Id assume that the lower price point is for NES games. For me, the prices seem too much. I have paid the same amount of money for much newer games, and actually revieved a physical copy. Since Nintendo isnt actually selling anything physical and there are no longer any deleopement costs to cover, this is 100% profit for them. They should be selling them cheaper. The majority of games dont age this well, and Id say that at least 99% of NES games are a fun nostalgia trip.. for around 15 minutes.
Most games fall dramatically in price in six months. I dont see a point in paying twice as much for a game just to play it a bit earlier. On top of that, the games are already patched and there are plenty of reviews available. I usually pay 10-25$ per game. The cheapest unused game Ive bought cost me under 2$. Take a look at the bargain bins and budget releases. Thats where last years classics live.
It is disturbing to me that nowadays companies like Sony like to treat their customers like criminals, instead of people who keep them in business. Us end users, who pay for their digital products, are nothing but the necessary evil that needs to be tightly controlled, otherwise we will all just steal and trample on their rights. When did customer relations turn into a warfare about "their rights vs. our rights"?
UMD was an idea born dead. Selling movies that usually to cost more than regular DVDs and can only be played on one device with a tiny screen? WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?!
...video games are an "inherently inferior" storytelling medium. He writes, "There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."
In other words: "the way video games tell a story is inferior, because they do it differently than the mediums that I am myself used to."
Ebert fails to do one thing: explain why authorial control is a requirement of a good story, and why player choices make a story inferior. In my opinion, player choices make games a *superior* storytelling medium, because it involves the player. Even a story that is fairly weak can feel like a very good story because it involves us, the people who are experiencing it. And when the story in a game is *actually* good (in a way its at least as good as in a good film or book) like in Gabriel Knight 1&2, then boy do they feel like brilliant stories!
As far as I am concerned, it is a proven fact that games can have excellent stories. Ebert just has not played them himself. If you dont believe me, get your hands on Gabriel Knight 1&2 and tell me thats not a good storyline.
Since when has giving opinions been begging for attention? For any female who plays Internet games, this stuff *is* annoying because it takes away from playing. Why should we just shut up whenever theres a problem?
The writer uses (outdated) information on what we (think) we know about the stone ages, uses it as a model of what is the most appropriate behavior model for both genders, and makes the assumption that us ladies would prefer games that are "interactive soap opera or bodice ripper, presenting the player with complex social problems as she seeks the ideal mate."
*shudder* If this is what "games for women" are supposed to be like, Im glad they dont make them.
Im a woman and I like games. Many of my female friends like games. Nearly all of them have played and enjoyed violent action games. The old fallacy is that women dont play games because they dont find what they want from games. But women do play. Each year there are more and more female gamers, without the help of "girl games". Even the thought of having a "womens game" where you are supposed to "seek your ideal mate" is frankly offensive. Just because women have historically been forced to stay at home and limit our lives to home, doesnt mean that our goals or fantasies cant include anything else. Hey, I want to be a hero, too! I want to kick butt, not socialize. I have all the social problems I want in my real life. Please dont patronize me just because of my gender.
Agreed. The only thing they accomplished with this is showing what kind of pricks they are. This project has been going on for a long time, and now that the team have done all this work and about to release, VU decides to shut them down? If they had a problem with this, they could have said so right off the bat.
I live in Europe, and us Europeans dont get all games that you people in US get. Not even all classics. I have modded my PS1 and PS2, and here is a list of games that I have bought because of them:
Arc the Lad collection
Castlevania - Symphony of the Night
Chrono Cross
Final Fantasy Tactics
Xenogears
Xenosaga
Growlanser Collection
Final Fantasy Chronicles
These are just some of the games that havent seen a light of day in my home country. I dont own a single pirate game for my modded consoles.
I live in Finland, and I have modded my consoles because I want to play games that havent been released in Europe. Us Europeans are treated like an afterthought. We get lots of games really late, some are inferior in quality, and lots of games dont come out at all. No Chrono Cross, Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics, Suikoden III, Castlevania - Symphony of the Night....
As a game collector, I always prefer having my games in boxes. And yes, having something tangible makes you feel more like you paid for something, not just blew money. And besides, Id take a backup of the game and print the manual anyway, and they just wouldnt look as neat as the"official" ones.
Glad to see that Im not the only one who thinks this way. I love Zelda. To me, Zelda brings back childhood memories. Zelda is about puzzles and gameplay, but its also about funny characters, blue sky, green grass, silliness, and fun!
Twilight Princess will no doubt be an excellent game, but to me its not Zelda. Its dark, misty and gray. Link turns into a grey wolf when he goes to another world, not a pink bunny like in "A Link to the Past".
I am 27 years old and I often play games that are dark and mature. Thats why I sometimes want to play bright and silly adventures like Zelda, games that are just about fun and dont take themselves too seriously. "Adult" and "mature" do not mean a character with an "attitude" and darker surroundings. Even with more realistic graphics, Twilight Princess will be about a teenage boy in a funny hat who goes to save a princess. Im betting that just like in the previous Zelda games, the storyline will have as much depth as a puddle and as much intellectual content as cotton candy. The way I see it, Wind Waker is more mature than Twilight Princess. At least it didnt try to pretend to be anything more than it really was. Calling TP "mature" just because the game has realistic graphics really says something about the true maturity level of the industry.
I would have expected more from BBC. Four people have been selected to represent "gamers" to talk about online games, and all of them are clearly hardcore, addicted gamers. Most people who play online games are not addicted and dont spend nearly as much time on games as these people. How can an article give a fair impression on online gamers when they have interviews only from the extreme types?
Well, I think its my right not to be adressed as "he" all the time. Im tired of this "its not gender specific" bullshit. yes, it is. The only reason why its used when gender is unknown is because male is the human standard and female is an exception.
If you guys would read the original article, youd see that its not about one womans pet peeves but the industrys inability to attract women to buy their games. "Voting with their wallets" is exactly the problem here. Many women dont like the way female characters are portrayed in games, and from the exposing art work they decide that games dont have anything to offer them. This will end up costing millions to the industry when half of the population is not interested in their products.
And please dont give me the crap about male characters that look pumped up are the same thing as skimpily dressed women. They dont look that way to attract females, and women often dont find such male characters appealing. Male characters look that way because men and boys like such characters to represent themselves in games, simple as that.
I am also a 26 year old female, and I also find oversexed characters tiring and many female characters simply degrading. Its so very easy for you to tell us not to buy. Lots of games that have things that I dont agree with are otherwise great games, and I want to play them too. How would you feel if youd be a role-playing gamer and youd have to miss games like Planescape: Torment and Jade Empire just to make a point to the industry? How would the game companies even know that a game doesnt sell as well as it could because of a character in bikini? Thats not the right way to make a change.
Why does nobody make the question "what do men like to play?"
Because its a stupid question to begin with! There are many different genres and men like to play all of them. Why would women be any different? You cant make such blanket assumptions based on gender. Both men and women like a variety of games. There is not a handful of genres that women play. I know several gamer women and they all have different tastes and play different genres.
A lot of women dont play because they assume that games have nothing to offer to them, that games are for boys. I have known several girls/women who have started playing games once I have introduced them to games and shown them that they can be a lot of fun. Women *can* like games as they are now, if they just give them a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Id assume that the lower price point is for NES games. For me, the prices seem too much. I have paid the same amount of money for much newer games, and actually revieved a physical copy. Since Nintendo isnt actually selling anything physical and there are no longer any deleopement costs to cover, this is 100% profit for them. They should be selling them cheaper. The majority of games dont age this well, and Id say that at least 99% of NES games are a fun nostalgia trip.. for around 15 minutes.
Most games fall dramatically in price in six months. I dont see a point in paying twice as much for a game just to play it a bit earlier. On top of that, the games are already patched and there are plenty of reviews available. I usually pay 10-25$ per game. The cheapest unused game Ive bought cost me under 2$. Take a look at the bargain bins and budget releases. Thats where last years classics live.
It is disturbing to me that nowadays companies like Sony like to treat their customers like criminals, instead of people who keep them in business. Us end users, who pay for their digital products, are nothing but the necessary evil that needs to be tightly controlled, otherwise we will all just steal and trample on their rights. When did customer relations turn into a warfare about "their rights vs. our rights"? UMD was an idea born dead. Selling movies that usually to cost more than regular DVDs and can only be played on one device with a tiny screen? WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?!
...video games are an "inherently inferior" storytelling medium. He writes, "There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."
In other words: "the way video games tell a story is inferior, because they do it differently than the mediums that I am myself used to."
Ebert fails to do one thing: explain why authorial control is a requirement of a good story, and why player choices make a story inferior. In my opinion, player choices make games a *superior* storytelling medium, because it involves the player. Even a story that is fairly weak can feel like a very good story because it involves us, the people who are experiencing it. And when the story in a game is *actually* good (in a way its at least as good as in a good film or book) like in Gabriel Knight 1&2, then boy do they feel like brilliant stories!
As far as I am concerned, it is a proven fact that games can have excellent stories. Ebert just has not played them himself. If you dont believe me, get your hands on Gabriel Knight 1&2 and tell me thats not a good storyline.
Since when has giving opinions been begging for attention? For any female who plays Internet games, this stuff *is* annoying because it takes away from playing. Why should we just shut up whenever theres a problem?
What a load of crap.
The writer uses (outdated) information on what we (think) we know about the stone ages, uses it as a model of what is the most appropriate behavior model for both genders, and makes the assumption that us ladies would prefer games that are "interactive soap opera or bodice ripper, presenting the player with complex social problems as she seeks the ideal mate."
*shudder* If this is what "games for women" are supposed to be like, Im glad they dont make them.
Im a woman and I like games. Many of my female friends like games. Nearly all of them have played and enjoyed violent action games. The old fallacy is that women dont play games because they dont find what they want from games. But women do play. Each year there are more and more female gamers, without the help of "girl games". Even the thought of having a "womens game" where you are supposed to "seek your ideal mate" is frankly offensive. Just because women have historically been forced to stay at home and limit our lives to home, doesnt mean that our goals or fantasies cant include anything else. Hey, I want to be a hero, too! I want to kick butt, not socialize. I have all the social problems I want in my real life. Please dont patronize me just because of my gender.
Agreed. The only thing they accomplished with this is showing what kind of pricks they are. This project has been going on for a long time, and now that the team have done all this work and about to release, VU decides to shut them down? If they had a problem with this, they could have said so right off the bat.
I live in Europe, and us Europeans dont get all games that you people in US get. Not even all classics. I have modded my PS1 and PS2, and here is a list of games that I have bought because of them: Arc the Lad collection Castlevania - Symphony of the Night Chrono Cross Final Fantasy Tactics Xenogears Xenosaga Growlanser Collection Final Fantasy Chronicles These are just some of the games that havent seen a light of day in my home country. I dont own a single pirate game for my modded consoles.
I live in Finland, and I have modded my consoles because I want to play games that havent been released in Europe. Us Europeans are treated like an afterthought. We get lots of games really late, some are inferior in quality, and lots of games dont come out at all. No Chrono Cross, Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics, Suikoden III, Castlevania - Symphony of the Night....
As a game collector, I always prefer having my games in boxes. And yes, having something tangible makes you feel more like you paid for something, not just blew money. And besides, Id take a backup of the game and print the manual anyway, and they just wouldnt look as neat as the"official" ones.
Glad to see that Im not the only one who thinks this way. I love Zelda. To me, Zelda brings back childhood memories. Zelda is about puzzles and gameplay, but its also about funny characters, blue sky, green grass, silliness, and fun!
Twilight Princess will no doubt be an excellent game, but to me its not Zelda. Its dark, misty and gray. Link turns into a grey wolf when he goes to another world, not a pink bunny like in "A Link to the Past".
I am 27 years old and I often play games that are dark and mature. Thats why I sometimes want to play bright and silly adventures like Zelda, games that are just about fun and dont take themselves too seriously. "Adult" and "mature" do not mean a character with an "attitude" and darker surroundings. Even with more realistic graphics, Twilight Princess will be about a teenage boy in a funny hat who goes to save a princess. Im betting that just like in the previous Zelda games, the storyline will have as much depth as a puddle and as much intellectual content as cotton candy. The way I see it, Wind Waker is more mature than Twilight Princess. At least it didnt try to pretend to be anything more than it really was. Calling TP "mature" just because the game has realistic graphics really says something about the true maturity level of the industry.
I would have expected more from BBC. Four people have been selected to represent "gamers" to talk about online games, and all of them are clearly hardcore, addicted gamers. Most people who play online games are not addicted and dont spend nearly as much time on games as these people. How can an article give a fair impression on online gamers when they have interviews only from the extreme types?
Well, I think its my right not to be adressed as "he" all the time. Im tired of this "its not gender specific" bullshit. yes, it is. The only reason why its used when gender is unknown is because male is the human standard and female is an exception.
If you guys would read the original article, youd see that its not about one womans pet peeves but the industrys inability to attract women to buy their games. "Voting with their wallets" is exactly the problem here. Many women dont like the way female characters are portrayed in games, and from the exposing art work they decide that games dont have anything to offer them. This will end up costing millions to the industry when half of the population is not interested in their products. And please dont give me the crap about male characters that look pumped up are the same thing as skimpily dressed women. They dont look that way to attract females, and women often dont find such male characters appealing. Male characters look that way because men and boys like such characters to represent themselves in games, simple as that. I am also a 26 year old female, and I also find oversexed characters tiring and many female characters simply degrading. Its so very easy for you to tell us not to buy. Lots of games that have things that I dont agree with are otherwise great games, and I want to play them too. How would you feel if youd be a role-playing gamer and youd have to miss games like Planescape: Torment and Jade Empire just to make a point to the industry? How would the game companies even know that a game doesnt sell as well as it could because of a character in bikini? Thats not the right way to make a change.
Why does nobody make the question "what do men like to play?" Because its a stupid question to begin with! There are many different genres and men like to play all of them. Why would women be any different? You cant make such blanket assumptions based on gender. Both men and women like a variety of games. There is not a handful of genres that women play. I know several gamer women and they all have different tastes and play different genres. A lot of women dont play because they assume that games have nothing to offer to them, that games are for boys. I have known several girls/women who have started playing games once I have introduced them to games and shown them that they can be a lot of fun. Women *can* like games as they are now, if they just give them a chance.