online experience has only about 10% of its userbase playing online, all while Microsoft is losing millions of dollars supporting it. Sony also supports networked games, but from what I've seen and played, it's much less refined, and ultimately a less rewarding experience than Xbox Live. Solutions? Most GameCube owners I know use their consoles primarily for local multiplayer and single player games, opting to use computers for online games, where the concept has been far more supported than on any console.
The controller? Everyone has their own opinion, but at the time of its release, the GameCube was widely considered to have the most ergonomic controller of all three next-gen systems. This opinion may have changed once Microsoft released the Controller S, but the controller is still far from "crap". I have semi-large hands, and I've never had a problem with its size. Its button placement is unique, and superior for certain game styles. The controller was designed to make it easy to press multiple buttons with one thumb, and many games support the feature nicely. Unfortunately, a lot of developers have lazily ported games from the PS2 and Xbox without altering the control setup to support the design. As for your "10 year old son" comment, it was immature and unnecessary for an "intelligent" post, and the "fanboi" and "holy war" comments probably won't help avoid flames either.
Now, the "sexual activity standpoint", or feminine appeal department. I know several GameCube owners with girlfriends or wives, and many of them say that their significant others enjoy playing games like Animal Crossing and Mario Kart rather than traditional, violent games. Nintendo has always striven to produce games that appeal to everyone, and females are no exception to that. I hear that the recent DS title Nintendogs has had unprecedented success with Japanese women.
I also can't help but question your credibility when you claim that your wife married you for your PS2, not to mention the fact that you have both a "super hot wife", a 10 year old son, and a "super hot girlfriend". But whatever. I guarantee you that sexual activity is not the primary selling point for the majority of console owners, though.
Really, is it that hard to understand that people enjoy different types of games? Personally, I would never spend $50 on a Madden game every year, but I know that many people do. It doesn't take a whole lot of explanation. People like it, just like people like Nintendo games. Apparently the press does too, because the GameCube has been home to many of the top-ranked games of this generation. Maybe you don't see the appeal of the GC, but it doesn't take much thinking to see how someone else might.
Oh, and just for the record, this entire thread is completely off-topic.
You can speculate about the Revolution all you want, but until Nintendo shows some real specs and real games, it means nothing. If the Revolution winds up as the Virtual Boy 2, Microsoft's limited Xbox compatibility will be a non-issue.
Nintendo's pretty safe right now because all they've announced are trivial things: retro games, WiFi support, GameCube compatibility. These things don't make or break the system. But we know nothing about the actual games. According to Nintendo execs, it'll be an improvement over current games, but if it's a step backward, at least the 360 and PS3 will provide marginally improved traditional games.
"Emulation sucks. When consumers get backwards compatibility, they expect 100%. That's what they've been getting so far."
Backward compatibility has never been flawless on consoles. The PS2 can't play every PS1 game. The GBA can't perfectly run every GB game, and the DS can't handle multiplayer GBA games.
We don't know how well the PS3 will handle b/c, but Sony claims that it'll play both PS2 and PS1 games. Given the PS2's support, it's almost certain that not every single game will be flawlessly supported. Nintendo's Revolution is supposed to be backward compatible, and from the looks of things it may contain the GameCube's chipset. Its NES, SNES, and N64 support will certainly be emulation, though, so we can expect that certain games might not work.
Basically, this feature has never been ideally implemented. There are always slight problems with it, but the most important thing is to please the biggest crowd. What would be more beneficial to the fans -- no support at all, or support for the six million copies of Halo 2 that were just sold? For every guy that's ticked about Fusion Frenzy not working, there will be twenty buyers that are fine with playing Halo 2 and couldn't care less whether every obscure game is supported. The semi-casual gamer is the Xbox's primary revenue source, and they'll only be concerned about the big games anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that Halo and GT3 are definitely not obscure, but I wouldn't define them as mainstream. It sounds like we're defining the term in different ways. Personally, I believe the current industry is still young enough that "mainstream" can't yet be determined by sales of individual games.
Take your music analogy, for example. The percentage of "gamers" buying video games is a lot higher than the percentage of "music buffs" buying music. Most music buyers wouldn't consider themselves "hardcore" music fans. The games industry is gradually expanding, but currently the share of hardcore players is disproportionally large compared to other entertainment media. Gaming is still very confined to the stereotypical late-teens/early-twenties male buyer, and the top sales charts reflect that buyer segment. In contrast, top music lists feature anything from Mariah Carey to Ludacris, from Weezer to Toby Keith. There's a much broader audience that can't be pinned into a small market segment, and most pop music doesn't appeal to the so-called "hardcore".
As for total game vs. CD sales, simple number comparisons don't really work, mainly due to the sheer volume of different musicians versus the relatively small number of games. If you like country music, there are literally thousands of artists to choose from (some of them more appealing than others, probably), but if you're an Xbox owner who likes FPS's, you'll buy Halo. There are a few other choices, but not nearly as many.
"If it was difficult to know who was going to be the dominant player in the console market, no one would ever sign an exclusive contract. The fact that console fanboys don't even start their silly and pointless debates until long after the battle has been decided is somewhat amusing but irrelevant. "
So who's signing all these exclusive contracts with Sony, the obvious leader? Square-Enix? Rockstar? Konami, Capcom, Namco, Sega? EA or Ubisoft? If Sony is already predestined to win the next console war, why are all these third parties creating games for Microsoft and Nintendo? Wouldn't it be beneficial for them to exclusively support the clear-cut winner, drive the other two out of the market, and be left with a unified userbase? Or maybe the winner isn't so obvious.
Oh, and:
"The two key components needed for domination are amount exclusive IP and manufacturing cost versus performance."
Then how come the Xbox (with a high manufacturing cost) and the GameCube (with a low manufacturing cost) have been neck-and-neck for four years? Why is the PS3 slated to be the most expensive next-gen console if Sony is so efficient in that area?
You sound so confident that the industry is extremely predictable, but it doesn't take long for the tides to turn. Sony started this generation with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and GTA as exclusives; now they're not. More franchises are moving multiplatform as time goes on, and there's absolutely no way for you to predict the big hits of the next generation. Nobody predicted that Halo would outsell most PS2 games. Who are you to say that Gears of War (for example) can't do the same?