Business people turn everything into shit. We've got people who don't understand a thing about what they're selling making all the decisions. They're not engineers or designer who rose through the ranks, having intimate knowledge of what the company does. They're a bunch of suits with MBA degrees hired specifically to run the company. They're driven by one thing and its not producing a quality product, nor is it changing the market, nor is it innovation; they're driven by money.
And if they don't show healthy growth within the next few months the stock market reacts negatively. All these jerks want money in their pockets right now, instead of looking at the long-term health of a company.
Certainly the reality is a lot more complicated than that, but I think this is one of the core problems. It's why we see garbage coming from the game industry, and this problem is reflected in other industries.
The screenshots for the new game look pretty nice, but in this day and age it's nothing special. That isn't a bad thing, it just means that the gameplay has to be pretty damn good.
Unfortunately, from what I've seen of screenshots so far it looks like the game is going to play pretty much like the previous Tomb Raiders; it's just more of the same.
The only reason I see this game enjoying any success is because the lead character is hot. Some guys will have a good time staring at her rear all day. It's interesting to compare her to Samus from Metroid who doesn't need to run around half-naked to get the job done.
Not that I don't mind staring at the new Lara myself, but still...
What the Chinese government fails to realize is that their current prosperity is due almost completely to foreign investment. They think they've become an influential force, but lets be honest, the rest of the developed world is using them for personal financial gain.
I'm not saying that they don't have the motivation or capability to become a superpower, simply that they aren't their yet and they need to wake up and realize that they need the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs them.
There's another nation with 1 billion people starting to see it's own level of prosperity; India. From what I've read they're quite eager to become an economic power themselves. China certainly has a headstart, but India will become a serious competitor in the coming years. Then there's southeast Asia which is slowly recovering from the economic disaster of the 90s, and South America, who needs to get its act together. If China continues to make things difficult for corporations they'll just take their money elsewhere.
It's not surprising at all that Sony and Microsoft didn't have much of a showing. From my experience in Taiwan no one really cares much for consoles. For the most part they don't have the disposable income that Japanese do, and those that do generally aren't into gaming. If they're going to spend money on something, they're going to invest in a machine that does more than just play games. They're also more technically inclined than the Japanese are. A Japanese person normally wants to plug something in and have it running straight away. A Taiwanese guy, on the other hand, likes to be able to tinker with their machine.
Hence the popularity of consoles in Japan and the overwhelming popularity of PCs in Taiwan. Inevitably, developers focus on PCs. One big advantage is that the development costs are lower and there isn't all that licensing nonsense that console developers have to deal with.
So the big thing has been RPGs and especially MMORPGs designed with the isometric, Diablo-style look. There are a couple of 3d games out there, but given that not everyone is running the kind of hardware we get here, and it's far worse in China, they need to ensure these games are playable on slow machines. Taiwanese are in a better situation to develop games that appeal to the Chinese market than most others since they have a better understanding of what appeals there. And since they pretty much go wherever they think they can earn money, they've gone nuts developing for the Chinese market.
There have been a number of Korean games which have been very popular, and it's my understanding that the Korean market isn't vastly different. World of Warcraft has also been very popular, so has Starcraft and a few other RTS's for that matter. In Taiwan, like South Korea, a lot of these guys go to gaming cafes.
As for Sony not releasing the PS3 because of concerns of piracy, thats just nonsense. I don't think anyone would care enough to pirate games for that console and most pirated stuff is coming from Hong Kong, and probably originally from China. The problem with the PS3 is that it just isn't going to sell very well. The PSP sold for a while because it was trendy and people expected it could do more than just play games.
As for this guy who visited this show, he reminds me of the kinds of idiot foreigners I used to see when I was living in Taiwan. It's embarassing and they give the rest of us foreigners a bad name.
But that show is pretty much what I expected from Taiwan. They call it international, but it excessively emphasizes the local market, it's a bit haphazard and the Taiwanese companies don't understand the first thing about having a good brand identity, nor are they willing to spend a cent on it. But that's a whole other story...
I find it absolutely absurd that anyone would claim the US is as bad, or worse even, than China as far as human rights is concerned. American citizens have a right, in fact a responsibility to always be aware and in fact question what the US government is doing. Blindly following the government, like so many in China do, is dangerous.
It's ridiculous that people would compare the US to China. I feel like people here like to dream up these crazy threats from the government. When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions. When was the last time the FBI showed up at someone's house simply for running a blog criticizing the US government?
Don't twist the truth here by pointing out protesters who've been jailed. They were jailed for breaking specific reasons, demonstrating without a warrant, vandalism, or other such activities.
Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism, not because they were simply anti-American. You may not agree with what the government is doing, but there are specific reasons why they're doing this. Rest assured that China would be far, far more aggressive in this regard. These guys are our prisoners and soldiers are going out of their way to make them feel comfortable.
All the sites I've ever seen against this administation specifically are still up and running, one of the most prominent in the past having been moveon.org.
These sites aren't allowed to exist in China. Period. Those guys at moveon.org would have had the site up a week before they were found themselves in prison and likely tortured.
What about all the farmers negected by the Chinese government, who've been forced to protest in order to be heard, and now their voices are being trampled by their own government.
I'm not even going to bother getting into this China appeasement crap. What Google and Microsoft are doing is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. It's even more absurd that the US and worse, the United Nations refuse to recognize a soverign nation like Taiwan because China demands it.
The Chinese do have one thing that many Americans today lack. That's nationalistic pride. The Chinese are willing to do what it takes to get ahead in the World; the average Chinese citizen is far more likely to defend China's actions than any American would be. Many Americans are far more critical of the US government, and in fact, are quickly to defend foreign nations than they are their own.
I wouldn't be surprised if over the next hundred years China grows to be a real superpower and the US is relegated to the second-class status that Europe currently enjoys. Let's see if the Chinese government turns out anything like the US. People criticize the US and what it does around the world, but rest assured that many other nations, and I expect China as well, would be far, far worse.
I haven't yet bought an MP3 online and I don't plan to. I'd much rather buy a CD where I have something physical that I can hold onto for years. I make MP3s from it, allowing me to listen, conveniently, to all my music at work or on my iPod. I don't have to put any wear on the CD either by playing it or carrying it around everywhere, but I've always got the CD on hand if I do want to pop it into a CD player. And I don't have the hassle of having to back up MP3s, if it's even possible with they way their use is restricted.
I made the copies for my own convenience. I almost never copy anything for anyone else and if I get my hands on some MP3s I really like I go online and order the CD.
But then I don't listen to popular music at all; anything close to mainstream I completely avoid. And after years of buying CDs and occassionally ending up with crap, I no go out of my way to ensure that at least half the music on the CD I enjoy. So far I haven't really encountered any copy-protection nonsense, but we'll see how long that lasts.
Of course, the more I see this sort of bullshit from the RIAA the less I want to buy music. Why should I have to buy multiple copies of the same music? It's simply about convenience. I've got a PC, cd player at home and in my car, and an mp3 player. Why shouldn't I be able to transfer my music amongst all these platforms?
Every time some new technology is developed people talk like it's going to be a great enabler. It's going to make things easier for everyone, without any of the hassles we've dealt with in the past. Until the scumbags show up, suddenly everything we use is crippled, hindered by absurd licensing agreements, restrictive contracts and all kinds of ridiculous fees and charges that border on extortion. If there's any way to make a few extra cents these companies will figure out how to do it. Kind of like the mobile phone industry in the US.
The RIAA can go to hell for all I care. Unfortunately, by trying to screw the music industry, it's not the executives who feel it, it's all the regular people like the rest of us who feel the consequences. Regardless, something needs to be done about this sort of garbage.
Just because they're unconventional doesn't mean they aren't games. There are countless games that lack win conditions or a measure of progress in the traditional sense.
At the most basic level a game is played for some kind of emotional feedback triggered by the player's actions, ideally it's positive feedback, usually as stress relief or as an escape I suppose.
Those DS games are great, but let's not blow things out of proportion here.
I've noticed for years that most console games follow a predictable pattern. The same enemies are always going to be in the same place every time a player runs through a level. These games perform predetermined actions actions at set times. PC games have generally offered more randomization and AI. I assume it's due to a lack processing power in consoles.
In recent years that has changed, but console developers still seem to have the habit of resorting to predictable patterns. While it adds a puzzle-type element to games it does make the game feel less dynamic. It probably requires less effort on the part of the developer and likely is easier to ensure good gameplay balance.
Anyway, seeing these patterns in those old games, while somewhat interesting, is no surprise. It also means that players are likely to handle encounters in generally the same way as there is really little effective alternative. There is generally an single optimal way through a game. Deviate from that path and you'll be met with varying levels of success, or failure.
I've been playing games with "soul" for years. One of the earliest examples I can recall are the early Sierra games, before they turned into the generic crap we've seen in recent years. Those stories were entertaining and very effecting; even though those characters consisted of blocky sprites I felt more attached to them than any character I've played in the last 5 years, despite all the graphical advances.
I can't really think of anything recent that stands out. Morrowind and the expansions impressed me. A lot of effort went into the game, and it shows, but the experience was lifeless. I experience wonder at the world the developers had crafted, but I felt no connection to the characters and didn't feel any emotion at all. It's similar to every MMORPG I've tried. Most are very impressive and some show a strong sense of style, but in the end they're nothing but elaborate theme parks. At least in Elder Scrolls the world did change based on my character's actions.
Now, this isn't to say I haven't been entertained. I've played numerous games which I've found to be extremely enjoyable. When it comes down to it a game doesn't need "soul" to be entertaining, it needs fun gameplay. Nintendo, for example has cornered the market in excellent gameplay, but there isn't much substance beyond that. A game which has both can truly be a superb game. Unfortunately, as I look at what few games I have on my CD rack, and try to recall all the others I've played, there isn't much of anything I can call a memorable game on all counts in the past 5 to 10 years. I have to go further back to find games that have truly stuck in my mind through the years.
I find it funny that the creator of God of War is calling for soul. I don't think God of War is an example of such a game. It's an entertaining game, with some impressive visuals and certainly has a characteristic style, but by no means does it have anything as profound as a soul. My first impression of the developers when I saw the game was that they consisted of the same generic breed of developers producing most games today. They're obsessed with brutal violence and sex. God of War just happens to have a somewhat different wrapping from most other games on the market. In fact, having seen the production videos unlocked upon finishing the game reinforced those impressions to some extent.
While they seemed to truly enjoy what they were creating they were still approaching the game from the same generic concepts that drive most contemporary games. I feel like current game developers all have the same exact kind of personality, they've had the same exact kind of exposure to American pop culture. It's all guns, demons with exposed internal organs, soldiers, explosions, guns, huge-breasted vixens, elves, dwarves, guns and more guns.
Of course there's no "soul" in games. Because "soul" is risky. It doesn't guarantee strong sales. But go with the generic themes and a developer is more than likely to satisfy the wet dreams of the average teenager. The more they produce the same old mediocre games, the more consumers expect and ultimately demand mediocrity. It's a viscious cycle. Consumers are only as smart as what the advertisers tell them. And companies certainly don't want smart consumers.
The thing is a piece of crap. Well, it's a neat bit of technology, fun to show off to friends, but otherwise it's essentially useless. First of all, the thing requires 8 hours in full sunlight to fully charge the internal battery. Secondly, the instruction manual insists that the unit be placed in direct sunlight, unobstructed by glass. This essentially means that for the thing to operate at full efficiency it needs to be sitting outside.
Another problem is that if you live in the higher latitudes not only do you have shorter days, but you get reduced sunlight. The thing is rendered useless. I had the thing sitting out all day when I got it and I don't think it even was able to charge the battery halfway.
The device comes with a plug so that you can charge it the traditional way, but of course this defeats the purpose of the device.
It's like the hybrids. Right now they're more of a fashion statement then anything, especially the Prius. Notice how that car is far outselling any of the other hybrids. Not because it's any better, but because it looks cooler. It looks like a hybrid whereas the Civic hybrid looks like any other Civic and the Ford Escape hybrid looks like even less like an alternative fuel vehicle.
If people really cared about fuel efficiency they'd be clamoring for 1.2 liter gasoline or diesel cars like those available in Europe that easily get 60+ mpg without all the complicated crap the hybrids have. Of course Americans, in particular, don't want to feel like they're driving an anemic economy car. Enter the hybrids which offer the thrust of a larger engine with somewhat improved economy. As usual we need to deal with the stupidity of the consumer who cares more about fashion and ego than they care about anything else.
Hybrids are essentially an elaborate hackjob, an interim step to a truly alternative fuel vehicle. They get their fuel savings partly from the near regenerative braking system, but mainly from the fact that they're equiped with a small gasoline engine. The goal in driving those cars is to keep the gasoline engine off as long as possible. In all the ferver regarding avoiding fossil fuel vehicles I think people have neglected how polluting batteries and many of those electrical components can be.
I'm all for exploring alternative fuels. And I think their use should be encouraged, and perhaps forced in some cases. But we also need to be a bit realistic. There are far more practical and more cost-efficient options available.
I've yet to see any of the browsers I use render that properly, including Explorer, Firefox and Safari. Firefox does a better job than Explorer and Safari might have been the best of the three. But what does it matter when Safari screws up sites that show up fine on the other browsers. The fact that one test shows displays properly ends up being a bit irrelevant.
So much for standards. The problem is that everyone wants their own "standard" to be the standard.
I think it's pointless to have an article covering the evolution of game controllers then including a controller we don't know much about and know even less about how it's really going to be used.
And that's not to mention that this article talks about "evolution" but then presents controllers which are all essentially the same exact thing but merely molded to different shapes and sizes. The most different controllers are the Atari 2600 and 5200 designs and whether those are evolutionary designs is questionable.
The Revolution controller is basically a NES controller reformatted to look like a standard remotre control. The internal functionality, of course, allows for far more, but the external design, despite being attractive and minimalist is fairly mundane.
I think it's the games that need to evolve to properly exploit any innovative controller designs. I think designing a different controller is insufficient to spur most developers to try anything. I don't doubt Nintendo will exploit that controller to it's fullest extent, but whether anyone else will bother is questionable. I'm still not convinced that the Revolution controller will inherently spark some innovation in gaming.
You're a bit mistaken. Take2 Interactive, which owns Rockstar games is British. Vivendi which now owns Blizzard is french. Blizzard, however, was an American company and technically they still are, except for the division based in Canada. Ubisoft is French, but that doesn't mean their developers are.
Which brings me to another point, Take2, Vivendi and Ubisoft, like EA are primarily publishers not developers. The vast majority of actual game development does come from the US or Japan. Hence all the attention they get.
Not to take anything from the Europeans. One of the more prominent releases developed in Europe was Battlefield 2 and there's plenty coming from British developers.
I blame the kind of idiot ricer culture depicted in movies like the trash 2fast 2furious and to a lesser extent games like NFS Underground. Although, I wouldn't put it past some kids to be so stupid to try to live what they've experienced in games.
These kids are getting their hands on driver's licenses too easily and parents are far too irresponsible letting them get their hands on cars. The ricer culture encourages this whole bad-ass attitude. You pull ahead of one of these kids and they take it as a cue to race, regardless of how heavy traffic is, the weather or what neighborhood they're driving through.
Barely a few weeks go by without a story being on the news about some kid smashing into someone or something. Around where I live the city planted small trees down several avenues to beautify the city. Week after week I drive past tree stumps left behind by the imbecels who couldn't handle crappy 89 Accord with cut springs and an obnoxious exhaust.
The other serious problem I've is a complete and utter lack of understanding on the part of so many people regarding what a car can or cant do. I've seen kids smash up their parent's cars and they blame the car for the accident. The car had bad brakes, poor tires or some other such nonsense instead of realizing that its their child's driving inexperience and poor decision making which caused the accident. So they go out and buy the kid a new, more expensive vehicle. Quite a nice way to teach a lesson.
Idiot parents are going to expect the government to raise their kids for them yet again. I think what the government needs to do is make it much, much harder to get a driver's license.
A driver should be required to have a basic understanding of how a vehicle operates, and what to expect in hazardous conditions or during emergency maneuvers. Larger vehicles, like SUVs, should require special licenses with additional training.
The prospective driver should be expected to ay for all this out of their own pocket so that they better understand the value of a driver's license. Of course that raises a few concerns, but anything that makes it harder for the average idiot to get in the driver's seat is a good thing.
The problem with the vast majority of indie games is that they just lack to polish necessary to make them serious contenders. I realize that in same cases these developers simply lack the resources to properly refine their games. Even when they have a strong concept however, they often seem to lack the necessary understanding of what makes for good gameplay.
I cant count the times I've played a game with frustrating control schemes, or unrefined interfaces, or atrocious graphics. I think anyone capable of producing professional quality games ends up working in the gaming industry, either because they find a job with a developer or because they get acquired by someone.
Creating even a simple game and making it work is difficult. Look at mobile phone gaming. There are plenty of unknown developers giving it a try and most are producing absolute crap. You'd think they would be able to produce some neat stuff on a relatively simple platform but they don't.
I'm all for supporting indie developers, and there's some neat stuff out there, but most of it really isn't all that good.
Intelligent design and creationism have their place in schools, but it sure as hell isn't the science class where these concepts should be discussed. Those discussion belong in theology classes and I don't like how this is being forced on the public. I think the underlying agenda behind pushing ID is to make religion more relevant. It's like they're trying to somehow prove that God exists, and that it's a christian God at that.
On the other hand, some people seem to be making blanket statements like all Christians are pushing ID. The Vatican has stated that the church supports evolution. It's primarily fundamentalist christians in the US, the sort of people who take the bible literally and who seem to congregate at those super churches, who are pushing this. That's an important distinction.
I also have to note that I find it a bit obnoxious with some atheists holier-than-thou attitude towards those who believe in God. Given that it's impossible for anyone to prove the existence of a higher being the religious are just as justified in their beliefs as are the atheists.
I have to agree... I played the City of Villains beta up to about level 12 and except with some minor differences it was essentially the same exact thing as City of Heroes.
I also intensely dislike how they reuse models and environments. The office environment is identical in CoV and CoH, the only difference is the color scheme. It also gets tiring travelling through the city and seeing the same few buildings repeated over and over again.
It's a theme consistent throughout the game. The game is gets very repetative and there's no way to improve a character other than reaching the next level and either getting a few enhancement slots or choosing a new power. The lack of loot has its positives, but it also means there's no way to improve a character outside of levelling.
Skills which have been promised since the early days of CoH still aren't close to being ready. They've been completely revamped 3 times already because the developers felt the system they had wasn't fun enough. Considering all the delays, whenever those skills are finally introduced they'd better be amazing, superior to anything ever seen before.
CoH/CoV are great games, and City of Villains certainly improves things somewhat, but they really lack the kind substance necessary to keep players hooked.
Want to keep their weight down? Have students sweep and clean school grounds every morning like they do in much of Asia. This will have other benefits beyond just getting exercise, in the very least you'll save money and keep the school clean. Put them through a more rigorous exercise program than the useless nonsense that passes for gym class. Obviously the existing system has its problems if they continue having obesity problems, and a bunch of video games wont change this.
How about teaching them dancing for real? It's a hell of a lot more effective than bouncing around like a fool on a giant pad and it will actually be useful outside of that game.
Where the hell do they find the people who run these schools?
I find what Google is doing despicable. Google should be heavily fined for helping China to promote the oppression and censorship of it's people. Unfortunately, industrialized nations are so wet in their pants for China that they're willing to do anything to earn that country's business.
What I find even more absurd is that there are people actually defending this. I'd like to know if people would be so tolerant if another company, Microsoft for example, had done the same. I also wonder if people would be so tolerant if the US, especially under the current administration, were doing this. People sure are freaking out about wire tapping when its something that wont affect 99% of the public and can be argued is truly for national security. In China a forum like slashdot would never be allowed to even exist and its creators would likely be jailed.
I really don't understand this overwhelming desire to appease China. Just like the idiots at the UN deciding one day that a soverign nation like Taiwan will no longer be recognized because China said so.
The Chinese government must be riding high on all this attention, as well as the tiny percentage of the population getting rich while the vast majority remain oppressed and in utter poverty. Google, countless other corporations and governments around the world are pathetic for allowing this sort of thing to persist. Unfortunately, it's nothing new...
Not to pick on a single point of this argument, but I've noticed that some people expect that technology is somehow going to enable art in games. There's no reason why something from the early days of gaming couldn't be as artistic as anything possible today.
It would be like arguing that paintings by artists like Brancusi are not art because they consist of nothing but a bunch of colored boxes.
As a matter in fact, there are those who argue that photo-realistic paintings are not art because they show nothing but demonstrate a painter's skill; these paintings convey no personal intepretation, emotion or concepts.
I don't necessarily agree with those sentiments, but I do think the game industry, particularly in the US, is overly obsessed with realism. I see the potential for art in games diminishing as games grow increasingly realistic.
I already find current PC FPS games to be devoid of personality, style and artistic value. The graphics are impressive on a technical level but there is little art to be found.
There isn't any point in even trying to argue this guy's statements because they're so narrow-minded.
Just because this guy is known for a popular series of games doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about, nor does it make what he says relevant. He clearly has a very limited vision of what art should be and regardless, he probably views games from a business perspective, as a way of simply making money.
What I don't understand is why individuals keep getting all the credit for these games, like this guy was responsible for every last aspect of the game. That guy may have had the initial vision but the people who put all the real work into the game get little to no credit.
The games pictured in those screenshots exemplify what's wrong with the gaming industry. Every single one of those games except one is a damn FPS, and the one that is different is another of many RTS games. Some of those are probably decent in their own right, but how many times do we have to play the same thing?
I'm impressed by what they're accomplishing in terms graphics. It's fascinating to me. At the same I have no desire to play any of those games because they all provide the same generic experience. It's like there's a game design template that all these developers grab ideas from. For all the innovation in graphics there is very little being done in story-telling, gameplay or mechanics. What about AI that can learn and adapt to the player? Apparently FEAR has some good AI, but it's basically reactionary, and the game itself is a lame take on generic Japanese horror movies; the developers watched the Ring one time too many.
There certainly is a place for ultra-realistic games. However, that these kinds of games don't inherently negate every other genre; less-realistic games aren't inferior. Is chess any less of a game because I can play a PC strategy game that runs pixel shader 3.0?
The marketing people spout the generic drivel that they're opening new vistas in gaming. We'll I have yet to see anything even remotely on that scale. These people have convinced the average, ignorant consumer that graphics are the pinnacle of good gaming making it difficult for anyone with less than the most advanced graphics to compete effectively.
These new games require massive budgets, a legion of employees and several years to complete. There's no way in hell an independent developer can compete on those terms. It's likely why Nintendo has decided to focus on gameplay over advanced graphics. The flashy graphics will impress everyone initially, but the excitement dies quickly the game itself offers nothing new.
The key question is, can you convince people that your game is superior based primarily on gameplay? I think it's a difficult proposition nowadays, the gameplay had better be phenomenal.
Slashdot Mirror
Business people turn everything into shit. We've got people who don't understand a thing about what they're selling making all the decisions. They're not engineers or designer who rose through the ranks, having intimate knowledge of what the company does. They're a bunch of suits with MBA degrees hired specifically to run the company. They're driven by one thing and its not producing a quality product, nor is it changing the market, nor is it innovation; they're driven by money.
And if they don't show healthy growth within the next few months the stock market reacts negatively. All these jerks want money in their pockets right now, instead of looking at the long-term health of a company.
Certainly the reality is a lot more complicated than that, but I think this is one of the core problems. It's why we see garbage coming from the game industry, and this problem is reflected in other industries.
The screenshots for the new game look pretty nice, but in this day and age it's nothing special. That isn't a bad thing, it just means that the gameplay has to be pretty damn good.
Unfortunately, from what I've seen of screenshots so far it looks like the game is going to play pretty much like the previous Tomb Raiders; it's just more of the same.
The only reason I see this game enjoying any success is because the lead character is hot. Some guys will have a good time staring at her rear all day. It's interesting to compare her to Samus from Metroid who doesn't need to run around half-naked to get the job done.
Not that I don't mind staring at the new Lara myself, but still...
What the Chinese government fails to realize is that their current prosperity is due almost completely to foreign investment. They think they've become an influential force, but lets be honest, the rest of the developed world is using them for personal financial gain.
I'm not saying that they don't have the motivation or capability to become a superpower, simply that they aren't their yet and they need to wake up and realize that they need the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs them.
There's another nation with 1 billion people starting to see it's own level of prosperity; India. From what I've read they're quite eager to become an economic power themselves. China certainly has a headstart, but India will become a serious competitor in the coming years. Then there's southeast Asia which is slowly recovering from the economic disaster of the 90s, and South America, who needs to get its act together. If China continues to make things difficult for corporations they'll just take their money elsewhere.
It's not surprising at all that Sony and Microsoft didn't have much of a showing. From my experience in Taiwan no one really cares much for consoles. For the most part they don't have the disposable income that Japanese do, and those that do generally aren't into gaming. If they're going to spend money on something, they're going to invest in a machine that does more than just play games. They're also more technically inclined than the Japanese are. A Japanese person normally wants to plug something in and have it running straight away. A Taiwanese guy, on the other hand, likes to be able to tinker with their machine.
Hence the popularity of consoles in Japan and the overwhelming popularity of PCs in Taiwan. Inevitably, developers focus on PCs. One big advantage is that the development costs are lower and there isn't all that licensing nonsense that console developers have to deal with.
So the big thing has been RPGs and especially MMORPGs designed with the isometric, Diablo-style look. There are a couple of 3d games out there, but given that not everyone is running the kind of hardware we get here, and it's far worse in China, they need to ensure these games are playable on slow machines. Taiwanese are in a better situation to develop games that appeal to the Chinese market than most others since they have a better understanding of what appeals there. And since they pretty much go wherever they think they can earn money, they've gone nuts developing for the Chinese market.
There have been a number of Korean games which have been very popular, and it's my understanding that the Korean market isn't vastly different. World of Warcraft has also been very popular, so has Starcraft and a few other RTS's for that matter. In Taiwan, like South Korea, a lot of these guys go to gaming cafes.
As for Sony not releasing the PS3 because of concerns of piracy, thats just nonsense. I don't think anyone would care enough to pirate games for that console and most pirated stuff is coming from Hong Kong, and probably originally from China. The problem with the PS3 is that it just isn't going to sell very well. The PSP sold for a while because it was trendy and people expected it could do more than just play games.
As for this guy who visited this show, he reminds me of the kinds of idiot foreigners I used to see when I was living in Taiwan. It's embarassing and they give the rest of us foreigners a bad name.
But that show is pretty much what I expected from Taiwan. They call it international, but it excessively emphasizes the local market, it's a bit haphazard and the Taiwanese companies don't understand the first thing about having a good brand identity, nor are they willing to spend a cent on it. But that's a whole other story...
I don't know about anyone else, but to me, these next-generation consoles are about as exciting as a toilet that flushes itself.
These game companies keep reinventing the wheel and try to make it sound like something new and innovative.
I find it absolutely absurd that anyone would claim the US is as bad, or worse even, than China as far as human rights is concerned. American citizens have a right, in fact a responsibility to always be aware and in fact question what the US government is doing. Blindly following the government, like so many in China do, is dangerous.
It's ridiculous that people would compare the US to China. I feel like people here like to dream up these crazy threats from the government. When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions. When was the last time the FBI showed up at someone's house simply for running a blog criticizing the US government?
Don't twist the truth here by pointing out protesters who've been jailed. They were jailed for breaking specific reasons, demonstrating without a warrant, vandalism, or other such activities.
Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism, not because they were simply anti-American. You may not agree with what the government is doing, but there are specific reasons why they're doing this. Rest assured that China would be far, far more aggressive in this regard. These guys are our prisoners and soldiers are going out of their way to make them feel comfortable.
All the sites I've ever seen against this administation specifically are still up and running, one of the most prominent in the past having been moveon.org.
These sites aren't allowed to exist in China. Period. Those guys at moveon.org would have had the site up a week before they were found themselves in prison and likely tortured.
What about all the farmers negected by the Chinese government, who've been forced to protest in order to be heard, and now their voices are being trampled by their own government.
I'm not even going to bother getting into this China appeasement crap. What Google and Microsoft are doing is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. It's even more absurd that the US and worse, the United Nations refuse to recognize a soverign nation like Taiwan because China demands it.
The Chinese do have one thing that many Americans today lack. That's nationalistic pride. The Chinese are willing to do what it takes to get ahead in the World; the average Chinese citizen is far more likely to defend China's actions than any American would be. Many Americans are far more critical of the US government, and in fact, are quickly to defend foreign nations than they are their own.
I wouldn't be surprised if over the next hundred years China grows to be a real superpower and the US is relegated to the second-class status that Europe currently enjoys. Let's see if the Chinese government turns out anything like the US. People criticize the US and what it does around the world, but rest assured that many other nations, and I expect China as well, would be far, far worse.
I haven't yet bought an MP3 online and I don't plan to. I'd much rather buy a CD where I have something physical that I can hold onto for years. I make MP3s from it, allowing me to listen, conveniently, to all my music at work or on my iPod. I don't have to put any wear on the CD either by playing it or carrying it around everywhere, but I've always got the CD on hand if I do want to pop it into a CD player. And I don't have the hassle of having to back up MP3s, if it's even possible with they way their use is restricted.
I made the copies for my own convenience. I almost never copy anything for anyone else and if I get my hands on some MP3s I really like I go online and order the CD.
But then I don't listen to popular music at all; anything close to mainstream I completely avoid. And after years of buying CDs and occassionally ending up with crap, I no go out of my way to ensure that at least half the music on the CD I enjoy. So far I haven't really encountered any copy-protection nonsense, but we'll see how long that lasts.
Of course, the more I see this sort of bullshit from the RIAA the less I want to buy music. Why should I have to buy multiple copies of the same music? It's simply about convenience. I've got a PC, cd player at home and in my car, and an mp3 player. Why shouldn't I be able to transfer my music amongst all these platforms?
Every time some new technology is developed people talk like it's going to be a great enabler. It's going to make things easier for everyone, without any of the hassles we've dealt with in the past. Until the scumbags show up, suddenly everything we use is crippled, hindered by absurd licensing agreements, restrictive contracts and all kinds of ridiculous fees and charges that border on extortion. If there's any way to make a few extra cents these companies will figure out how to do it. Kind of like the mobile phone industry in the US.
The RIAA can go to hell for all I care. Unfortunately, by trying to screw the music industry, it's not the executives who feel it, it's all the regular people like the rest of us who feel the consequences. Regardless, something needs to be done about this sort of garbage.
Just because they're unconventional doesn't mean they aren't games. There are countless games that lack win conditions or a measure of progress in the traditional sense.
At the most basic level a game is played for some kind of emotional feedback triggered by the player's actions, ideally it's positive feedback, usually as stress relief or as an escape I suppose.
Those DS games are great, but let's not blow things out of proportion here.
I've noticed for years that most console games follow a predictable pattern. The same enemies are always going to be in the same place every time a player runs through a level. These games perform predetermined actions actions at set times. PC games have generally offered more randomization and AI. I assume it's due to a lack processing power in consoles.
In recent years that has changed, but console developers still seem to have the habit of resorting to predictable patterns. While it adds a puzzle-type element to games it does make the game feel less dynamic. It probably requires less effort on the part of the developer and likely is easier to ensure good gameplay balance.
Anyway, seeing these patterns in those old games, while somewhat interesting, is no surprise. It also means that players are likely to handle encounters in generally the same way as there is really little effective alternative. There is generally an single optimal way through a game. Deviate from that path and you'll be met with varying levels of success, or failure.
I've been playing games with "soul" for years. One of the earliest examples I can recall are the early Sierra games, before they turned into the generic crap we've seen in recent years. Those stories were entertaining and very effecting; even though those characters consisted of blocky sprites I felt more attached to them than any character I've played in the last 5 years, despite all the graphical advances.
I can't really think of anything recent that stands out. Morrowind and the expansions impressed me. A lot of effort went into the game, and it shows, but the experience was lifeless. I experience wonder at the world the developers had crafted, but I felt no connection to the characters and didn't feel any emotion at all. It's similar to every MMORPG I've tried. Most are very impressive and some show a strong sense of style, but in the end they're nothing but elaborate theme parks. At least in Elder Scrolls the world did change based on my character's actions.
Now, this isn't to say I haven't been entertained. I've played numerous games which I've found to be extremely enjoyable. When it comes down to it a game doesn't need "soul" to be entertaining, it needs fun gameplay. Nintendo, for example has cornered the market in excellent gameplay, but there isn't much substance beyond that. A game which has both can truly be a superb game. Unfortunately, as I look at what few games I have on my CD rack, and try to recall all the others I've played, there isn't much of anything I can call a memorable game on all counts in the past 5 to 10 years. I have to go further back to find games that have truly stuck in my mind through the years.
I find it funny that the creator of God of War is calling for soul. I don't think God of War is an example of such a game. It's an entertaining game, with some impressive visuals and certainly has a characteristic style, but by no means does it have anything as profound as a soul. My first impression of the developers when I saw the game was that they consisted of the same generic breed of developers producing most games today. They're obsessed with brutal violence and sex. God of War just happens to have a somewhat different wrapping from most other games on the market. In fact, having seen the production videos unlocked upon finishing the game reinforced those impressions to some extent.
While they seemed to truly enjoy what they were creating they were still approaching the game from the same generic concepts that drive most contemporary games. I feel like current game developers all have the same exact kind of personality, they've had the same exact kind of exposure to American pop culture. It's all guns, demons with exposed internal organs, soldiers, explosions, guns, huge-breasted vixens, elves, dwarves, guns and more guns.
Of course there's no "soul" in games. Because "soul" is risky. It doesn't guarantee strong sales. But go with the generic themes and a developer is more than likely to satisfy the wet dreams of the average teenager. The more they produce the same old mediocre games, the more consumers expect and ultimately demand mediocrity. It's a viscious cycle. Consumers are only as smart as what the advertisers tell them. And companies certainly don't want smart consumers.
People tend to have an overly optimistic expectation about what alternative energies in their current state can do.
I got a Solio solar-powered device recharger for Xmas. (http://www.solio.com/)
The thing is a piece of crap. Well, it's a neat bit of technology, fun to show off to friends, but otherwise it's essentially useless. First of all, the thing requires 8 hours in full sunlight to fully charge the internal battery. Secondly, the instruction manual insists that the unit be placed in direct sunlight, unobstructed by glass. This essentially means that for the thing to operate at full efficiency it needs to be sitting outside.
Another problem is that if you live in the higher latitudes not only do you have shorter days, but you get reduced sunlight. The thing is rendered useless. I had the thing sitting out all day when I got it and I don't think it even was able to charge the battery halfway.
The device comes with a plug so that you can charge it the traditional way, but of course this defeats the purpose of the device.
It's like the hybrids. Right now they're more of a fashion statement then anything, especially the Prius. Notice how that car is far outselling any of the other hybrids. Not because it's any better, but because it looks cooler. It looks like a hybrid whereas the Civic hybrid looks like any other Civic and the Ford Escape hybrid looks like even less like an alternative fuel vehicle.
If people really cared about fuel efficiency they'd be clamoring for 1.2 liter gasoline or diesel cars like those available in Europe that easily get 60+ mpg without all the complicated crap the hybrids have. Of course Americans, in particular, don't want to feel like they're driving an anemic economy car. Enter the hybrids which offer the thrust of a larger engine with somewhat improved economy. As usual we need to deal with the stupidity of the consumer who cares more about fashion and ego than they care about anything else.
Hybrids are essentially an elaborate hackjob, an interim step to a truly alternative fuel vehicle. They get their fuel savings partly from the near regenerative braking system, but mainly from the fact that they're equiped with a small gasoline engine. The goal in driving those cars is to keep the gasoline engine off as long as possible. In all the ferver regarding avoiding fossil fuel vehicles I think people have neglected how polluting batteries and many of those electrical components can be.
I'm all for exploring alternative fuels. And I think their use should be encouraged, and perhaps forced in some cases. But we also need to be a bit realistic. There are far more practical and more cost-efficient options available.
Well, imagine how much cheaper his expenses would have been if he had made calculations for a 1.6 liter car making 35+ mpg.
I've yet to see any of the browsers I use render that properly, including Explorer, Firefox and Safari. Firefox does a better job than Explorer and Safari might have been the best of the three. But what does it matter when Safari screws up sites that show up fine on the other browsers. The fact that one test shows displays properly ends up being a bit irrelevant.
So much for standards. The problem is that everyone wants their own "standard" to be the standard.
I think it's pointless to have an article covering the evolution of game controllers then including a controller we don't know much about and know even less about how it's really going to be used.
And that's not to mention that this article talks about "evolution" but then presents controllers which are all essentially the same exact thing but merely molded to different shapes and sizes. The most different controllers are the Atari 2600 and 5200 designs and whether those are evolutionary designs is questionable.
The Revolution controller is basically a NES controller reformatted to look like a standard remotre control. The internal functionality, of course, allows for far more, but the external design, despite being attractive and minimalist is fairly mundane.
I think it's the games that need to evolve to properly exploit any innovative controller designs. I think designing a different controller is insufficient to spur most developers to try anything. I don't doubt Nintendo will exploit that controller to it's fullest extent, but whether anyone else will bother is questionable. I'm still not convinced that the Revolution controller will inherently spark some innovation in gaming.
You're a bit mistaken. Take2 Interactive, which owns Rockstar games is British. Vivendi which now owns Blizzard is french. Blizzard, however, was an American company and technically they still are, except for the division based in Canada. Ubisoft is French, but that doesn't mean their developers are.
Which brings me to another point, Take2, Vivendi and Ubisoft, like EA are primarily publishers not developers. The vast majority of actual game development does come from the US or Japan. Hence all the attention they get.
Not to take anything from the Europeans. One of the more prominent releases developed in Europe was Battlefield 2 and there's plenty coming from British developers.
I blame the kind of idiot ricer culture depicted in movies like the trash 2fast 2furious and to a lesser extent games like NFS Underground. Although, I wouldn't put it past some kids to be so stupid to try to live what they've experienced in games.
These kids are getting their hands on driver's licenses too easily and parents are far too irresponsible letting them get their hands on cars. The ricer culture encourages this whole bad-ass attitude. You pull ahead of one of these kids and they take it as a cue to race, regardless of how heavy traffic is, the weather or what neighborhood they're driving through.
Barely a few weeks go by without a story being on the news about some kid smashing into someone or something. Around where I live the city planted small trees down several avenues to beautify the city. Week after week I drive past tree stumps left behind by the imbecels who couldn't handle crappy 89 Accord with cut springs and an obnoxious exhaust.
The other serious problem I've is a complete and utter lack of understanding on the part of so many people regarding what a car can or cant do. I've seen kids smash up their parent's cars and they blame the car for the accident. The car had bad brakes, poor tires or some other such nonsense instead of realizing that its their child's driving inexperience and poor decision making which caused the accident. So they go out and buy the kid a new, more expensive vehicle. Quite a nice way to teach a lesson.
Idiot parents are going to expect the government to raise their kids for them yet again. I think what the government needs to do is make it much, much harder to get a driver's license.
A driver should be required to have a basic understanding of how a vehicle operates, and what to expect in hazardous conditions or during emergency maneuvers. Larger vehicles, like SUVs, should require special licenses with additional training.
The prospective driver should be expected to ay for all this out of their own pocket so that they better understand the value of a driver's license. Of course that raises a few concerns, but anything that makes it harder for the average idiot to get in the driver's seat is a good thing.
The problem with the vast majority of indie games is that they just lack to polish necessary to make them serious contenders. I realize that in same cases these developers simply lack the resources to properly refine their games. Even when they have a strong concept however, they often seem to lack the necessary understanding of what makes for good gameplay.
I cant count the times I've played a game with frustrating control schemes, or unrefined interfaces, or atrocious graphics. I think anyone capable of producing professional quality games ends up working in the gaming industry, either because they find a job with a developer or because they get acquired by someone.
Creating even a simple game and making it work is difficult. Look at mobile phone gaming. There are plenty of unknown developers giving it a try and most are producing absolute crap. You'd think they would be able to produce some neat stuff on a relatively simple platform but they don't.
I'm all for supporting indie developers, and there's some neat stuff out there, but most of it really isn't all that good.
Intelligent design and creationism have their place in schools, but it sure as hell isn't the science class where these concepts should be discussed. Those discussion belong in theology classes and I don't like how this is being forced on the public. I think the underlying agenda behind pushing ID is to make religion more relevant. It's like they're trying to somehow prove that God exists, and that it's a christian God at that.
On the other hand, some people seem to be making blanket statements like all Christians are pushing ID. The Vatican has stated that the church supports evolution. It's primarily fundamentalist christians in the US, the sort of people who take the bible literally and who seem to congregate at those super churches, who are pushing this. That's an important distinction.
I also have to note that I find it a bit obnoxious with some atheists holier-than-thou attitude towards those who believe in God. Given that it's impossible for anyone to prove the existence of a higher being the religious are just as justified in their beliefs as are the atheists.
I have to agree... I played the City of Villains beta up to about level 12 and except with some minor differences it was essentially the same exact thing as City of Heroes.
I also intensely dislike how they reuse models and environments. The office environment is identical in CoV and CoH, the only difference is the color scheme. It also gets tiring travelling through the city and seeing the same few buildings repeated over and over again.
It's a theme consistent throughout the game. The game is gets very repetative and there's no way to improve a character other than reaching the next level and either getting a few enhancement slots or choosing a new power. The lack of loot has its positives, but it also means there's no way to improve a character outside of levelling.
Skills which have been promised since the early days of CoH still aren't close to being ready. They've been completely revamped 3 times already because the developers felt the system they had wasn't fun enough. Considering all the delays, whenever those skills are finally introduced they'd better be amazing, superior to anything ever seen before.
CoH/CoV are great games, and City of Villains certainly improves things somewhat, but they really lack the kind substance necessary to keep players hooked.
What an idiotic waste of money.
Want to keep their weight down? Have students sweep and clean school grounds every morning like they do in much of Asia. This will have other benefits beyond just getting exercise, in the very least you'll save money and keep the school clean. Put them through a more rigorous exercise program than the useless nonsense that passes for gym class. Obviously the existing system has its problems if they continue having obesity problems, and a bunch of video games wont change this.
How about teaching them dancing for real? It's a hell of a lot more effective than bouncing around like a fool on a giant pad and it will actually be useful outside of that game.
Where the hell do they find the people who run these schools?
I find what Google is doing despicable. Google should be heavily fined for helping China to promote the oppression and censorship of it's people. Unfortunately, industrialized nations are so wet in their pants for China that they're willing to do anything to earn that country's business.
What I find even more absurd is that there are people actually defending this. I'd like to know if people would be so tolerant if another company, Microsoft for example, had done the same. I also wonder if people would be so tolerant if the US, especially under the current administration, were doing this. People sure are freaking out about wire tapping when its something that wont affect 99% of the public and can be argued is truly for national security. In China a forum like slashdot would never be allowed to even exist and its creators would likely be jailed.
I really don't understand this overwhelming desire to appease China. Just like the idiots at the UN deciding one day that a soverign nation like Taiwan will no longer be recognized because China said so.
The Chinese government must be riding high on all this attention, as well as the tiny percentage of the population getting rich while the vast majority remain oppressed and in utter poverty. Google, countless other corporations and governments around the world are pathetic for allowing this sort of thing to persist. Unfortunately, it's nothing new...
Not to pick on a single point of this argument, but I've noticed that some people expect that technology is somehow going to enable art in games. There's no reason why something from the early days of gaming couldn't be as artistic as anything possible today.
It would be like arguing that paintings by artists like Brancusi are not art because they consist of nothing but a bunch of colored boxes.
As a matter in fact, there are those who argue that photo-realistic paintings are not art because they show nothing but demonstrate a painter's skill; these paintings convey no personal intepretation, emotion or concepts.
I don't necessarily agree with those sentiments, but I do think the game industry, particularly in the US, is overly obsessed with realism. I see the potential for art in games diminishing as games grow increasingly realistic.
I already find current PC FPS games to be devoid of personality, style and artistic value. The graphics are impressive on a technical level but there is little art to be found.
There isn't any point in even trying to argue this guy's statements because they're so narrow-minded.
Just because this guy is known for a popular series of games doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about, nor does it make what he says relevant. He clearly has a very limited vision of what art should be and regardless, he probably views games from a business perspective, as a way of simply making money.
What I don't understand is why individuals keep getting all the credit for these games, like this guy was responsible for every last aspect of the game. That guy may have had the initial vision but the people who put all the real work into the game get little to no credit.
The games pictured in those screenshots exemplify what's wrong with the gaming industry. Every single one of those games except one is a damn FPS, and the one that is different is another of many RTS games. Some of those are probably decent in their own right, but how many times do we have to play the same thing?
I'm impressed by what they're accomplishing in terms graphics. It's fascinating to me. At the same I have no desire to play any of those games because they all provide the same generic experience. It's like there's a game design template that all these developers grab ideas from. For all the innovation in graphics there is very little being done in story-telling, gameplay or mechanics. What about AI that can learn and adapt to the player? Apparently FEAR has some good AI, but it's basically reactionary, and the game itself is a lame take on generic Japanese horror movies; the developers watched the Ring one time too many.
There certainly is a place for ultra-realistic games. However, that these kinds of games don't inherently negate every other genre; less-realistic games aren't inferior. Is chess any less of a game because I can play a PC strategy game that runs pixel shader 3.0?
The marketing people spout the generic drivel that they're opening new vistas in gaming. We'll I have yet to see anything even remotely on that scale. These people have convinced the average, ignorant consumer that graphics are the pinnacle of good gaming making it difficult for anyone with less than the most advanced graphics to compete effectively.
These new games require massive budgets, a legion of employees and several years to complete. There's no way in hell an independent developer can compete on those terms. It's likely why Nintendo has decided to focus on gameplay over advanced graphics. The flashy graphics will impress everyone initially, but the excitement dies quickly the game itself offers nothing new.
The key question is, can you convince people that your game is superior based primarily on gameplay? I think it's a difficult proposition nowadays, the gameplay had better be phenomenal.
"Instead of this, why not get a real dog?"
Well, I think most people are playing the game because it's fun, not because it's any kind of replacement for a real dog.