Part of the problem here might simpyl be a lack of interest in the next generation platforms.
I wouldn't say that there is a lack of interest for next generation platforms; historically speaking, the next generation of platforms has always had at least two consoles that sold well. Personally, I don't see the xbox360 as a next generation platform; the release time between the xbox and xbox360 just seems to be too small. Am I the only one who finds it strange that the xbox was the last of the previous generations to be released and that their 360 was the first of the "next-gens" to be released? It seems apparent that Microsoft didn't care enough to release something truly inspiring for their consumers but rather wanted to get the advantage of being the first console out by a long-shot. As a result, it's apparent that the upgrade from the xbox and 360 isn't as overwhelming as we expect when we compare different generation consoles; furthermore, the lack of games for the system is another testament to their speedy release.
Sorry to get a little long winded, but to conclude: say what you want about the 360 sale's, but don't group it with the other next-gen consoles or use it to make assumptions regarding next-gen sales.
WoW is far from perfect and has many flaws; I didn't quit at level 60 because it was perfect, obviously. WoW's problems range from caster itemizations, to reputation proportions given for various battle grounds, and all the way to lack of small-group, high-end PvE encounters. I might be a bit of a fan boy of Blizzard, but Guild Wars also stems from the Blizzard team and I had high expectations for them.
I think Guild Wars is a fun game with problems of its own like every game in existence. However, even though Guild Wars is fun, it lacks a lot of content when compared to WoW. Comparing WoW instances to Guild War's missions is a joke; comparing WoW quests to the quests in Guild Wars is a joke; but comparing WoW's battlegrounds to Guild War's PvP system seems pretty even. Guild Wars has some nice stuff and some stuff that are not so good, but it's a good game with more than enough content for a regular game. However, for an MMORPG, Guild Wars would need much more content, items, quests, and high-end encounters. My expectations of a normal game and a MMO are far too different, and I just don't think people do justice to the MMO genre when they claim that Guild Wars is a MMO. Once again: fun game, but not a MMO.
I would like to extend on what the parent poster mentioned.
While most of you believe Guild Wars is a MMORPG, it is no such thing. Guild Wars is only a MMORPG to players who don't realize what a true MMORPG is.
Let me explain: I quit WoW for about six months because I got tired of level 60. When I came back to it six months later, WoW had drastically changed. Not only where there battlegrounds and the talent tree of some classes fully revamped, but many instances and minor events throughout the entire game were tweaked for the better. World of Warcraft is a beautiful game with stunning art that keeps updating every month. The expansions that are to come are only much larger updates then that of those that occur roughly once a month.
Guild Wars on the other hand does not do anything more than a few bug fixes and tweaks when it patches; these patches are even small compared to the Diablo 2 patches Blizzard offered for its free games. Guild Wars graphics are very simplistic in nature; they're nothing compared to the heavy graphics of WoW spells. Guild Wars does not have many spells/abilities like blink, frost nova, blizzard, shadow form, charge, stealth, and levitate to name a few. Most guild wars spells are simple buffs/debuffs type or damage-modifiers; I was very disappointed when I found out how terribly implemented the barrage spell was for the Ranger class. Few of the Guild Wars spells are very unique; however, it does have a few cool spells such as a poison nova-like spell, but the graphics for it are rather simple and often hard to notice.
I've played both games and I feel I can safely say that WoW, at this stage, has at least three times as much content as Guild Wars, and that's being very generous to Guild Wars on my part. The difference will only grow as the years progress and I won't be expecting Guild Wars to change much. I almost feel bad for not explaining all the other advantages WoW has over Guild Wars for being a true MMO, but I think I've said enough for now. If you've leveled a character to max in both games, however, I think the difference will become painstakingly obvious and undeniable.
With all this said I ask for just one thing: Please don't call Guild Wars a MMO anymore; it's a fun game but it's just not fair to compare it to actually MMO games.
Your comments really disturb me, Falcon. I'm trying to understand what exactly it is you want. Do you want to spend hours, day-in and day-out, just to have better gear than everyone else in a virtual world? What's wrong with not having to spend months to get just one item? You really should enjoy games for their own merits instead of how far you can distance yourself from other players.
I really liked the last paragraph of that article:
'"Asked whether he thought there was any truth to rumours that the shortages are deliberate, Sony's Phil Harrison told gi.biz, "I don't believe that for a second. I think that it's clear that they're making every unit that they can - whether that is enough for demand or they can't make enough is a question you'll have to put to Microsoft. It's definitely not done on purpose, I can assure you of that."'
It's great how we take people's words instead of hard facts. In my opinion, Microsoft clearly planned for a shortage and could have easily avoided or at the very least mitigated the shortage by releasing the console a few weeks later but still in time for the Christmas release. It's so obviously clear that they were trying to use the scarcity factor to make the 360 seem more desirable to dimwitted customers; it makes me wonder why people even bother to ask the question.
Funny thing is, most people who love programming and enjoy games tend to become programmers. Loving games alone is often not enough of an incentive, although some feel it is and later realize it's not.
Entrapment is not applicable in murder charges.
The entire idea of the Entrapment law is that you cannot be pushed into doing crimes that in a normal scenario you would never even attempt on your own. The degree of entrapment required is greater if the crime is more serious. So for setting a school on fire, the children would not only be required to go to school, but the school would have to provide them with combustible devices and recommend the children to "try them out." If you give a kid oil and ask him to light a fire to see what happens, is he really guilty of setting the school on fire?
When the case is less serious such as innocent hacking that did not lead to monetary theft, entrapment is most certainly applicable if the school gave them the computers and encouraged their use, as such is the case.
I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how they even managed to file these charges. This case is, in every sense of the word, entrapment. The children were forced to use these laptops and are now charged for misusing them. Legally speaking, the school has no grounds to stand on.
So rushing, fast teching, or fast expanding are all seen in your eyes as disrespectful strategies. If such is the case, you must thinking turtling (the act of putting up a large defense and avoiding conflict) as the most respectful manner in which to play a game such as Starcraft? Which reminds me of a comment you made in your first post: "If a pro squared off against another pro, and one side respected the other, it'd win, unless it made a mistake(The superior economy + defense beats any attack)." Superior economy alongside defense is the best formula for turtling, so I'm surprised I didn't notice this before.
Personally, I think players who turtle do so for two reasons. One reason is that they cannot properly gauge the situation and take advantage of the small opening in their opponent's defense. The other is that they lack the skilled to go head-to-head against their opponent in a more balanced environment. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion as well. If you think opponents who attempt strategies that you perceive as do-or-die are disrespectful, then that is what they are to you. However, it bothers me when you say that you play within your limits. Such a statement assumes that there are limits in a game such as Starcraft, when really anything outside of hacking or glitch exploitation is fair game. Skill is dependent on your ability to win, not the means in which you go about it.
Yagu, you say, "games will never be a social replacement for people who really like to socialize," but what exactly are they replacing? I don't know exactly how you go about socializing, but for me and most of the world, socializing is a daily part of life. When you go to the movies, school, and even at home, you socialize with the individuals around you. The fact that games have moved from things such as solitaire, where there is no social interaction, to a small group of friends playing a console together and finally to millions of people playing in the same video game, is something that should not be ignored by any entrepreneur. There is a lot of money to be made from the millions of individuals who interact via video games. Many of them are now seeking a variety of tool such as voice chat programs or material goods such as headsets. They're normal people whose common interests have brought them together, and as human nature goes, social interaction is bound to take place.
CrazyJim, how does respecting another player change the course of the game? Do you use the word respect to mean merci or something?
It really does not matter, I suppose; when you try to simplify a match-up in a game as complicated as Starcraft, you're bound to get it wrong either way.
So next time you use Google to research on a Benz, you don't mind getting ads for a Toyota instead? Despite what many believe, Trademark laws were originally intended to protect the consumer. Typing in one company and getting ads for another is outside the scopes of any search engine. If Google was more blunt and had their system work so that every time you type "Benz," you automatically get directed to a Toyota website, it would be more clear to everyone why such a scenario is wrong on a legal level.
I love reading articles that indicate the top 10 of anything because you never have to worry about the list being subjective. You always know that the author went out of his way and used a numerous amount of resources, reviews, and statistics to compile such a list. Either that or he just inappropriately used the "top 10" catch phrase to garner more readers, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since this article is on, as Bush would phrase it, "the internets."
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say that there is a lack of interest for next generation platforms; historically speaking, the next generation of platforms has always had at least two consoles that sold well. Personally, I don't see the xbox360 as a next generation platform; the release time between the xbox and xbox360 just seems to be too small. Am I the only one who finds it strange that the xbox was the last of the previous generations to be released and that their 360 was the first of the "next-gens" to be released? It seems apparent that Microsoft didn't care enough to release something truly inspiring for their consumers but rather wanted to get the advantage of being the first console out by a long-shot. As a result, it's apparent that the upgrade from the xbox and 360 isn't as overwhelming as we expect when we compare different generation consoles; furthermore, the lack of games for the system is another testament to their speedy release.
Sorry to get a little long winded, but to conclude: say what you want about the 360 sale's, but don't group it with the other next-gen consoles or use it to make assumptions regarding next-gen sales.
Revival from stagnation
I have seen no signs of Sony's and Microsoft's consoles suffering from lack of sales
Microsoft lost money on their xbox and is very likely to lose money on its xbox360
I think Guild Wars is a fun game with problems of its own like every game in existence. However, even though Guild Wars is fun, it lacks a lot of content when compared to WoW. Comparing WoW instances to Guild War's missions is a joke; comparing WoW quests to the quests in Guild Wars is a joke; but comparing WoW's battlegrounds to Guild War's PvP system seems pretty even. Guild Wars has some nice stuff and some stuff that are not so good, but it's a good game with more than enough content for a regular game. However, for an MMORPG, Guild Wars would need much more content, items, quests, and high-end encounters. My expectations of a normal game and a MMO are far too different, and I just don't think people do justice to the MMO genre when they claim that Guild Wars is a MMO. Once again: fun game, but not a MMO.
I would like to extend on what the parent poster mentioned. While most of you believe Guild Wars is a MMORPG, it is no such thing. Guild Wars is only a MMORPG to players who don't realize what a true MMORPG is. Let me explain: I quit WoW for about six months because I got tired of level 60. When I came back to it six months later, WoW had drastically changed. Not only where there battlegrounds and the talent tree of some classes fully revamped, but many instances and minor events throughout the entire game were tweaked for the better. World of Warcraft is a beautiful game with stunning art that keeps updating every month. The expansions that are to come are only much larger updates then that of those that occur roughly once a month. Guild Wars on the other hand does not do anything more than a few bug fixes and tweaks when it patches; these patches are even small compared to the Diablo 2 patches Blizzard offered for its free games. Guild Wars graphics are very simplistic in nature; they're nothing compared to the heavy graphics of WoW spells. Guild Wars does not have many spells/abilities like blink, frost nova, blizzard, shadow form, charge, stealth, and levitate to name a few. Most guild wars spells are simple buffs/debuffs type or damage-modifiers; I was very disappointed when I found out how terribly implemented the barrage spell was for the Ranger class. Few of the Guild Wars spells are very unique; however, it does have a few cool spells such as a poison nova-like spell, but the graphics for it are rather simple and often hard to notice. I've played both games and I feel I can safely say that WoW, at this stage, has at least three times as much content as Guild Wars, and that's being very generous to Guild Wars on my part. The difference will only grow as the years progress and I won't be expecting Guild Wars to change much. I almost feel bad for not explaining all the other advantages WoW has over Guild Wars for being a true MMO, but I think I've said enough for now. If you've leveled a character to max in both games, however, I think the difference will become painstakingly obvious and undeniable. With all this said I ask for just one thing: Please don't call Guild Wars a MMO anymore; it's a fun game but it's just not fair to compare it to actually MMO games.
Your comments really disturb me, Falcon. I'm trying to understand what exactly it is you want. Do you want to spend hours, day-in and day-out, just to have better gear than everyone else in a virtual world? What's wrong with not having to spend months to get just one item? You really should enjoy games for their own merits instead of how far you can distance yourself from other players.
I really liked the last paragraph of that article: '"Asked whether he thought there was any truth to rumours that the shortages are deliberate, Sony's Phil Harrison told gi.biz, "I don't believe that for a second. I think that it's clear that they're making every unit that they can - whether that is enough for demand or they can't make enough is a question you'll have to put to Microsoft. It's definitely not done on purpose, I can assure you of that."' It's great how we take people's words instead of hard facts. In my opinion, Microsoft clearly planned for a shortage and could have easily avoided or at the very least mitigated the shortage by releasing the console a few weeks later but still in time for the Christmas release. It's so obviously clear that they were trying to use the scarcity factor to make the 360 seem more desirable to dimwitted customers; it makes me wonder why people even bother to ask the question.
clearly not...
That's because for other programming jobs, it's often unnecessary to say: "Must have a passion for money."
Funny thing is, most people who love programming and enjoy games tend to become programmers. Loving games alone is often not enough of an incentive, although some feel it is and later realize it's not.
Entrapment is not applicable in murder charges. The entire idea of the Entrapment law is that you cannot be pushed into doing crimes that in a normal scenario you would never even attempt on your own. The degree of entrapment required is greater if the crime is more serious. So for setting a school on fire, the children would not only be required to go to school, but the school would have to provide them with combustible devices and recommend the children to "try them out." If you give a kid oil and ask him to light a fire to see what happens, is he really guilty of setting the school on fire? When the case is less serious such as innocent hacking that did not lead to monetary theft, entrapment is most certainly applicable if the school gave them the computers and encouraged their use, as such is the case.
I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how they even managed to file these charges. This case is, in every sense of the word, entrapment. The children were forced to use these laptops and are now charged for misusing them. Legally speaking, the school has no grounds to stand on.
So rushing, fast teching, or fast expanding are all seen in your eyes as disrespectful strategies. If such is the case, you must thinking turtling (the act of putting up a large defense and avoiding conflict) as the most respectful manner in which to play a game such as Starcraft? Which reminds me of a comment you made in your first post: "If a pro squared off against another pro, and one side respected the other, it'd win, unless it made a mistake(The superior economy + defense beats any attack)." Superior economy alongside defense is the best formula for turtling, so I'm surprised I didn't notice this before.
Personally, I think players who turtle do so for two reasons. One reason is that they cannot properly gauge the situation and take advantage of the small opening in their opponent's defense. The other is that they lack the skilled to go head-to-head against their opponent in a more balanced environment. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion as well. If you think opponents who attempt strategies that you perceive as do-or-die are disrespectful, then that is what they are to you. However, it bothers me when you say that you play within your limits. Such a statement assumes that there are limits in a game such as Starcraft, when really anything outside of hacking or glitch exploitation is fair game. Skill is dependent on your ability to win, not the means in which you go about it.
Yagu, you say, "games will never be a social replacement for people who really like to socialize," but what exactly are they replacing? I don't know exactly how you go about socializing, but for me and most of the world, socializing is a daily part of life. When you go to the movies, school, and even at home, you socialize with the individuals around you. The fact that games have moved from things such as solitaire, where there is no social interaction, to a small group of friends playing a console together and finally to millions of people playing in the same video game, is something that should not be ignored by any entrepreneur. There is a lot of money to be made from the millions of individuals who interact via video games. Many of them are now seeking a variety of tool such as voice chat programs or material goods such as headsets. They're normal people whose common interests have brought them together, and as human nature goes, social interaction is bound to take place.
CrazyJim, how does respecting another player change the course of the game? Do you use the word respect to mean merci or something? It really does not matter, I suppose; when you try to simplify a match-up in a game as complicated as Starcraft, you're bound to get it wrong either way.
So next time you use Google to research on a Benz, you don't mind getting ads for a Toyota instead? Despite what many believe, Trademark laws were originally intended to protect the consumer. Typing in one company and getting ads for another is outside the scopes of any search engine. If Google was more blunt and had their system work so that every time you type "Benz," you automatically get directed to a Toyota website, it would be more clear to everyone why such a scenario is wrong on a legal level.
I love reading articles that indicate the top 10 of anything because you never have to worry about the list being subjective. You always know that the author went out of his way and used a numerous amount of resources, reviews, and statistics to compile such a list. Either that or he just inappropriately used the "top 10" catch phrase to garner more readers, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since this article is on, as Bush would phrase it, "the internets."