Print-based magazines are just as lacking in substance as their online counterparts. Unfortunately, the over-saturation of advertising in print manages to be even more intrusive than it is online. And the lifestyle magazines, gaming including are particularly insane with the advertising. So I find it funny that these guys are talking about the so-called quality of writing in print.
If they were serious about competing with online publications they'd make significant changes. I'd take an approach similar to that seen with design magazines. Improve the overall quality of the publication. By this I mean, choose higher quality paper and good printing.
Don't try to cram every last shred of gaming information into a single issue, especially since the magazine is going to be outdated the day it goes to print. Instead, focus on fewer, higher quality stories. Write substantive reviews that actually mean something and don't come off as marketing.
And to the authors and editors, stop thinking you're celebrities. This is a particular peeve of mine, even online. These guys have a tendency to rub it in the face of the reader that they've gotten access to games before the reader. They seem think they're God's gift to gamers. Just focus on the damn games and stop trying to convince me you're cool.
I might even suggest raising the price of each issue for the sole purpose of reducing the number of ads. Perhaps it may make sense to go to a bi-monthly schedule. It means a longer wait, but it translates into more time to produce a quality issue.
That's the approach taken by some of the design magazines I subscribe and I always feel like each issue is worth the subscription. They're worth holding on to. Unlike most gaming magazines I see which are obnoxious crap barely worth picking up off the newsstand.
Like anything, if you want to be competitive you have to be a bit creative. Complaining about the competition while doing more of the same isn't going to fix the problem.
Many companies, especially the Japanese, seem to have this obsession with forcing their own standards on the consumer. Sony is one of the most notorious. And the problem isn't just with standalone formats like Blu-ray, UMD or MemorySticks. I got one of those small Sony tablet PCs from work a few years ago. The thing has a custom firewire port incorporates external power so that it uses a unique plug. Booting from a CD or floppy was an exercise in frustration. It refused to boot from any CD drive, requiring a USB floppy drive. However, the thing would only recognize specific Sony floppy drives during bootup.
More recently, researching HD camcorders I encountered more of this nonsense. Some camcorders, like the Canon I ultimately purchased support HDMI out. However because a standard HDMI port apparently isn't small enough a slightly smaller, HDMI port was created meaning I can't just go an use a standard HDMI cable. I think some even use proprietary ports. At least my camcorder has a standard hot shoe, because Sony camcorders use smaller proprietary hot shoes. The consumer is stuck with Sony for their accessories.
This same issues extends to codecs. Sony and Panasonic developed AVCHD for HD camcorders, presumably as a new standard. Except that Sony then went made a proprietary version of that codec. Then there are all the flash media formats and their subsets with no consistency whatsoever.
There's this obsession with developing a format that locks people into a single company, or worse, the unrealistic desire to have everyone else adopt a single company's standard. No one wants to pay the licensing to use someone else's closed standard
Obviously, it's their prerogative but it doesn't benefit the consumer at all. It ultimately hinders progress and true interoperability.
I played City of Heroes for a couple of years, from a few months after initial launch up until shortly after the launch of City of Villains. I experimented with a few alternate characters but I had reached level 45 with my main; 5 levels below the level 50 cap.
I got into the game on the recommendation of my brother and another friend of ours. I played Everquest years earlier for a few months, shortly after the first expansion. The demanding nature of that game, including the reliance on grouping burned me out quickly. What attracted me to CoH was the ability to solo and lack of reliance on gear. It was kind of like a socialist MMO.
What really hooked me was the pace of combat. The game gets really exciting during a fight; I don't think there's been another MMO yet that matches the pace of that game. It's as close to direct, active control as I've seen thus far. Apparently a new powerset is being introduced which even allows for combos.
Additionally, a lone hero could face a group of upwards of 5 foes and emerge victorious, depending on the class. It was fun to jump into the midst of some villains and beat the hell out of them all. So in that regard, it was a very satisfying game.
The pace of leveling was fairly quick but, like all other MMOs it still had considerable grind. And that's really where things broke down. There was nothing else to do but fight. Every single thing in the game revolve around beating up badguys. There were conditions for some missions, like clicking on glowing items, but even then it required getting past hordes of villains. Story was presented in dialog boxes; at the time there were no cutscenes. Alternative skills, comparable to blacksmithing in fantasy MMOs were finally introduced a few months ago. This was after years of promising they were coming soon.
Apparently the skill system was completely redesigned at least 3 times over because it was deemed to not be fun enough. I haven't played what was finally implemented but from what I've read I'm not impressed. It looks like it's merely an adaptation of the supergroup base item building feature.
The character customization is excellent, and probably still surpasses what's available in most other MMOs. Beyond that, however, there's only one way to improve a character. And that's through enhancements which is comparable to stats for other games. Basically, enemies "drop" these enhancements which are then applied to a character's powers. So a player can boost damage, or the power's secondary debuff effect. That was all well and good until the developers decided they didn't want people focusing on a single aspect of any given power. So, every power has 5 slots, if I remember correctly, but using more than two slots for the same boost was essentially a waste. This was supposed to encourage enhancement diversity but I think it resulted in standard ideal templates for specific powers.
There was also the incessant complaining by those who had chosen classes that were less effective solo who felt it was unfair that other classes could solo so effective. Nevermind the fact that the best solo builds weren't always well-suited for groups. So a lot of work went into addressing that with mixed results and to, I feel, the general detriment of the game.
Another problem I came to find with the game was the excessive reliance on templates for environmental design. Basically, upon entering a zone the first time a player had a good sense for how the rest of the zone looked. And many of those features were reused in most other zones. So where other MMOs have a varied and dynamic landscape City of Hero's was a bit contrived. It was tiring running through the same laboratory with a random, nonsensical layout for the 5th time in a few hours. Despite that, the art style was great. It was a lot of fun traveling amongst those skyscrapers. The game simply could have benefited from more variety.
One thing that was good about CoH/CoV was how Cryptic has maintained a close relationship with the players. They've n
I agree that the school should realized what they were getting into when they agreed to this design. But then it's also the responsibility of the architect to make the client aware of potential problems and do what they can in the design to avoid these problems. I suppose architect's lawyers should have put a clause in their contract absolving them from responsibility for any problems arising from this unconventional design.
However, the question is whether the problems arose from the design itself or from shoddy construction. I'd like to see construction companies being held more responsible for the messes they create. Right near work a road in the process of being repaved is already being torn up and those holes sloppily covered up. It's insane the kind of crap these companies get away with, especially when dealing with the government.
I don't understand exactly how such IDs would be a violation of our privacy. We already have such identification. The key distinction is that it's a scattered mess of documentation, spread across a driver's license, passport, social security card and who knows what else? How exactly is conveniently condensing all that information onto a single card an invasion of privacy?
Most of the rest of the world already uses similar ID cards in one form or another and I've seen no issues. This proposed card simply takes advantage of existing technologies to converge identification onto one card. The thing with current ID cards in other nations is that citizens still need separate driver's licenses and still need to carry passports when traveling overseas. But I know that some nations are already in the process of developing more sophisticated cards.
I suppose identity theft is a concern. Beyond that, however, what's the concern? So the police can identify a person more quickly with these cards than they can with the current system. I can't help but think people are getting worked up about something they're already living with.
I'm a lot more concerned about the trend I see with our government trying to control every aspect of our lives, for the so-called good of the people. A modernized form of ID is a non-event.
Then which TV-connected video gaming system does allow for developers' freedom of speech? Sony: no AO. Microsoft: no AO.
PC's do. Unfortunately, the PC games are now experiencing the same scrutiny console games have traditionally faced. Nevertheless, the last time I checked you can do or say anything you want with your PC. You can even find something to suit any gaming need if you dig enough. So I don't really see where freedom of speech is being hindered.
Now, if you want to make money exercising freedom of speech in some eccentric manner, don't be surprised if you don't earn much of a living off it. Developers make the games they do because it's current the safest, easiest way to make money. Parents have few reservations buying a Wii because it's perceived to be a kid-friendly console. You may see that as censoring free speech but Nintendo sees it as a great way to make money.
I think about the time 386/486 Intel processors came along and people started counting Mhz is when I began encountering games that were too demanding for my PC. However, considering that I was still young and thus didn't have the money to upgrade I was stuck. The difference to today, however, is that you could do a moderate upgrade and immediately have a machine that runs all the current games well.
I think one of the bigger limiting factors back then was if your machine still ran only CGA or EGA when games supporting VGA/MCGA entered the market. Or worse, a few years later when those 3DFX cards entered the market. By and large, however, I think developers tended to ensure that games at least ran well on current machines.
This isn't the case today. Developers seem to develop games specifically to overwhelm the top machines available today. It's like they all have this insane mindset that people are still going to be playing these games 2 or 3 years from now when the majority of consumers actually have PCs capable of running these games at full detail. The problem is, that the life-cycle of a game doesn't go much beyond 6 months, and that's even for a good one. So what's the point?
So it seems like developers want to turn their games into benchmarks for PC performance. This certainly seems to be the trend. Nowadays any game comes along that most current PCs cant handle and almost immediately it shows up in performance testing. I attribute some of this to sloppy programming, but I also get the impression that these developers find the most convoluted and inefficient way to produce some visual effect. It's like they're relying on the hardware to support their code.
What I don't get is how they're able to turn a profit. I go through cycles with my PC purchases, directly related to how my PC handles contemporary games. When I upgrade my PC I'll pick up a few games. I eventually start hitting a performance wall where my PC has trouble running a current game well, so my game purchasing stops. The thing is that the PC still does everything else exceedingly well, so I have no practical reason to upgrade. It's the situation I'm in now. I have a 3Ghz P4 that does everything extremely well, except play current games.
The last time I took a risk was with Supreme Commander. That turned out to be such a massive disappointment because of the utter crap performance that I uninstalled it within days. I might as well go back to playing Total Annihilation which provides just as much fun with suitably large armies and will still run flawlessly.
A lot of these new games certainly look impressive. But they don't really look that much better than, let's say Half Life 2, and that will run well on my PC. I'd be looking at a 300% expense over my current PC to net maybe a 25% improvement in quality. And then be screwed in 6 months when whatever comes out then failed to run at a suitable framerate on my new PC. And I'm skeptical about a $500 PC running anything available today acceptably well and with decent visual quality.
Nintendo has gone to absurd lengths to clean up their games, but honestly I think they're free to do as they please. Nintendo is a private company and if they decide they don't want offensive content available on their console its their prerogative. If, as a consumer, I have a problem with that practice, I'll buy a system from a company that doesn't put such restrictions on games. It's not like Nintendo was engaging in thought control or propaganda.
What I do have a problem with, however, is when the government starts deciding what should be censored. It's like the Fairness Doctrine. A lot of people are pushing it in an attempt to control conservative talk radio. That's all well and good, but the irony is that the doctrine came about originally during the anti-communist movement and then actually used against liberal talk shows. So this cuts both ways. You can't say you're for free speech provided it only suits your own opinions and desires. The last thing we need is more government control.
I have the right to dictate what I'm exposed to in my own house in the same way Nintendo can dictate the content for their consoles. Even if I agree that the extent to which Nintendo of America went to clean up their games was absolutely ridiculous. Although, I can't really say it business.
You're wrong about the working conditions in Japan. There has been a sense of loyalty, for lack of a better term, to employees. Specifically, companies would go out of their way to avoid firing an employee, even to the point of absurdity. If there was a problem employee, instead of outright firing them, the company would marginalize them, sticking them in some corner of the office, and keep them away from important work. They'd try to make the employee uncomfortable in the hope of driving them to quit.
Most benefits are provided by companies not because of their own altruism but because of government regulations. And if I'm not mistaken retirement is handled by the government, not corporations. In fact, I'm fairly certain Japanese companies pay fewer taxes than Americans do. Japanese do so well, however, not because of government assured benefits. They've done well because they're renown for saving their money. Well, this was the case with the older generation. Young people are huge consumers. The advantage Japan has is that they have so much disposable income. Despite the high price of many goods there many consumer products, like electronics and cars are cheaper there than in the US.
That said, it can be hell working at a Japanese company. Many managers are outright abusive. They openly yell at employees, and it wouldn't be the first time they've gotten physical. Verbal sexual harassment is practically a way of life. I have friends who've experienced all kinds of abuse first hand. It's also expected employees are going to give their all to the company. It's possible to be ostracized if an employee isn't as committed as his coworkers. Needless to say, few Americans would tolerate this regardless of the benefits.
What has made Japan so successful is not the benefits. It's the work-ethic. Japanese are hard workers. They take their job seriously, regardless of the position. Walk into a McDonald's in Japan and it spotless, service is excellent and the food is prepared consistently. They don't have the resentment many Americans seem to have. In Japan people expect that they have to work their way up. I've seen people do the bare minimum to keep their job then complain about how much more they should be earning and how unfair the system is.
There are a lot of problems facing the US automakers, from management's atrocious decision making all the way down to stifling union mandates. One thing that screwed the US automakers in their relationship with unions was that they actually promised too much. Back when business was great for the Americans, due to a lack of real competitions, their benefits were actually quite generous. They established that pattern of expectation so that when business got back and they needed to cut back they found it difficult to do so. And this is why they're stuck paying all those retirement benefits.
And Walmart is crap. But that fake Wii controller is no surprise nor is it anything new. This sort of thing is prevalent in Asia. It sucks, but in some ways it does foster competition.
Years ago I used to enjoy cut scenes. I always looked forward to them and felt cheated when a game which offered some sort of story didn't have them. However, in the intervening years my expectations have changed. I now find them a source of frustration when they cant be skipped and instead become an impediment to me playing the game.
This seems to be especially problematic with Japanese games where the developer is intent on forcing the player to sit through the story. It's particularly frustrating when cutscenes are comprised of text dialog. One remarkably aggravating example was Okami. I recall seeing this game for the first game and become intensely aggravated at the opening cutscenes. A introduction that could have been told in 3 minutes was dragged out to perhaps 30. I was ready to shut off the console because the intro was even done. The annoying voices didn't help either. Although, I think it was otherwise a good game, but I doubt I'd have the patience to play it a big reason being those cutscenes.
"I get it! You've crafted this wonderful, unique game world. Stop beating me over the head with it!"
I think one of the few genres well suited to extensive story telling is the adventure. The story was an integral part of the gameplay. There was no need to interrupt the player because it was the player himself progressing the story. While I enjoy RPGs and have played some with great stories I don't think those are quite as conducive to storytelling because these games tend to be broken up into very distinct components and gameplay generally consists of very repetitive activities broken up by storytelling elements.
I think this has become more of an issue in recent years because of the more realistic nature of current games. When a player is interacting with a somewhat realistic game world certain expectations are formed. When an NPC blocks a doorway for the sake of telling a story or a player's actions are restricted in some way it feels unnatural and becomes a source of frustration.
Without a doubt it's possibly to tell a story effectively in any game, but it's very difficult. More often than not developers don't do it well. But the absolute worst thing a developer can do is to force the player to sit through cutscenes with no option at all to skip it.
Having played on the Wii a good bit now has convinced me that it isn't the revolutionary next step people claim it to be. Sure, it's got some great games and the controller is quite entertaining. The Wii, for me has provided a gaming experience no different from that offered by the Gamecube. What has made the console so approachable to non-gamers is not the controller but rather Nintendo's marketing and their game design. The controller may allow for some flexibility with game design, but not to the profound extent some believe.
Nintendo has sold the Wii, and to a lesser extent the DS, as being for non-gamers. And reinforcing this message they've developed games like Brain Age and Wii Sports. It's not that an Xbox360 or a PS3 couldn't be suitable to non-gamers, even without a fancy controller. It's that Microsoft and Sony haven't marketed their system as such, especially Sony. Recent marketing seems to indicate that Microsoft is trying to appeal to that market. Unfortunately, they don't yet have the sort of games yet that to that demographic.
Graphics certainly aren't the ultimate determining factor in whether a game is any good. I'm not looking for games to be photo-realistic and in fact, while impressive I find games done in that style to be quite bland. On the other hand, in this day and age I expect graphics to look crisp, especially coming from a PC gaming background. I can't tolerate a pixelated, hazy mess. I find it irritating that my DS isn't capable of doing much more than Doom-era 3D graphics. It apparently is completely incapable of doing transparencies in 3D, hence the lame particle effects.
One thing that strikes me about PS3 graphics is how impressive they are in person. It's at a point where they look like the touched up promotional graphics developers release during production. Although, I concede that doesn't change the fact that there aren't many compelling games available for the console. Those capabilities, however, do ensure that the PS3 will have better longevity than the Wii, provided good games are released soon.
This is not to put down the Wii at all. I think the Wii demonstrates Nintendo's commitment to a basic concept They entered this generation with a clear message and have stuck to it. They were willing to develop an unconventional controller. And they marketed their system well. Of course it helps that they also have their own game development division which does phenomenal work. Even if the Wii didn't have that controller it would likely still do well because of the games.
I think everyone will agree, it's the games that make the system.
I think Americans are a lot more pragmatic with their consumer technology. They're generally only willing to adopt some bit of technology once its fairly well established. This means the technology has been proven, its reasonably reliable and its a well-supported standard.
People in Asia jump all over any bit of new technology. They're a lot more willing to embrace anything new, whether or not it's actually any good. As far as Europe is concerned, I don't really think they're all that different from the US. And my impression from my family there is that they're reluctant to go out and get anything cutting-edge because things there are generally so expensive.
Look at Blu-ray and HD-DVD. Most people are reluctant to adopt either format because they don't want to be stuck with an unsupported format in a few years. Or lets say televisions in public places. When I was in Taiwan a few years ago wide-screen flat panel displays were installed throughout the subway system; they had a good dozen or two at most stations running nothing but advertising. Sure, it's cool, but is it necessary? Not really. Why spend $2000 on a flat-panel display when a $500 standard television serves the same function?
A good example is the little known, at least in the US, format VCD. For those who dont know it was basically a CD with an mpeg file on it. These showed up between the VHS and DVD eras. In Asia, however they were huge. But they were pointless. The image quality was no better than VHS and most movies came on two CDs. There was some convenience over tape but not enough to justify the transition. DVDs offered a more tangible improvement.
A lot of this technology is compelling merely because it isn't available to Americans. Often times when we finally have access to these products here they turn out not to be anything special. I think the only segment America truly lags in is in the mobile phone market. However, as long as service providers maintain their grip on the market that isn't going to change.
I'm curious to know in what part of the country people are having a hard time finding a Wii. Here in the Northeast Wii are everywhere. I can go into any retailer and find plenty. Target has had a good 10 boxes on the shelves since the middle of the summer. It's essentially the same at Walmart. The other retailers are also consistently stocked up. It doesn't seem to be any different in neighboring states.
At this point I can pretty much go into any store around here and find one. If anything I'd say there are fewer DS's available. They're everywhere too, but the supplies for DS's seem to run lower than the Wii.
By no means do I point this out to claim that the Wii isn't selling well. I'm simply surprised that people apparently still have trouble finding them.
And I don't understand the need to tear down the Xbox360. Halo 3 spurs sales of the Xbox360 and somehow it's spun into a bad thing. You'd think every Wii came packaged with a bar of gold the way people lavish praise on that system. I get the impression that many Wii games are from more negative reviews merely because of the unconventional control scheme. The game is crap, but I can wave this controller around to do stuff and thus it's not actually that bad a game.
I've played the Wii a bit at a friend's house. It's a lot of fun, but honestly, I don't really see it being any more fun than any of the other consoles. To many of the games for the Wii seem to be little more than flash games with fancy graphics. When comparing price value you can't beat a Wii, but it's not the revolutionary console some make it out to see.
I'm not really a Halo fan, not having played the previous games, and I have a tendency to get bored with FPS games. I really have no desire at all to get an Xbox360, or any of the other consoles for that matter, but then I'm probably not the guy developers are trying to sell to. Nevertheless, it's only reasonable to give credit where it's due. Halo 3 is a damn good game.
I hope Capcom remains faithful to the 2D gameplay. I'm not against full 3D characters, however, if they take an approach similar to Nintendo's New Super Mario Bros on the DS. We're at a point with 3D graphics where characters can be made detailed enough that they could pass for 2D sprites. And this way we enjoy the benefit of extremely fluid animation.
If they do go with 2D sprites I hope we get high-resolution artwork with animation on the level of a good anime. But given the considerable amount of production required for all that animation I'd say 3D on a 2D plane is the way to go.
There's a big problem design in general faces. It's seriously undervalued. And I think the problem stems from accessibility. Desktop publishing has inspired a revolution in design, but at the same time it's been very detrimental to the industry.
It has made design tools pervasive. It's created this attitude that good design is something anyone can do provided they know how to use to the software. It's completely screwed with expectations on the part of clients. Some guy in sales believes it should take me a day to lay out a 24 page brochure because he knows how to type a report in Word and import a few pictures. He's convinced he could produce the same layout as I; he hires me because he doesn't have the time for it himself.
These guys also are convinced they understand the nuances of design merely because they browse the web. I can't count the times I've had clients tell me they want the design of the Apple site but they've got the content of Slashdot to fit on the page.
The accessability of design has allowed anyone to get into design. This means you've got hacks working along side of true professionals. For someone who's looking to cut costs they're going to have a hard time seeing why a company charging $20,000 for a web design is that much better than a guy working at home charging $2,000. They may be convinced of a difference in quality, but they'll have a hard time justifying the price difference. It's kind of like the guys who outsource work in order to get some cost savings but end up spending more in the long run just trying to manage the mess that inevitably ensues.
So what's the inevitable result? They're underpaid. Despite the amount of experience, research, planning and production that has to go into a sound design not many are willing to really pay for it. At least they aren't paid on the level of other professionals.
Contrast this IT and programmers. To the average business man what those guys do seems to be voodoo. They don't get it and they don't even want to try. I've known guys earning a handy sum of money while enjoying a 3-day work week. I've known guys who pretty much sat around all day, and others which had horrendous attitudes but they all got by fine because of the mystique of their work. They may end up getting screwed in the long run but while they had the work they were doing better than a designer in a comparable position.
Of course those kinds of employees are the exception. I'm not suggesting people in IT are overpaid. I know a developer who's been working half as long as I have and is already earning more than I do. And he deserves every penny because he's a phenomenal programmer. But the point is that a good designer has as demanding a job and doesn't get compensated as well for it.
But that's the nature of the work. If a designer wants to earn more they have to get into art direction or management. That only comes with experience and at that point you're not really considering a designer anyway.
And I agree that a lot of web designers out there don't really have a good sense of web design. They put art above functionality. But then many of the programmers I've worked with don't have a good sense for interface design either. They'll create something that's convoluted and bloated with features. As much as people like to criticize Microsoft applications they inevitably create something that pretty much has the same exact feel. Good layout design can be challenging.
To be honest, I've always believed if Nintendo and others truly wanted to appeal to casual gamers they'd be developing games for the PC. Perhaps not so much in Japan, but certainly elsewhere in Asia, the US and Europe.
PCs are so pervasive that it makes the barrier of entry into gaming quite low. I've known countless people with no interest in gaming whatsoever by intrigued by some game they've found online. The important thing is to make system requirements anywhere as demanding as they are for most mainstream PC games. It sure would be nice if Nintendo produced a USB version of the Wii controller.
I think the occasional swear is perfectly fine. It doesn't bother me in the least and I've sworn myself more times than I can count. However, I also think there are many situations where it's inappropriate. I wouldn't do it in front of a client, for example.
I do believe it can be cathartic. But from personal experience once swearing gets abused, let's say when under stress, it also seems to aggravate the frustration. It's like stewing in anger.
And it's too easy for this to be turned into a habit. The last thing I need is to have every second word spoken by fuck or shit. Like it or not it makes a person seem immature and uncultured when swearing is abused.
They could definitely let that guy jump. Just have him jump as high as a real life human does instead of the superhuman 30ft jumps Mario pulls off. It wouldn't negate the need for that bionic arm at all.
It's kind of funny how this guy somehow seemed crippled compared to his video game brethren because of his inability to jump.
I still can't get one in a major metro area of WI.
I might suggest paying me a visit then. In my area Target has consistently had a good 10 Wii's in the case since the middle of the summer. Walmart has been fairly well stocked up as well. As for other retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City, I haven't been there in a while, but I assume they've all got plenty.
I just assumed Nintendo has finally ramped up production, but it could certainly be an indication that demand has declined somewhat.
I think the problems Valve is having with episodic gaming are fairly obvious.
First, build a robust graphics engine and don't touch it at all over the course of the series. I don't really understand why people at Valve felt the need to start tinkering with the graphics engine for each episode. In essence what they've done is build a new game each time.
Secondly, I think they should be working off templates. From what I've seen it looks like the Half-Life episodes feature distinct environments from the original. That's all well and good, but it's going to increase production time dramatically. At the very least I'd say important assets should be produced during initial development so that it's ready to go once it's time to be featured.
Third, I think the series should be thoroughly planned well in advance. This means building out the story far in advance and possibly beginning work on some of that content from the start.
If they were developing standalone sequels this all would be irrelevant. However, if they claim to be producing episodic content they need to be prepared to release that content on a regular basis. Episodes should be released every 3 to 4 months, at the longest. Certainly not once a year.
I think they should look to MMOs as a guide on how to offer new content on a regular basis. One of the better examples I can think of this is City of Heroes. In the early days they were releasing two, sometimes three expansions per year. They weren't always significant, and heavily relied on templates, but it meant new content on a regular basis. They broke everything up into manageable pieces. It also helped that they basically had a bible that provided more than enough foundation for anything they might want to add to the game. From what I've read things have grown significantly more complicated since then, but for a time it seemed to work well.
Valve has been too ambitious with each episode. If they wanted to put this much effort into the episodes they might as well have just packaged these into a single game and offered it as a sequel.
There seems to be something that many people here are overlooking. Regardless of whether or not relatively primitive technology can defeat all this high-tech equipment is irrelevant because the United States is actually testing it on a real battlefield. It really seems like the military is testing every piece of hardware they can get their hands on in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't already F22s flying around out there.
It's a unique opportunity that few other military powers have had access too. It's one thing to predict your weapon will do something, but even live fire exercises are no substitute for actual combat applications. And I'm not just talking about equipment here. Certainly they're getting a ton of experience in tactics, especially urban warfare.
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if the US government doesn't enter into wars every few years to keep the whole military machine nice and lubricated.
Nowadays it seems like anytime someone proposes an ambitious project inevitably people start complaining about one thing or another, usually money.
This isn't about money, it's about progress. I might agree that it could make more sense to go with a TGV-like system as opposed to Maglev. On the other hand, the only way to refine Maglev technology is to actually use it. Someone needs to be the early adopter.
One thing I always admired about Asia when I was living there was that when they decided they wanted something built they just did it. Not that there sometimes weren't problems, but they did it. They didn't drag their feet, they didn't waste an excessive amount of time on impact studies.
Now being back here in the New York area I find the lack of progress quite depressing. We're stuck riding on an antiquated rail line managed by a corrupt company. This is a company which proudly proclaims that their trains are only 5 minutes late. The times listed on schedules are there only to differentiate the trains, not to actually inform anyone on what time they're supposed to arrive. And that's when a train's contacts dont get snagged on power lines and pull a few down which seems to happen at least once a year.
Politicians around here do nothing but pay lip-service to alleviating traffic problems. But it's not all their fault. We've also got the problem that the rail line is running through one of the most affluent counties in the nation. And those residents will be damned if they see any kind of development that could somehow change their idyllic little world. That's despite the reality that the problems we're having are already adversely affecting them.
So hats off to Germany for being so ambitious. I'd really like to see more of that here.
Why exactly would a game be inherently better than a movie for the horror genre? Hell, a novel could be just as effective as either one of those mediums.
It comes down to good writing. The reason most horror movies aren't particularly effective is because the writing is such garbage. If these writes were to produce scripts for games those games would be equally ineffective at being scary.
If anything, I'd argue that it's easier to make a good horror movie than it is to produce a scary game. It's very easy to manage pacing in a movie. The entire thing is nicely packaged and the director has complete control over the movie. With a game, in addition to the underlying plot a creator has to be concerned with how the gamer interacts with the game. How to convey the proper atmosphere and provide appropriate challenges without making the game tedious.
Ultimately, this is the problem I've found with nearly all horror games, including the Resident Evil series. The game hits a point where they're wandering back and forth trying to find something, or are given these odd tasks for the sake of providing some level of gameplay ultimately reminding me that I'm just playing a game. With a movie or a novel, I know it's fake, but I don't have to worry about some gameplay mechanic disrupting the experience and thus it's easier for me to become engrossed in the story.
Slashdot Mirror
It's junk like this that makes me embarrassed to play games.
If this is the best anyone can come up with for debating games there's little hope gaming will ever be taken as seriously as novels or films.
Print-based magazines are just as lacking in substance as their online counterparts. Unfortunately, the over-saturation of advertising in print manages to be even more intrusive than it is online. And the lifestyle magazines, gaming including are particularly insane with the advertising. So I find it funny that these guys are talking about the so-called quality of writing in print.
If they were serious about competing with online publications they'd make significant changes. I'd take an approach similar to that seen with design magazines. Improve the overall quality of the publication. By this I mean, choose higher quality paper and good printing.
Don't try to cram every last shred of gaming information into a single issue, especially since the magazine is going to be outdated the day it goes to print. Instead, focus on fewer, higher quality stories. Write substantive reviews that actually mean something and don't come off as marketing.
And to the authors and editors, stop thinking you're celebrities. This is a particular peeve of mine, even online. These guys have a tendency to rub it in the face of the reader that they've gotten access to games before the reader. They seem think they're God's gift to gamers. Just focus on the damn games and stop trying to convince me you're cool.
I might even suggest raising the price of each issue for the sole purpose of reducing the number of ads. Perhaps it may make sense to go to a bi-monthly schedule. It means a longer wait, but it translates into more time to produce a quality issue.
That's the approach taken by some of the design magazines I subscribe and I always feel like each issue is worth the subscription. They're worth holding on to. Unlike most gaming magazines I see which are obnoxious crap barely worth picking up off the newsstand.
Like anything, if you want to be competitive you have to be a bit creative. Complaining about the competition while doing more of the same isn't going to fix the problem.
Many companies, especially the Japanese, seem to have this obsession with forcing their own standards on the consumer. Sony is one of the most notorious. And the problem isn't just with standalone formats like Blu-ray, UMD or MemorySticks. I got one of those small Sony tablet PCs from work a few years ago. The thing has a custom firewire port incorporates external power so that it uses a unique plug. Booting from a CD or floppy was an exercise in frustration. It refused to boot from any CD drive, requiring a USB floppy drive. However, the thing would only recognize specific Sony floppy drives during bootup.
More recently, researching HD camcorders I encountered more of this nonsense. Some camcorders, like the Canon I ultimately purchased support HDMI out. However because a standard HDMI port apparently isn't small enough a slightly smaller, HDMI port was created meaning I can't just go an use a standard HDMI cable. I think some even use proprietary ports. At least my camcorder has a standard hot shoe, because Sony camcorders use smaller proprietary hot shoes. The consumer is stuck with Sony for their accessories.
This same issues extends to codecs. Sony and Panasonic developed AVCHD for HD camcorders, presumably as a new standard. Except that Sony then went made a proprietary version of that codec. Then there are all the flash media formats and their subsets with no consistency whatsoever.
There's this obsession with developing a format that locks people into a single company, or worse, the unrealistic desire to have everyone else adopt a single company's standard. No one wants to pay the licensing to use someone else's closed standard
Obviously, it's their prerogative but it doesn't benefit the consumer at all. It ultimately hinders progress and true interoperability.
I played City of Heroes for a couple of years, from a few months after initial launch up until shortly after the launch of City of Villains. I experimented with a few alternate characters but I had reached level 45 with my main; 5 levels below the level 50 cap.
I got into the game on the recommendation of my brother and another friend of ours. I played Everquest years earlier for a few months, shortly after the first expansion. The demanding nature of that game, including the reliance on grouping burned me out quickly. What attracted me to CoH was the ability to solo and lack of reliance on gear. It was kind of like a socialist MMO.
What really hooked me was the pace of combat. The game gets really exciting during a fight; I don't think there's been another MMO yet that matches the pace of that game. It's as close to direct, active control as I've seen thus far. Apparently a new powerset is being introduced which even allows for combos.
Additionally, a lone hero could face a group of upwards of 5 foes and emerge victorious, depending on the class. It was fun to jump into the midst of some villains and beat the hell out of them all. So in that regard, it was a very satisfying game.
The pace of leveling was fairly quick but, like all other MMOs it still had considerable grind. And that's really where things broke down. There was nothing else to do but fight. Every single thing in the game revolve around beating up badguys. There were conditions for some missions, like clicking on glowing items, but even then it required getting past hordes of villains. Story was presented in dialog boxes; at the time there were no cutscenes. Alternative skills, comparable to blacksmithing in fantasy MMOs were finally introduced a few months ago. This was after years of promising they were coming soon.
Apparently the skill system was completely redesigned at least 3 times over because it was deemed to not be fun enough. I haven't played what was finally implemented but from what I've read I'm not impressed. It looks like it's merely an adaptation of the supergroup base item building feature.
The character customization is excellent, and probably still surpasses what's available in most other MMOs. Beyond that, however, there's only one way to improve a character. And that's through enhancements which is comparable to stats for other games. Basically, enemies "drop" these enhancements which are then applied to a character's powers. So a player can boost damage, or the power's secondary debuff effect. That was all well and good until the developers decided they didn't want people focusing on a single aspect of any given power. So, every power has 5 slots, if I remember correctly, but using more than two slots for the same boost was essentially a waste. This was supposed to encourage enhancement diversity but I think it resulted in standard ideal templates for specific powers.
There was also the incessant complaining by those who had chosen classes that were less effective solo who felt it was unfair that other classes could solo so effective. Nevermind the fact that the best solo builds weren't always well-suited for groups. So a lot of work went into addressing that with mixed results and to, I feel, the general detriment of the game.
Another problem I came to find with the game was the excessive reliance on templates for environmental design. Basically, upon entering a zone the first time a player had a good sense for how the rest of the zone looked. And many of those features were reused in most other zones. So where other MMOs have a varied and dynamic landscape City of Hero's was a bit contrived. It was tiring running through the same laboratory with a random, nonsensical layout for the 5th time in a few hours. Despite that, the art style was great. It was a lot of fun traveling amongst those skyscrapers. The game simply could have benefited from more variety.
One thing that was good about CoH/CoV was how Cryptic has maintained a close relationship with the players. They've n
I agree that the school should realized what they were getting into when they agreed to this design. But then it's also the responsibility of the architect to make the client aware of potential problems and do what they can in the design to avoid these problems. I suppose architect's lawyers should have put a clause in their contract absolving them from responsibility for any problems arising from this unconventional design.
However, the question is whether the problems arose from the design itself or from shoddy construction. I'd like to see construction companies being held more responsible for the messes they create. Right near work a road in the process of being repaved is already being torn up and those holes sloppily covered up. It's insane the kind of crap these companies get away with, especially when dealing with the government.
I don't understand exactly how such IDs would be a violation of our privacy. We already have such identification. The key distinction is that it's a scattered mess of documentation, spread across a driver's license, passport, social security card and who knows what else? How exactly is conveniently condensing all that information onto a single card an invasion of privacy?
Most of the rest of the world already uses similar ID cards in one form or another and I've seen no issues. This proposed card simply takes advantage of existing technologies to converge identification onto one card. The thing with current ID cards in other nations is that citizens still need separate driver's licenses and still need to carry passports when traveling overseas. But I know that some nations are already in the process of developing more sophisticated cards.
I suppose identity theft is a concern. Beyond that, however, what's the concern? So the police can identify a person more quickly with these cards than they can with the current system. I can't help but think people are getting worked up about something they're already living with.
I'm a lot more concerned about the trend I see with our government trying to control every aspect of our lives, for the so-called good of the people. A modernized form of ID is a non-event.
PC's do. Unfortunately, the PC games are now experiencing the same scrutiny console games have traditionally faced. Nevertheless, the last time I checked you can do or say anything you want with your PC. You can even find something to suit any gaming need if you dig enough. So I don't really see where freedom of speech is being hindered.
Now, if you want to make money exercising freedom of speech in some eccentric manner, don't be surprised if you don't earn much of a living off it. Developers make the games they do because it's current the safest, easiest way to make money. Parents have few reservations buying a Wii because it's perceived to be a kid-friendly console. You may see that as censoring free speech but Nintendo sees it as a great way to make money.
I think about the time 386/486 Intel processors came along and people started counting Mhz is when I began encountering games that were too demanding for my PC. However, considering that I was still young and thus didn't have the money to upgrade I was stuck. The difference to today, however, is that you could do a moderate upgrade and immediately have a machine that runs all the current games well.
I think one of the bigger limiting factors back then was if your machine still ran only CGA or EGA when games supporting VGA/MCGA entered the market. Or worse, a few years later when those 3DFX cards entered the market. By and large, however, I think developers tended to ensure that games at least ran well on current machines.
This isn't the case today. Developers seem to develop games specifically to overwhelm the top machines available today. It's like they all have this insane mindset that people are still going to be playing these games 2 or 3 years from now when the majority of consumers actually have PCs capable of running these games at full detail. The problem is, that the life-cycle of a game doesn't go much beyond 6 months, and that's even for a good one. So what's the point?
So it seems like developers want to turn their games into benchmarks for PC performance. This certainly seems to be the trend. Nowadays any game comes along that most current PCs cant handle and almost immediately it shows up in performance testing. I attribute some of this to sloppy programming, but I also get the impression that these developers find the most convoluted and inefficient way to produce some visual effect. It's like they're relying on the hardware to support their code.
What I don't get is how they're able to turn a profit. I go through cycles with my PC purchases, directly related to how my PC handles contemporary games. When I upgrade my PC I'll pick up a few games. I eventually start hitting a performance wall where my PC has trouble running a current game well, so my game purchasing stops. The thing is that the PC still does everything else exceedingly well, so I have no practical reason to upgrade. It's the situation I'm in now. I have a 3Ghz P4 that does everything extremely well, except play current games.
The last time I took a risk was with Supreme Commander. That turned out to be such a massive disappointment because of the utter crap performance that I uninstalled it within days. I might as well go back to playing Total Annihilation which provides just as much fun with suitably large armies and will still run flawlessly.
A lot of these new games certainly look impressive. But they don't really look that much better than, let's say Half Life 2, and that will run well on my PC. I'd be looking at a 300% expense over my current PC to net maybe a 25% improvement in quality. And then be screwed in 6 months when whatever comes out then failed to run at a suitable framerate on my new PC. And I'm skeptical about a $500 PC running anything available today acceptably well and with decent visual quality.
Nintendo has gone to absurd lengths to clean up their games, but honestly I think they're free to do as they please. Nintendo is a private company and if they decide they don't want offensive content available on their console its their prerogative. If, as a consumer, I have a problem with that practice, I'll buy a system from a company that doesn't put such restrictions on games. It's not like Nintendo was engaging in thought control or propaganda.
What I do have a problem with, however, is when the government starts deciding what should be censored. It's like the Fairness Doctrine. A lot of people are pushing it in an attempt to control conservative talk radio. That's all well and good, but the irony is that the doctrine came about originally during the anti-communist movement and then actually used against liberal talk shows. So this cuts both ways. You can't say you're for free speech provided it only suits your own opinions and desires. The last thing we need is more government control.
I have the right to dictate what I'm exposed to in my own house in the same way Nintendo can dictate the content for their consoles. Even if I agree that the extent to which Nintendo of America went to clean up their games was absolutely ridiculous. Although, I can't really say it business.
You're wrong about the working conditions in Japan. There has been a sense of loyalty, for lack of a better term, to employees. Specifically, companies would go out of their way to avoid firing an employee, even to the point of absurdity. If there was a problem employee, instead of outright firing them, the company would marginalize them, sticking them in some corner of the office, and keep them away from important work. They'd try to make the employee uncomfortable in the hope of driving them to quit.
Most benefits are provided by companies not because of their own altruism but because of government regulations. And if I'm not mistaken retirement is handled by the government, not corporations. In fact, I'm fairly certain Japanese companies pay fewer taxes than Americans do. Japanese do so well, however, not because of government assured benefits. They've done well because they're renown for saving their money. Well, this was the case with the older generation. Young people are huge consumers. The advantage Japan has is that they have so much disposable income. Despite the high price of many goods there many consumer products, like electronics and cars are cheaper there than in the US.
That said, it can be hell working at a Japanese company. Many managers are outright abusive. They openly yell at employees, and it wouldn't be the first time they've gotten physical. Verbal sexual harassment is practically a way of life. I have friends who've experienced all kinds of abuse first hand. It's also expected employees are going to give their all to the company. It's possible to be ostracized if an employee isn't as committed as his coworkers. Needless to say, few Americans would tolerate this regardless of the benefits.
What has made Japan so successful is not the benefits. It's the work-ethic. Japanese are hard workers. They take their job seriously, regardless of the position. Walk into a McDonald's in Japan and it spotless, service is excellent and the food is prepared consistently. They don't have the resentment many Americans seem to have. In Japan people expect that they have to work their way up. I've seen people do the bare minimum to keep their job then complain about how much more they should be earning and how unfair the system is.
There are a lot of problems facing the US automakers, from management's atrocious decision making all the way down to stifling union mandates. One thing that screwed the US automakers in their relationship with unions was that they actually promised too much. Back when business was great for the Americans, due to a lack of real competitions, their benefits were actually quite generous. They established that pattern of expectation so that when business got back and they needed to cut back they found it difficult to do so. And this is why they're stuck paying all those retirement benefits.
And Walmart is crap. But that fake Wii controller is no surprise nor is it anything new. This sort of thing is prevalent in Asia. It sucks, but in some ways it does foster competition.
Years ago I used to enjoy cut scenes. I always looked forward to them and felt cheated when a game which offered some sort of story didn't have them. However, in the intervening years my expectations have changed. I now find them a source of frustration when they cant be skipped and instead become an impediment to me playing the game.
This seems to be especially problematic with Japanese games where the developer is intent on forcing the player to sit through the story. It's particularly frustrating when cutscenes are comprised of text dialog. One remarkably aggravating example was Okami. I recall seeing this game for the first game and become intensely aggravated at the opening cutscenes. A introduction that could have been told in 3 minutes was dragged out to perhaps 30. I was ready to shut off the console because the intro was even done. The annoying voices didn't help either. Although, I think it was otherwise a good game, but I doubt I'd have the patience to play it a big reason being those cutscenes.
"I get it! You've crafted this wonderful, unique game world. Stop beating me over the head with it!"
I think one of the few genres well suited to extensive story telling is the adventure. The story was an integral part of the gameplay. There was no need to interrupt the player because it was the player himself progressing the story. While I enjoy RPGs and have played some with great stories I don't think those are quite as conducive to storytelling because these games tend to be broken up into very distinct components and gameplay generally consists of very repetitive activities broken up by storytelling elements.
I think this has become more of an issue in recent years because of the more realistic nature of current games. When a player is interacting with a somewhat realistic game world certain expectations are formed. When an NPC blocks a doorway for the sake of telling a story or a player's actions are restricted in some way it feels unnatural and becomes a source of frustration.
Without a doubt it's possibly to tell a story effectively in any game, but it's very difficult. More often than not developers don't do it well. But the absolute worst thing a developer can do is to force the player to sit through cutscenes with no option at all to skip it.
Having played on the Wii a good bit now has convinced me that it isn't the revolutionary next step people claim it to be. Sure, it's got some great games and the controller is quite entertaining. The Wii, for me has provided a gaming experience no different from that offered by the Gamecube. What has made the console so approachable to non-gamers is not the controller but rather Nintendo's marketing and their game design. The controller may allow for some flexibility with game design, but not to the profound extent some believe.
Nintendo has sold the Wii, and to a lesser extent the DS, as being for non-gamers. And reinforcing this message they've developed games like Brain Age and Wii Sports. It's not that an Xbox360 or a PS3 couldn't be suitable to non-gamers, even without a fancy controller. It's that Microsoft and Sony haven't marketed their system as such, especially Sony. Recent marketing seems to indicate that Microsoft is trying to appeal to that market. Unfortunately, they don't yet have the sort of games yet that to that demographic.
Graphics certainly aren't the ultimate determining factor in whether a game is any good. I'm not looking for games to be photo-realistic and in fact, while impressive I find games done in that style to be quite bland. On the other hand, in this day and age I expect graphics to look crisp, especially coming from a PC gaming background. I can't tolerate a pixelated, hazy mess. I find it irritating that my DS isn't capable of doing much more than Doom-era 3D graphics. It apparently is completely incapable of doing transparencies in 3D, hence the lame particle effects.
One thing that strikes me about PS3 graphics is how impressive they are in person. It's at a point where they look like the touched up promotional graphics developers release during production. Although, I concede that doesn't change the fact that there aren't many compelling games available for the console. Those capabilities, however, do ensure that the PS3 will have better longevity than the Wii, provided good games are released soon.
This is not to put down the Wii at all. I think the Wii demonstrates Nintendo's commitment to a basic concept They entered this generation with a clear message and have stuck to it. They were willing to develop an unconventional controller. And they marketed their system well. Of course it helps that they also have their own game development division which does phenomenal work. Even if the Wii didn't have that controller it would likely still do well because of the games.
I think everyone will agree, it's the games that make the system.
I think Americans are a lot more pragmatic with their consumer technology. They're generally only willing to adopt some bit of technology once its fairly well established. This means the technology has been proven, its reasonably reliable and its a well-supported standard.
People in Asia jump all over any bit of new technology. They're a lot more willing to embrace anything new, whether or not it's actually any good. As far as Europe is concerned, I don't really think they're all that different from the US. And my impression from my family there is that they're reluctant to go out and get anything cutting-edge because things there are generally so expensive.
Look at Blu-ray and HD-DVD. Most people are reluctant to adopt either format because they don't want to be stuck with an unsupported format in a few years. Or lets say televisions in public places. When I was in Taiwan a few years ago wide-screen flat panel displays were installed throughout the subway system; they had a good dozen or two at most stations running nothing but advertising. Sure, it's cool, but is it necessary? Not really. Why spend $2000 on a flat-panel display when a $500 standard television serves the same function?
A good example is the little known, at least in the US, format VCD. For those who dont know it was basically a CD with an mpeg file on it. These showed up between the VHS and DVD eras. In Asia, however they were huge. But they were pointless. The image quality was no better than VHS and most movies came on two CDs. There was some convenience over tape but not enough to justify the transition. DVDs offered a more tangible improvement.
A lot of this technology is compelling merely because it isn't available to Americans. Often times when we finally have access to these products here they turn out not to be anything special. I think the only segment America truly lags in is in the mobile phone market. However, as long as service providers maintain their grip on the market that isn't going to change.
I'm curious to know in what part of the country people are having a hard time finding a Wii. Here in the Northeast Wii are everywhere. I can go into any retailer and find plenty. Target has had a good 10 boxes on the shelves since the middle of the summer. It's essentially the same at Walmart. The other retailers are also consistently stocked up. It doesn't seem to be any different in neighboring states.
At this point I can pretty much go into any store around here and find one. If anything I'd say there are fewer DS's available. They're everywhere too, but the supplies for DS's seem to run lower than the Wii.
By no means do I point this out to claim that the Wii isn't selling well. I'm simply surprised that people apparently still have trouble finding them.
And I don't understand the need to tear down the Xbox360. Halo 3 spurs sales of the Xbox360 and somehow it's spun into a bad thing. You'd think every Wii came packaged with a bar of gold the way people lavish praise on that system. I get the impression that many Wii games are from more negative reviews merely because of the unconventional control scheme. The game is crap, but I can wave this controller around to do stuff and thus it's not actually that bad a game.
I've played the Wii a bit at a friend's house. It's a lot of fun, but honestly, I don't really see it being any more fun than any of the other consoles. To many of the games for the Wii seem to be little more than flash games with fancy graphics. When comparing price value you can't beat a Wii, but it's not the revolutionary console some make it out to see.
I'm not really a Halo fan, not having played the previous games, and I have a tendency to get bored with FPS games. I really have no desire at all to get an Xbox360, or any of the other consoles for that matter, but then I'm probably not the guy developers are trying to sell to. Nevertheless, it's only reasonable to give credit where it's due. Halo 3 is a damn good game.
I hope Capcom remains faithful to the 2D gameplay. I'm not against full 3D characters, however, if they take an approach similar to Nintendo's New Super Mario Bros on the DS. We're at a point with 3D graphics where characters can be made detailed enough that they could pass for 2D sprites. And this way we enjoy the benefit of extremely fluid animation.
If they do go with 2D sprites I hope we get high-resolution artwork with animation on the level of a good anime. But given the considerable amount of production required for all that animation I'd say 3D on a 2D plane is the way to go.
There's a big problem design in general faces. It's seriously undervalued. And I think the problem stems from accessibility. Desktop publishing has inspired a revolution in design, but at the same time it's been very detrimental to the industry.
It has made design tools pervasive. It's created this attitude that good design is something anyone can do provided they know how to use to the software. It's completely screwed with expectations on the part of clients. Some guy in sales believes it should take me a day to lay out a 24 page brochure because he knows how to type a report in Word and import a few pictures. He's convinced he could produce the same layout as I; he hires me because he doesn't have the time for it himself.
These guys also are convinced they understand the nuances of design merely because they browse the web. I can't count the times I've had clients tell me they want the design of the Apple site but they've got the content of Slashdot to fit on the page.
The accessability of design has allowed anyone to get into design. This means you've got hacks working along side of true professionals. For someone who's looking to cut costs they're going to have a hard time seeing why a company charging $20,000 for a web design is that much better than a guy working at home charging $2,000. They may be convinced of a difference in quality, but they'll have a hard time justifying the price difference. It's kind of like the guys who outsource work in order to get some cost savings but end up spending more in the long run just trying to manage the mess that inevitably ensues.
So what's the inevitable result? They're underpaid. Despite the amount of experience, research, planning and production that has to go into a sound design not many are willing to really pay for it. At least they aren't paid on the level of other professionals.
Contrast this IT and programmers. To the average business man what those guys do seems to be voodoo. They don't get it and they don't even want to try. I've known guys earning a handy sum of money while enjoying a 3-day work week. I've known guys who pretty much sat around all day, and others which had horrendous attitudes but they all got by fine because of the mystique of their work. They may end up getting screwed in the long run but while they had the work they were doing better than a designer in a comparable position.
Of course those kinds of employees are the exception. I'm not suggesting people in IT are overpaid. I know a developer who's been working half as long as I have and is already earning more than I do. And he deserves every penny because he's a phenomenal programmer. But the point is that a good designer has as demanding a job and doesn't get compensated as well for it.
But that's the nature of the work. If a designer wants to earn more they have to get into art direction or management. That only comes with experience and at that point you're not really considering a designer anyway.
And I agree that a lot of web designers out there don't really have a good sense of web design. They put art above functionality. But then many of the programmers I've worked with don't have a good sense for interface design either. They'll create something that's convoluted and bloated with features. As much as people like to criticize Microsoft applications they inevitably create something that pretty much has the same exact feel. Good layout design can be challenging.
To be honest, I've always believed if Nintendo and others truly wanted to appeal to casual gamers they'd be developing games for the PC. Perhaps not so much in Japan, but certainly elsewhere in Asia, the US and Europe.
PCs are so pervasive that it makes the barrier of entry into gaming quite low. I've known countless people with no interest in gaming whatsoever by intrigued by some game they've found online. The important thing is to make system requirements anywhere as demanding as they are for most mainstream PC games. It sure would be nice if Nintendo produced a USB version of the Wii controller.
I think the occasional swear is perfectly fine. It doesn't bother me in the least and I've sworn myself more times than I can count. However, I also think there are many situations where it's inappropriate. I wouldn't do it in front of a client, for example.
I do believe it can be cathartic. But from personal experience once swearing gets abused, let's say when under stress, it also seems to aggravate the frustration. It's like stewing in anger.
And it's too easy for this to be turned into a habit. The last thing I need is to have every second word spoken by fuck or shit. Like it or not it makes a person seem immature and uncultured when swearing is abused.
They could definitely let that guy jump. Just have him jump as high as a real life human does instead of the superhuman 30ft jumps Mario pulls off. It wouldn't negate the need for that bionic arm at all.
It's kind of funny how this guy somehow seemed crippled compared to his video game brethren because of his inability to jump.
Some may already be aware of this but there has been a Warcraft comic book out for some time now published by TokyoPop: Warcraft: The Sunwell Trilogy
I haven't read the story but the artwork is quite cool, at least if you're into that anime style, I suppose.
I might suggest paying me a visit then. In my area Target has consistently had a good 10 Wii's in the case since the middle of the summer. Walmart has been fairly well stocked up as well. As for other retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City, I haven't been there in a while, but I assume they've all got plenty.
I just assumed Nintendo has finally ramped up production, but it could certainly be an indication that demand has declined somewhat.
I think the problems Valve is having with episodic gaming are fairly obvious.
First, build a robust graphics engine and don't touch it at all over the course of the series. I don't really understand why people at Valve felt the need to start tinkering with the graphics engine for each episode. In essence what they've done is build a new game each time.
Secondly, I think they should be working off templates. From what I've seen it looks like the Half-Life episodes feature distinct environments from the original. That's all well and good, but it's going to increase production time dramatically. At the very least I'd say important assets should be produced during initial development so that it's ready to go once it's time to be featured.
Third, I think the series should be thoroughly planned well in advance. This means building out the story far in advance and possibly beginning work on some of that content from the start.
If they were developing standalone sequels this all would be irrelevant. However, if they claim to be producing episodic content they need to be prepared to release that content on a regular basis. Episodes should be released every 3 to 4 months, at the longest. Certainly not once a year.
I think they should look to MMOs as a guide on how to offer new content on a regular basis. One of the better examples I can think of this is City of Heroes. In the early days they were releasing two, sometimes three expansions per year. They weren't always significant, and heavily relied on templates, but it meant new content on a regular basis. They broke everything up into manageable pieces. It also helped that they basically had a bible that provided more than enough foundation for anything they might want to add to the game. From what I've read things have grown significantly more complicated since then, but for a time it seemed to work well.
Valve has been too ambitious with each episode. If they wanted to put this much effort into the episodes they might as well have just packaged these into a single game and offered it as a sequel.
There seems to be something that many people here are overlooking. Regardless of whether or not relatively primitive technology can defeat all this high-tech equipment is irrelevant because the United States is actually testing it on a real battlefield. It really seems like the military is testing every piece of hardware they can get their hands on in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't already F22s flying around out there.
It's a unique opportunity that few other military powers have had access too. It's one thing to predict your weapon will do something, but even live fire exercises are no substitute for actual combat applications. And I'm not just talking about equipment here. Certainly they're getting a ton of experience in tactics, especially urban warfare.
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if the US government doesn't enter into wars every few years to keep the whole military machine nice and lubricated.
Nowadays it seems like anytime someone proposes an ambitious project inevitably people start complaining about one thing or another, usually money.
This isn't about money, it's about progress. I might agree that it could make more sense to go with a TGV-like system as opposed to Maglev. On the other hand, the only way to refine Maglev technology is to actually use it. Someone needs to be the early adopter.
One thing I always admired about Asia when I was living there was that when they decided they wanted something built they just did it. Not that there sometimes weren't problems, but they did it. They didn't drag their feet, they didn't waste an excessive amount of time on impact studies.
Now being back here in the New York area I find the lack of progress quite depressing. We're stuck riding on an antiquated rail line managed by a corrupt company. This is a company which proudly proclaims that their trains are only 5 minutes late. The times listed on schedules are there only to differentiate the trains, not to actually inform anyone on what time they're supposed to arrive. And that's when a train's contacts dont get snagged on power lines and pull a few down which seems to happen at least once a year.
Politicians around here do nothing but pay lip-service to alleviating traffic problems. But it's not all their fault. We've also got the problem that the rail line is running through one of the most affluent counties in the nation. And those residents will be damned if they see any kind of development that could somehow change their idyllic little world. That's despite the reality that the problems we're having are already adversely affecting them.
So hats off to Germany for being so ambitious. I'd really like to see more of that here.
Why exactly would a game be inherently better than a movie for the horror genre? Hell, a novel could be just as effective as either one of those mediums.
It comes down to good writing. The reason most horror movies aren't particularly effective is because the writing is such garbage. If these writes were to produce scripts for games those games would be equally ineffective at being scary.
If anything, I'd argue that it's easier to make a good horror movie than it is to produce a scary game. It's very easy to manage pacing in a movie. The entire thing is nicely packaged and the director has complete control over the movie. With a game, in addition to the underlying plot a creator has to be concerned with how the gamer interacts with the game. How to convey the proper atmosphere and provide appropriate challenges without making the game tedious.
Ultimately, this is the problem I've found with nearly all horror games, including the Resident Evil series. The game hits a point where they're wandering back and forth trying to find something, or are given these odd tasks for the sake of providing some level of gameplay ultimately reminding me that I'm just playing a game. With a movie or a novel, I know it's fake, but I don't have to worry about some gameplay mechanic disrupting the experience and thus it's easier for me to become engrossed in the story.