As a kid, I routinely found it annoying that a game would end after spending days and weeks play it. Nintendo games never seemed long enough, and while they were fun to play, finishing a game several times in a row seldom left you wanting to play it a gain.
I really got into RPG's in university when the genre really matured. This is when games actually offered an actual time limit, or rather, given ideal conditions, you would finish the game in x number of hours. Of course, RPG's are great if your the type that likes to hang back and battle baddies to improve your experince and skills, or get enough gold to buy premium equipment.
After leaving university (that protective cocoon where your life is planned out for you, you only think you have freedom) and got a job, I found that I wanted to spend less and less time playing games. Or rather, couldn't invest the same amount of time playing these games because of stupid things like a career and life. Bauldur's Gate came out shortly after I entered the job market, and after staying up well past 3am and having to go to work the next day, I realized I really couldn't spend that much time playing games.
Now, I find that any game that requires 40 hours to play a real turn off. For the most part, while I still pick up the odd RPG, after about 10 or so hours of game play, I find it boring and repetitive, so I stop playing. I don't think I have actually finished a game in over 5 years, like gum, I chew on it until the flavour runs out. You could keep on chewing on it, but any enjoyment you got out of it long since vanished.
As the gaming industry now entices 6 year olds to 50+ year olds , the real trick is to find a game concept that can keep you entertained for as long as you want. For young gamers that can waste the hours away, offer a game that allows for long extended gameplay, but for older players with lives and careers, allow the gameplay to be tuned for more rapid progress.
For the most part, I prefer open ended games, like racers, RTS, puzzle games, or simple-RPG's like Diablo or Dungeon Seige, where I don't feel like I have to finish the game, but can come back and enjoy the game at any time without too much worry about the story. Games like Neverwinter Nights, or other real RPG's I find I lose interest quickly, then feel like I have wasted my money
As long as the industry balances out offering games with scripted content, and open ended gameplay, I think there will be no problem, and will cater to young and not-so-young alike. But the first person that offers a variable length game concept, where you can add more or less content depending you how long you want to play the game for would be a real coup, this may re-invent the RPG industry.
This language is deader then a door knob, except for MS insistance to keep plugging Visual Basic, which is far outstripped by C# (i.e. C# is just VB with more features).
While C or C++ may be overkill for designing Atari games, and too complex for many hobbyist programmers that don't develop regularily in C or C++, using something like a scripting language like PERL or PHP would probably work better. They are easy to use, robust, and you don't have to scour the net looking for an environment to develop in.
But, enjoy your BASIC Atari game programming, I am an OO developer through and through, and hate non-OO programming. If I can't write programs with class, then I don't like to program them at all.
The problem with id, and even valve, is that they take way to freaking long to come out with their next game, and then what is it? Its a sequel to an eixsting game.
While I am not knocking their capabilities of offering state-of-the-art 3D gaming engines, do we really NEED a Quake 4?
While games like HL2 definitly has improved the gameplay over the original HL, by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th iteration of the same concept, how original is it?
I think id should stick to making game engines, and let other, more creative companies designe the game content, and STOP making sequels in general. Develop some new story ideas, and heck, some new gameplay features instead of just offering an new improve clone of the same ol' game
Also, don't hype about a game 4 years before releasing it, then push back the game release for another 8 - 12 months. The game doesn't have to be perfect, just playable. It makes more sence to get a large audience of players running the game, and finding bugs, then fixing them quickly, rather then waiting while a smaller team of people Q/A the product and take years to clear all of the bugs
I keep hearing about these ultra low wattage CPUs from IBM, but obviously, nobody bothered to tell Apple about them, I am sure a G5 Powerbook could be developed taking advantage of them. Is a PowerBook that far off from the G5 iMac? The prime fact is a PowerBook is all metal, it's basically a big heatsink, and provided you can channel that heat away from your lap, I can't see why Apple has had difficulties or is relucant to use low power G5's in their PowerBook lineup.
If the new dual core CPUs from IBM are cheaper then 2 G5 processors, then pehaps Apple may adopt them quickly, but this will be a marketing fiasco for Apple. They keep flip-flopping between offering an ALL DUAL PowerMac systems, to adding a single CPU version. Are Apple users savey enough to understand that despite having ONE CPU, it is actually TWO cores. It may be best from a marketing perspective to keep offering dual CPU systems, rather then keep renegging on marketing hype.
There seems to be a real reluctance for America to accept free, prolifant wireless data networks. I am sure this report is skewed so that any city looking to provide wireless municipal service will be easily disuaded. Anytime a municipal government finds out that money is involved in establishing any kind of service, they usually baulk at offering it.
But I mean, in reality, what do you need to offer ubiquitous wireless networking? I get it already (if I were not ethical) from the countless number of people running wireless networking in their home without passwords or encryption. Fire up ANY wireless communication device on any city block, and you pretty much can browse the internet for free anyways.
All a city has to do is simply distribute wireless routers to busniesses, or put them up on some telephone poles, and your done. There is enough fibre and cable running through the cities that I am sure some can be diverted quite easily to connect to wireless router boxes. Perhaps you need something a little more substantial then your hosehold consumer wireless routers, but I don't think the cost is that prohibitive.
I think this is a big cop out, and completely biased report, hopefully another less skewed report is done to get the real truth behind the cost of municipal wireless networks.
These constant speculations and rumours breed ignorance about the capabilities of Apple.
I doubt Apple is in any position to create their own wireless empire, despite their other recent success stories. While the company is successful, they are still quite small, and do not have enough revenue to blow on these kinds of projects. Also, setting up a wireless cell network isn't a simple process. Also, the current trend tends to be wireless networks combining and absorbing each other, rather then new ones being offered and networks proliferating. In Canada, I think we are down to 2 distinct networks when once we had 4 or 5.
I am sure that Apple will be more then happy to get some other cell phone carrier to support iTunes music sales, an I am REALLY sure that any carrier would be happy to license iTunes from Apple. I don't see why there would be reluctance as its a win/win situation for both. The carrier will get money from data usage fees, and a portion of every music sale, and Apple will get some change too. With the pending release of a Motorola iTunes phone, the cell carriers will find another market they can exploit. I.e. once carriers see there is a popular handset that can integrate with Apple iTunes, they will definitely rush to add support.
I think this is a case where, why bother to add support when nothing can take advantage of it. Cell phone carriers are actually quite conservative, only offering new services when it is well established or guarantees that the service will be popular and profitable. There is no point adding iTunes support now when there is no phone to make use of it.
I think it is fine that Microsoft is writing game content for the DS, but I hope that is as far as it goes. I don't expect, or believe it is advantageous for Microsoft to port games to the GameCube, or any other competing console.
Microsoft has to learn the difference between total market penetration, and targetted penetration. Rather then dominating the entire market (as they are always intent on doing), they need to learn how to carve out their own niche, and excel in it.
The XBOX has way too many games ported to other platforms, if you have the PC or PS2, or even Gamecube version of an XBOX game, then why buy the XBOX version? Better graphics does not change the fact your playing the same game over again.
I think this is also interesting as it indicates MS is no where near entering the handheld game console market. If MS has anything up their sleeves, I think they would want to keep as much exclusive titles as possible.
I actually don't understand why MS hasn't come out with a portable yet. With the populatrity of PocketPC for PDA's, and the fact that new PDA's are actually coming with 3D graphics accelerators, it would be very easy for MS to create and market their own portable. Time will tell.
Slashdot Mirror
As a kid, I routinely found it annoying that a game would end after spending days and weeks play it. Nintendo games never seemed long enough, and while they were fun to play, finishing a game several times in a row seldom left you wanting to play it a gain.
I really got into RPG's in university when the genre really matured. This is when games actually offered an actual time limit, or rather, given ideal conditions, you would finish the game in x number of hours. Of course, RPG's are great if your the type that likes to hang back and battle baddies to improve your experince and skills, or get enough gold to buy premium equipment.
After leaving university (that protective cocoon where your life is planned out for you, you only think you have freedom) and got a job, I found that I wanted to spend less and less time playing games. Or rather, couldn't invest the same amount of time playing these games because of stupid things like a career and life. Bauldur's Gate came out shortly after I entered the job market, and after staying up well past 3am and having to go to work the next day, I realized I really couldn't spend that much time playing games.
Now, I find that any game that requires 40 hours to play a real turn off. For the most part, while I still pick up the odd RPG, after about 10 or so hours of game play, I find it boring and repetitive, so I stop playing. I don't think I have actually finished a game in over 5 years, like gum, I chew on it until the flavour runs out. You could keep on chewing on it, but any enjoyment you got out of it long since vanished.
As the gaming industry now entices 6 year olds to 50+ year olds , the real trick is to find a game concept that can keep you entertained for as long as you want. For young gamers that can waste the hours away, offer a game that allows for long extended gameplay, but for older players with lives and careers, allow the gameplay to be tuned for more rapid progress.
For the most part, I prefer open ended games, like racers, RTS, puzzle games, or simple-RPG's like Diablo or Dungeon Seige, where I don't feel like I have to finish the game, but can come back and enjoy the game at any time without too much worry about the story. Games like Neverwinter Nights, or other real RPG's I find I lose interest quickly, then feel like I have wasted my money
As long as the industry balances out offering games with scripted content, and open ended gameplay, I think there will be no problem, and will cater to young and not-so-young alike. But the first person that offers a variable length game concept, where you can add more or less content depending you how long you want to play the game for would be a real coup, this may re-invent the RPG industry.
This language is deader then a door knob, except for MS insistance to keep plugging Visual Basic, which is far outstripped by C# (i.e. C# is just VB with more features).
While C or C++ may be overkill for designing Atari games, and too complex for many hobbyist programmers that don't develop regularily in C or C++, using something like a scripting language like PERL or PHP would probably work better. They are easy to use, robust, and you don't have to scour the net looking for an environment to develop in.
But, enjoy your BASIC Atari game programming, I am an OO developer through and through, and hate non-OO programming. If I can't write programs with class, then I don't like to program them at all.
The problem with id, and even valve, is that they take way to freaking long to come out with their next game, and then what is it? Its a sequel to an eixsting game.
While I am not knocking their capabilities of offering state-of-the-art 3D gaming engines, do we really NEED a Quake 4?
While games like HL2 definitly has improved the gameplay over the original HL, by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th iteration of the same concept, how original is it?
I think id should stick to making game engines, and let other, more creative companies designe the game content, and STOP making sequels in general. Develop some new story ideas, and heck, some new gameplay features instead of just offering an new improve clone of the same ol' game
Also, don't hype about a game 4 years before releasing it, then push back the game release for another 8 - 12 months. The game doesn't have to be perfect, just playable. It makes more sence to get a large audience of players running the game, and finding bugs, then fixing them quickly, rather then waiting while a smaller team of people Q/A the product and take years to clear all of the bugs
I keep hearing about these ultra low wattage CPUs from IBM, but obviously, nobody bothered to tell Apple about them, I am sure a G5 Powerbook could be developed taking advantage of them. Is a PowerBook that far off from the G5 iMac? The prime fact is a PowerBook is all metal, it's basically a big heatsink, and provided you can channel that heat away from your lap, I can't see why Apple has had difficulties or is relucant to use low power G5's in their PowerBook lineup.
If the new dual core CPUs from IBM are cheaper then 2 G5 processors, then pehaps Apple may adopt them quickly, but this will be a marketing fiasco for Apple. They keep flip-flopping between offering an ALL DUAL PowerMac systems, to adding a single CPU version. Are Apple users savey enough to understand that despite having ONE CPU, it is actually TWO cores. It may be best from a marketing perspective to keep offering dual CPU systems, rather then keep renegging on marketing hype.
There seems to be a real reluctance for America to accept free, prolifant wireless data networks. I am sure this report is skewed so that any city looking to provide wireless municipal service will be easily disuaded. Anytime a municipal government finds out that money is involved in establishing any kind of service, they usually baulk at offering it.
But I mean, in reality, what do you need to offer ubiquitous wireless networking? I get it already (if I were not ethical) from the countless number of people running wireless networking in their home without passwords or encryption. Fire up ANY wireless communication device on any city block, and you pretty much can browse the internet for free anyways.
All a city has to do is simply distribute wireless routers to busniesses, or put them up on some telephone poles, and your done. There is enough fibre and cable running through the cities that I am sure some can be diverted quite easily to connect to wireless router boxes. Perhaps you need something a little more substantial then your hosehold consumer wireless routers, but I don't think the cost is that prohibitive.
I think this is a big cop out, and completely biased report, hopefully another less skewed report is done to get the real truth behind the cost of municipal wireless networks.
These constant speculations and rumours breed ignorance about the capabilities of Apple.
I doubt Apple is in any position to create their own wireless empire, despite their other recent success stories. While the company is successful, they are still quite small, and do not have enough revenue to blow on these kinds of projects. Also, setting up a wireless cell network isn't a simple process. Also, the current trend tends to be wireless networks combining and absorbing each other, rather then new ones being offered and networks proliferating. In Canada, I think we are down to 2 distinct networks when once we had 4 or 5.
I am sure that Apple will be more then happy to get some other cell phone carrier to support iTunes music sales, an I am REALLY sure that any carrier would be happy to license iTunes from Apple. I don't see why there would be reluctance as its a win/win situation for both. The carrier will get money from data usage fees, and a portion of every music sale, and Apple will get some change too. With the pending release of a Motorola iTunes phone, the cell carriers will find another market they can exploit. I.e. once carriers see there is a popular handset that can integrate with Apple iTunes, they will definitely rush to add support.
I think this is a case where, why bother to add support when nothing can take advantage of it. Cell phone carriers are actually quite conservative, only offering new services when it is well established or guarantees that the service will be popular and profitable. There is no point adding iTunes support now when there is no phone to make use of it.
I think it is fine that Microsoft is writing game content for the DS, but I hope that is as far as it goes. I don't expect, or believe it is advantageous for Microsoft to port games to the GameCube, or any other competing console.
Microsoft has to learn the difference between total market penetration, and targetted penetration. Rather then dominating the entire market (as they are always intent on doing), they need to learn how to carve out their own niche, and excel in it.
The XBOX has way too many games ported to other platforms, if you have the PC or PS2, or even Gamecube version of an XBOX game, then why buy the XBOX version? Better graphics does not change the fact your playing the same game over again.
I think this is also interesting as it indicates MS is no where near entering the handheld game console market. If MS has anything up their sleeves, I think they would want to keep as much exclusive titles as possible.
I actually don't understand why MS hasn't come out with a portable yet. With the populatrity of PocketPC for PDA's, and the fact that new PDA's are actually coming with 3D graphics accelerators, it would be very easy for MS to create and market their own portable. Time will tell.