I have to hand it to you on that one. Save points suck. I understand when it's part of the game's strategy to make you start over from a certain point if you die, but if you have to leave the console, you shouldn't be penalized for it. It's possible, too: look at handhelds. Final Fantasy V on the Gameboy allows you to do a real save on the world map or at a save point, but at any point you can "quicksave," which shuts off the console after saving your progress. You can come back to the game, but when you do that quicksave data is erased, meaning that you either have to quicksave again or find a real save point when you turn off the console.
Then there's the PSP, which actually caches wherever you are in a game when you turn off the console, whether you saved or not. I'm not sure if it requires a memory stick to do this (my guess is yes, but I've never tried it). It's a big advantage, especially because the thing doesn't have a warning before you run out of battery, it just flashes a battery icon and immediately shuts itself off.
I'll preface this with the fact that I'm twenty-three and just finishing my first master's degree, but grad school is only an easy ride if you like paying for the privilege of having responsibilities. Granted I don't have a nest egg saved from years of career work to fall back on while taking courses, and I'm aware that a grad degree's utility is based on future earnings rather than what's current, but I'll say this. My intent was to go straight from the MA to the Ph.D. and teach college for a living. Interesting job, different every day, summers off, get to do stuff you like--that's all well and good. But after eighteen years of nonstop education, I'm ready to take some time away from academia and get paid. I'm sure I'll go back after a couple years, but now is not the time.
The names are big, they're obviously pleased with their ideas, and they give every indication that they think they're going to make a great game. At this point, though, that's not saying much. I'll wait on getting excited until at least some aspect of the game is up for discussion; as for now, all the article says is that some people who've made good games in the past are teaming up to make a game in the RPG genre, and they want to make it a good one. Allow me a moment to rearrange my face into a suitable expression of shock.
My undergraduate university had a laptop program, and it was one of the great things about the school. Every student received a laptop as part of his or her tuition; each year was furnished with the same model of computer, so students' technology capabilities were roughly equal across the class year. The program let people like me, who didn't own computers before college, get one for a reasonable price and it discouraged theft because everyone had pretty much the same computer anyway. Teachers could assign projects or expect students to utilize certain software without having to contend with unequal access to technology, and the computer help center only had to train its employees to service a maximum of four machine types in any given year, so I imagine it cut costs there.
Of course, this is a different situation than the one discussed in TFA; we were college students, not high schoolers, and although our computers were under warranty, they were bought with our tuition money and belonged to us, so there was incentive to keep them nice. We also seldom, if ever, used the machines in class, but when we did, there was a good reason.
A laptop is a tool, just like any other. Tools can be misused, but they can also be instruments of success when applied correctly. Don't be so quick to shun the idea of school-issued laptops. When done right with the right age group, it can really work.
I guess I'm probably the only nerd out there holding out to see which console (or consoles) ends up with the continuing Final Fantasy lineup... or am I?
Better society? Are you kidding me? You're expecting a printer company to go out and better society? Before you start frothing at the mouth at the 'capitalist pigs' trying to make money on their products, consider this: if creating these printers makes them no money, HP will not manufacture them at all. It's not in their interest to offer a product that will put them out of business.
Yes, it's possible that the efficiency of the printer would cause HP to lose money from ink sales of cartridges for this printer. But did it ever occur to you that such efficient technology might cost a lot more to develop and manufacture? The company needs to recoup costs for these aspects too. Like it or not, they are not creating these printers out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it in order to run a business. Maybe someone else will take it upon him or herself to create some magical free printer for the masses, but I doubt it.
Lastly, these products don't seem designed to be used in the home. That isn't the market that HP is after. When you purchase a contract for one of these machines, it's not like buying a printer--it's like buying a miniature Kinko's that you put in your office and pay as you go for the service. You don't even have to maintain it, if I understand the article correctly. HP does it for you. Sounds like a deal that many companies would be interested in, but if they're not? Nobody's going to make them buy it. There are plenty of printers for sale on the market. Customer demand will determine whether or not this business model is successful--if someone buys it, there must be someone out there who wants it.
I beat the yellow-brown final boss, but didn't get the key needed to move on to the next level. I even went back all the way to beginning and all the way down again to make sure I'd killed and eaten every single thing, and no luck. Finally I gave up in disgust. What this game lacks is communication. I didn't even know I was supposed to fight the other creatures until my second try.
The worst part is that even the older-model, simpler cellphones are no longer an option because they can't be used with new types of service. I had an older Motorola flip phone that sent and received calls and the occasional text message through a simple, green-screen menu interface. No games, no Internet, certainly no camera. It was great, but when my contract was up for renewal, AT&T told me I had to get a new phone in order to continue using their service; one with GSM(?) capability. Naturally, all of the phones capable of performing with the new system were full of gadgets and applications that were no more than unnecessary clutter. They didn't even come with a simple telephone-style ring. I hated every one of them, and when my contract expired again, I didn't bother renewing.
Sure, I live in America, and the consumer model here seems to be "more is more"--but if the companies gave it a shot, I think they'd find a lot of people who are happier with simpler devices, and not just the technologically challenged. I'm a geek, but I don't need a cellphone to browse the internet and play music. That's what my computer's for.
Did you read the Netflix vs. Blockbuster article? The majority of the commenters who sided with Blockbuster did so in whole or in part because of instances in which Netflix flagged them as being 'heavy users' and delayed the return of their items and the shipping of new ones. I realize that the parallels here are mostly abstract, but you have to understand that this kind of freedom would potentially allow slowing of content from certain websites, rather than simply providing a 'boost' to sites that pay up. Is your average Internet consumer going to sit around and wait for a website that loads at dial-up speed, or will he get bored and click over to something that loads instantly?
This is an exaggeration, of course, but search engines, for example, pride themselves on their speed. If these corporations need to pay to ensure that their speed advantage is preserved, it may mean a lot in the outcome of the search giants' competition. Basically, any competing sites of the same type could conceivably wind up in bidding wars to get an edge--meaning that the winners would turn out to be those with the most cash to throw around rather than those with the best user interface or most innovative design. Once again, this is clearly an exaggeration, but it's also a not inconceivable example.
I can't speak for the question of feasibility, but if this model could be put into practice, rest assured it would have an effect on the digital landscape.
Completely aside from the subject and content, it's hard to give this article much credibility when it reads like a remedial English paper. If a writer is attempting to express his opinion, especially in such a belligerent fasion, it behooves him to have a strong command of the English language. Reading an article filled with so many errors does not make me inclined to agree with the author; on the contrary, it makes me inclined to question his judgement and intelligence.
If this article had been written more thoughtfully, I might have said he had some points worth considering, but as it is I find them easy to dismiss. If the author doesn't care enough to check over his own work or isn't bright enough to see the numerous glaring mistakes, I can't help but think that his analysis is equally careless.
I'm personally ambivalent on the idea of whether violent games should be sold to minors or not--yes, parents should be responsible for checking out what their kids play, but there are also many ways for children to get the games without parents' money or presence--but this brings up a point of comparison for me.
Movies, like games, are rated according to their content and whether or not it is appropriate for different age groups. Some movies kids can see on their own, some only with a parent present who has determined that the child is mature enough to handle the material, and some are inappropriate no matter what. Why is it different for a video game? Both are visual depictions of sensitive material.
I can't say whether or not the sale of M-rated games to minors should be banned, just as I'm not sure whether or not the viewing or rental of R-rated movies to childern under 17 should be prohibited. The fact is, though, that one medium is being legally regulated while the other is not. Does anybody else see something wrong with this? If it is illegal to prohibit kids from buying M-rated games, shouldn't it be illegal to bar them from attending R-rated movies? And if it is logical and desirable that these restrictions should be placed on movies, why are games any different?
All in all, my instinct is that prohibiting sales of M-rated games to children without parental consent is a good thing. Kids might think they're mature enough to handle sensitive material, but it is the parent who ought to have the maturity to know which games or movies the child should be watching. If after that a child is negatively affected by a violent video game, it's entirely the parent's fault--he or she should have been more vigilant about the child's experiences and information intake. Saying that a kid can't by a M-rated game on his or her own isn't prohibiting the kid from playing--it's just a way to involve parents in the decision.
What we do need is probably a better, more comprehensive, and more accurate ratings system for video games. I'm given to understand that movie ratings are carried out more rigorously than game ratings, and I've heard many complaints that video game ratings are either inaccurate or insufficient. If ratings were more closely policed, I don't think it would be a problem to regulate video game sales. If a game is rated mature and can only be bought with parents present, then on their head be it if their children are exposed to material they don't condone.
In my mind, we should only have to pay for our software as many as we pay for our other appliances and electronics: as often as we feel the need to upgrade to better models. I buy a new computer or television set and I consider it my own until it either wears out or becomes obsolete. Software doesn't exactly wear out, but timelines of growing incompatibility are inevitable with any software release, and that's what people should have to pay for: new versions. If I like my old Windows 98 machine just fine, let me keep using it. If I want to upgrade to shiny new XP, I'll have to fork over the cash.
Subscriptions would essentially force all users to upgrade to each new release whether they want to or not. Am I the only one who refused to upgrade programs like AIM--or, for that matter, my old cellular phone--because they kept adding crap features I didn't want? Please let us keep the choice of whether to upgrade or not in our own hands.
I think the problem above really is the cliches. Sure, we as gamers know that you always push the crates, shoot anything you can target, et cetera, et cetera, but do non-gamers? No, and that's why they get frustrated. If the games were more interesting and innovative instead of relying on well-worn devices like these, people who haven't been inundated with video game culture for years on end might be more open to trying them out and, when they did, might find them more enjoyable. I don't really mind most of these cliches personally, but like I said, non-gamers are far more likely to find them frustrating, thereby widening the gap between Us and Them.
Nothing about Kingdom Hearts II? I hope it's still on schedule...
I saw a release poster in Suncoast yesterday that listed Advent Children as coming out in September (I live in the US). With misinformation like that floating around, it makes it hard to believe anything about these release schedules.
Just because a voice actor (or any actor, for that matter) is a member of SAG doesn't mean that he or she is "well-known." There are hundreds of thousands of SAG members in America, and I'd be willing to bet you don't know all their names on sight. SAG is a union, just like the Teamsters or any other workman's organization that works in the best interest of its members. It makes sure that actors get paid enough to support themselves (often in jobs that are paid by the day rather than the hour, where "day" can mean upwards of twelve hours of work) and that they are treated fairly on the set and in the studio.
That being said, why is everyone here bashing voice actors and their careers? The voices might not be the most important part of a game, but I guarantee that if they weren't there, you'd notice. Voice actors are people with a talent who are trying to make a living, just like game developers. I doubt that either one could do the other's job adequately.
Epilepsy and seizure medications (such as Depakote) are also used to treat bipolar disorder, which isn't the same thing as depression by any means but shares some characteristics. I wonder if there's a connection?
I have to say my 'soundtrack favourite' vote still goes with Kingdom Hearts right now, but the old repeating tracks from the Sonic games on the Sega have a special place in my heart. Metropolis Zone, anyone? Mystic Cave? Also great to DDR to, if you've got the equipment and the files.
Hunter isn't directly derived from Vampire, but it is a video game adaptation of a roleplaying game by the same company who puts out V:tM. The company is White Wolf and the game is Hunter: the Reckoning. Basically the games are set in the same world and can be used in crossovers as antagonists for one another, but it's also easy to play either one on its own.
The problem with the idea of using a cellphone for handheld gaming is that the best features of a cellphone aren't necessarily the best features to have in a handheld. For instance, today's most popular cellphone models are too small to make effective handhelds, and the N-Gage is too large to be a worthwhile phone. Unless it has the same level of functionality as a Sidekick, nobody's going to want to use something that clunky as a telephone.
It's true that cellphones are tending more towards visuals and including more games, but I doubt the kind of games that cellphone users want to play are the same as the ones that handheld console owners want. Cellphone games are mostly a way to kill time, whereas most handheld gamers are looking for a little extra.
In short: people who want to play handheld games will just buy a handheld console, and people who want to play cellphone games are content with the existing, non-N-Gage options.
The game I was referring to was in fact Wayward, and as you pointed out, it's not a FPS game like Halo or Doom. However, as you also pointed out, it's not much in the RPG department. Call me a purist, but I hate seeing pen-and-paper RPGs translated into mediums that preserve so little of the original game intent. Yeah, it's cool to have video games based on the same concepts, but I wish they were a little more true to the role-playing style.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to hand it to you on that one. Save points suck. I understand when it's part of the game's strategy to make you start over from a certain point if you die, but if you have to leave the console, you shouldn't be penalized for it. It's possible, too: look at handhelds. Final Fantasy V on the Gameboy allows you to do a real save on the world map or at a save point, but at any point you can "quicksave," which shuts off the console after saving your progress. You can come back to the game, but when you do that quicksave data is erased, meaning that you either have to quicksave again or find a real save point when you turn off the console.
Then there's the PSP, which actually caches wherever you are in a game when you turn off the console, whether you saved or not. I'm not sure if it requires a memory stick to do this (my guess is yes, but I've never tried it). It's a big advantage, especially because the thing doesn't have a warning before you run out of battery, it just flashes a battery icon and immediately shuts itself off.
I'll preface this with the fact that I'm twenty-three and just finishing my first master's degree, but grad school is only an easy ride if you like paying for the privilege of having responsibilities. Granted I don't have a nest egg saved from years of career work to fall back on while taking courses, and I'm aware that a grad degree's utility is based on future earnings rather than what's current, but I'll say this. My intent was to go straight from the MA to the Ph.D. and teach college for a living. Interesting job, different every day, summers off, get to do stuff you like--that's all well and good. But after eighteen years of nonstop education, I'm ready to take some time away from academia and get paid. I'm sure I'll go back after a couple years, but now is not the time.
The names are big, they're obviously pleased with their ideas, and they give every indication that they think they're going to make a great game. At this point, though, that's not saying much. I'll wait on getting excited until at least some aspect of the game is up for discussion; as for now, all the article says is that some people who've made good games in the past are teaming up to make a game in the RPG genre, and they want to make it a good one. Allow me a moment to rearrange my face into a suitable expression of shock.
Wait... a minute more...
OK, there. Got it. *SHOCK*
Carry on.
My undergraduate university had a laptop program, and it was one of the great things about the school. Every student received a laptop as part of his or her tuition; each year was furnished with the same model of computer, so students' technology capabilities were roughly equal across the class year. The program let people like me, who didn't own computers before college, get one for a reasonable price and it discouraged theft because everyone had pretty much the same computer anyway. Teachers could assign projects or expect students to utilize certain software without having to contend with unequal access to technology, and the computer help center only had to train its employees to service a maximum of four machine types in any given year, so I imagine it cut costs there.
Of course, this is a different situation than the one discussed in TFA; we were college students, not high schoolers, and although our computers were under warranty, they were bought with our tuition money and belonged to us, so there was incentive to keep them nice. We also seldom, if ever, used the machines in class, but when we did, there was a good reason.
A laptop is a tool, just like any other. Tools can be misused, but they can also be instruments of success when applied correctly. Don't be so quick to shun the idea of school-issued laptops. When done right with the right age group, it can really work.
I guess I'm probably the only nerd out there holding out to see which console (or consoles) ends up with the continuing Final Fantasy lineup... or am I?
Better society? Are you kidding me? You're expecting a printer company to go out and better society? Before you start frothing at the mouth at the 'capitalist pigs' trying to make money on their products, consider this: if creating these printers makes them no money, HP will not manufacture them at all. It's not in their interest to offer a product that will put them out of business.
Yes, it's possible that the efficiency of the printer would cause HP to lose money from ink sales of cartridges for this printer. But did it ever occur to you that such efficient technology might cost a lot more to develop and manufacture? The company needs to recoup costs for these aspects too. Like it or not, they are not creating these printers out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it in order to run a business. Maybe someone else will take it upon him or herself to create some magical free printer for the masses, but I doubt it.
Lastly, these products don't seem designed to be used in the home. That isn't the market that HP is after. When you purchase a contract for one of these machines, it's not like buying a printer--it's like buying a miniature Kinko's that you put in your office and pay as you go for the service. You don't even have to maintain it, if I understand the article correctly. HP does it for you. Sounds like a deal that many companies would be interested in, but if they're not? Nobody's going to make them buy it. There are plenty of printers for sale on the market. Customer demand will determine whether or not this business model is successful--if someone buys it, there must be someone out there who wants it.
Can anyone reference a national system that was successfully replaced?
exactly what do you call the conversion to the euro?
I beat the yellow-brown final boss, but didn't get the key needed to move on to the next level. I even went back all the way to beginning and all the way down again to make sure I'd killed and eaten every single thing, and no luck. Finally I gave up in disgust. What this game lacks is communication. I didn't even know I was supposed to fight the other creatures until my second try.
Sure, I live in America, and the consumer model here seems to be "more is more"--but if the companies gave it a shot, I think they'd find a lot of people who are happier with simpler devices, and not just the technologically challenged. I'm a geek, but I don't need a cellphone to browse the internet and play music. That's what my computer's for.
This is an exaggeration, of course, but search engines, for example, pride themselves on their speed. If these corporations need to pay to ensure that their speed advantage is preserved, it may mean a lot in the outcome of the search giants' competition. Basically, any competing sites of the same type could conceivably wind up in bidding wars to get an edge--meaning that the winners would turn out to be those with the most cash to throw around rather than those with the best user interface or most innovative design. Once again, this is clearly an exaggeration, but it's also a not inconceivable example.
I can't speak for the question of feasibility, but if this model could be put into practice, rest assured it would have an effect on the digital landscape.
Completely aside from the subject and content, it's hard to give this article much credibility when it reads like a remedial English paper. If a writer is attempting to express his opinion, especially in such a belligerent fasion, it behooves him to have a strong command of the English language. Reading an article filled with so many errors does not make me inclined to agree with the author; on the contrary, it makes me inclined to question his judgement and intelligence.
If this article had been written more thoughtfully, I might have said he had some points worth considering, but as it is I find them easy to dismiss. If the author doesn't care enough to check over his own work or isn't bright enough to see the numerous glaring mistakes, I can't help but think that his analysis is equally careless.
I'm personally ambivalent on the idea of whether violent games should be sold to minors or not--yes, parents should be responsible for checking out what their kids play, but there are also many ways for children to get the games without parents' money or presence--but this brings up a point of comparison for me.
Movies, like games, are rated according to their content and whether or not it is appropriate for different age groups. Some movies kids can see on their own, some only with a parent present who has determined that the child is mature enough to handle the material, and some are inappropriate no matter what. Why is it different for a video game? Both are visual depictions of sensitive material.
I can't say whether or not the sale of M-rated games to minors should be banned, just as I'm not sure whether or not the viewing or rental of R-rated movies to childern under 17 should be prohibited. The fact is, though, that one medium is being legally regulated while the other is not. Does anybody else see something wrong with this? If it is illegal to prohibit kids from buying M-rated games, shouldn't it be illegal to bar them from attending R-rated movies? And if it is logical and desirable that these restrictions should be placed on movies, why are games any different?
All in all, my instinct is that prohibiting sales of M-rated games to children without parental consent is a good thing. Kids might think they're mature enough to handle sensitive material, but it is the parent who ought to have the maturity to know which games or movies the child should be watching. If after that a child is negatively affected by a violent video game, it's entirely the parent's fault--he or she should have been more vigilant about the child's experiences and information intake. Saying that a kid can't by a M-rated game on his or her own isn't prohibiting the kid from playing--it's just a way to involve parents in the decision.
What we do need is probably a better, more comprehensive, and more accurate ratings system for video games. I'm given to understand that movie ratings are carried out more rigorously than game ratings, and I've heard many complaints that video game ratings are either inaccurate or insufficient. If ratings were more closely policed, I don't think it would be a problem to regulate video game sales. If a game is rated mature and can only be bought with parents present, then on their head be it if their children are exposed to material they don't condone.
We prefer to be called Buccaneer-Americans.
Subscriptions would essentially force all users to upgrade to each new release whether they want to or not. Am I the only one who refused to upgrade programs like AIM--or, for that matter, my old cellular phone--because they kept adding crap features I didn't want? Please let us keep the choice of whether to upgrade or not in our own hands.
I think the problem above really is the cliches. Sure, we as gamers know that you always push the crates, shoot anything you can target, et cetera, et cetera, but do non-gamers? No, and that's why they get frustrated. If the games were more interesting and innovative instead of relying on well-worn devices like these, people who haven't been inundated with video game culture for years on end might be more open to trying them out and, when they did, might find them more enjoyable. I don't really mind most of these cliches personally, but like I said, non-gamers are far more likely to find them frustrating, thereby widening the gap between Us and Them.
I saw a release poster in Suncoast yesterday that listed Advent Children as coming out in September (I live in the US). With misinformation like that floating around, it makes it hard to believe anything about these release schedules.
That being said, why is everyone here bashing voice actors and their careers? The voices might not be the most important part of a game, but I guarantee that if they weren't there, you'd notice. Voice actors are people with a talent who are trying to make a living, just like game developers. I doubt that either one could do the other's job adequately.
I wasn't saying there was. I was just curious. Thanks for the info.
Epilepsy and seizure medications (such as Depakote) are also used to treat bipolar disorder, which isn't the same thing as depression by any means but shares some characteristics. I wonder if there's a connection?
I have to say my 'soundtrack favourite' vote still goes with Kingdom Hearts right now, but the old repeating tracks from the Sonic games on the Sega have a special place in my heart. Metropolis Zone, anyone? Mystic Cave? Also great to DDR to, if you've got the equipment and the files.
Hunter isn't directly derived from Vampire, but it is a video game adaptation of a roleplaying game by the same company who puts out V:tM. The company is White Wolf and the game is Hunter: the Reckoning. Basically the games are set in the same world and can be used in crossovers as antagonists for one another, but it's also easy to play either one on its own.
It's true that cellphones are tending more towards visuals and including more games, but I doubt the kind of games that cellphone users want to play are the same as the ones that handheld console owners want. Cellphone games are mostly a way to kill time, whereas most handheld gamers are looking for a little extra.
In short: people who want to play handheld games will just buy a handheld console, and people who want to play cellphone games are content with the existing, non-N-Gage options.
We'll miss you, Scotty.
The game I was referring to was in fact Wayward, and as you pointed out, it's not a FPS game like Halo or Doom. However, as you also pointed out, it's not much in the RPG department. Call me a purist, but I hate seeing pen-and-paper RPGs translated into mediums that preserve so little of the original game intent. Yeah, it's cool to have video games based on the same concepts, but I wish they were a little more true to the role-playing style.
You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means.