Having this sticker and not allowing the games to be placed in locations that anyone can she them does create a "chilling effect" on video games and it therefore against developers freedom of speech. Developers will feel obligated to avoid any adult content (be it violence, mature plot lines, sexual content) for multiple reasons.
First, developers are not going to feel obligated to make game to people of all ages only to avoid their game being pushed into a back room somewhere. Financially having good shelf space or location in arcades is important.
Secondly developers will avoid this content because of the legal reproductions that are possible. When the game ships it could be seen as good enough for all audiences but later in court the jury could decide otherwise. This creates a system that is subjective and open to change depending on who is deciding weather the game is only for adults or not.
Third, (this one is a little bit tin foil hat) this will allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity. Because of the statement below statement this will allow games to be removed because of ideals or mentalities. For example say there is currently a war going on and a video game comes out with a strong anti government theme. Perhaps you are organizing protests against the country and using underhanded political tactics to undermine the government in order to evoke a revolt (like in the game "Republic: The Revolution"). Because the government is currently active in a controversial situation it could be seen that this game is instilling anarchy in our youth and should not be sold.
1.a. A reasonable person, considering the game as a
2 whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of
3 minors;
4 b. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in
5 the community concerning what is suitable for minors; and
6 c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
7 scientific value for minors;"
I'm sure many people would say that point C would ensure that that wouldn't be a problem but it's not hard to say something doesn't have a "scientific value" literary, artistically, or politically when the ideals given are controversial.
"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
You don't buy the game while it is still behind the glass door. The employee will open the door and hand you the game before you purchase it and at this point you can turn it over and read.
That is very true. The ratings are labeled on the back of the box and stores have to put the games behind glass for security purposes because it is too susceptible of a target for shoplifting.
Putting the rating label on the front of the box would be a good idea to elevate this problem.
Of course once you ask the employee to open the case for you, you can look at that back and tell them to put it back if you don't agree with the games content.
Another option is going to shop at EB, Gamestop or other game specific stores. In game specific store the majority of game boxes are out on display on the floor where the buyer can look at both sides of the box and the game disks are kept under lock at the register. When you purchase the game they put the game disk in the case and give it to you. That way you can see the ratings without having to ask for employee assistance.
So having the text "Sexual Themes," "Strong Sexual Content," or "Nudity" is confusing. But having a green, yellow, or red dot on the box will clear things up? We aren't talking about a scale of 1-20 or anything it's a scale of 1 to 3.
This is proposing going from an overall rating scaled over possible 6 age groups and 32 possible content descriptors (many of which are on a 3 tier scale) to 3 scales of red yellow and green on the box representing violence language and sex.
How is this giving you more information to base your parental decisions?
Well yah know, I like the idea of the rating system telling what the rating is for. Things like does the game have violence, sex, drugs use, and profanity. Wouldn't it be nice if those things are printed right on the box?
Oh yeah they are already doing that, Right next to the one letter ESRB rating. Here let me give you a few examples:
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Mature (17+) Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs
The Sims 2
Teen (13+) Crude Humor, Sexual Themes, Violence
Halo 2
Mature (17+) Blood and Gore, Violence
God of War
Mature (17+) Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Nudity, Sexual Themes Strong Language
This really seems like an example of people not paying attention to the rating labels. The extra description for what the title contains has been on games for a very long time now. If you want to know what is in the game read a little more then the big single letter in the rating box. Also each of these extra descriptors are already rated. That's the difference between some violence, violence, and intense violence.
This stoplight rating system seems like it would be a step in the wrong direction. It would end up giving you less information.
Man, I just read about Jack Thompson saying something very similar to this. His complaint was that video games get advertised in comics. When asked what comic, he had no idea and took a shot in the dark with Spiderman. What concerns me about this is, just like video games, there are comics that are meant for adult audiences as well. I wouldn't give my child a copy of sin city, it's to graphically violent.
Magazines are the same thing. You said that we shouldn't advertise M games in gaming magazines because children may read them. How about bill boards, can we still advertise there? Children may walk past them. If that is the case does that mean that there should be laws in place that insure that video games can not be advertised in materials or places that people under the age of 18 frequent. So you can't advertise on television, comics, magazines, or billboards near schools.
When things like that start to occur can you really say that there is still freedom of speech with video games? If you really want to protect the children fine, get out there and protect them, but when you start taking away venues of speech from adults to do it you really are crossing a line for freedom of speech.
The problem with EA that this article reveals to me is that EA has mixed goals. EA wants to make the highest quality games and they want to make a substantial profit. So to make the high quality games they hire and purchase the top level talent in the industry. However after they have this talent they don't give them any creative freedom and put them on projects that they have no interest in because it makes business sense. One goal is standing in the way of the other.
This article is a good example of EA making a good business move to pick up a talented company that is about to crumble and them completely messing up on the integration of the company.
The example in the article was sending the people that worked hard on Wing Commander Online to work on UO2. Although technically on paper the wing commander online team should would well on UO2 the feel and inspirations completely change and the team looses all interest in making good games. The previously talented employees start to loose their passion for the industry and start feeling like they are working in a factory rather them an entertainment company. After that the talent is either lost though boredom and stagnation that leads to EA firing them or the talent just quits and moves to another company. Later when the former employees become successful again at a new company EA will look at grabbing their new company and starting the cycle over again.
If you don't know who EA got its image or how EA handle business I would say this entire issue of the extremist is worth reading.
There is already proof of this actually. When EA made need for speed underground 2 they sold ad space in the game world, sold the space for music titles, and made deals with car companies for what vehicles would be included. The game still came out for $50 just like every other title even with that extra revenue.
Oh god I hope not. Originally online advertising wasn't bad. A banner may ruin the color scheme of a website or something like that but nothing that was actually in your way of getting to the content of the webpage. As time went on online advertisement has gotten more and more annoying. Then the advertisers have had to start resorting to what they are doing now. How many websites have you been to that have a large flash image in the middle of your screen with moving pieces and audio that you must let animate to completion before you can close it and view the page you were trying to get to? Pop ups, spyware, and information collection is possible to implement on a console if they really wanted to.
I don't want games to follow suit with the internet as far as advertising goes. I would rather games take commercial breaks between chapters like TV does. Have it bring up ads while trying to play the game would completely ruin the game. Imagine trying to complete a jumping puzzle in an action game and having one of those flash pop up come up while you're in mid air. Of course most designers should know this and hopefully will keep advertising under control.
One thing that is for certain is that it will hurt immersion into the game world. As soon as you notice an advertisement in a game it will momentarily take you out of the game and you will have to re-immerse yourself.
I was honestly watching this game with allot of interest. I really wanted to see how EA would turn out a fighting game. Although I am a huge fan of the fighting game genera, I think this is one of the easier generas to move into at the moment. There are allot of games that you can look at that did very well and at the moment there isn't much competition. Both of those factors in mind makes this game that much more of a disappointment.
The controls are more like a beat-em up action game (like streets of rage or double dragon) then like a fighting game. The things that allows fighting games to work is the fact that you can spend hours simply trying to learn everyone's moves. Practicing the motions so you can perform them at the exact moment you want to. This game is completely lacing in that. Once you know one characters move list you know all of them. So there is no enjoyment of learning the characters or being able to do things that no one else has seen before.
This thing that showed me just how bad this game was the IGN review of it, when IGN (normally very producer bias) gives an EA product a 4.8 out of 10 there is something terribly wrong with it.
Well perhaps adding more availability to used games will expand the developer's outlook on creating games. Perhaps now there will be a little less value on opening week sales of a title and more on the long term sales of a title.
Developers will just have to start making games that people will want to keep for more then a few weeks. Something they would like to play more then once yah know. How about something you can't beet in 3 hours. Increase the quality and longevity of games and people will want to hold on to them.
I know I still have a lot of old games, because I'll go back and play them every now and then. The only games I trade in are the games that I didn't think were worth the original price I paid for them. Lots of games I already wait to buy used just because I know they aren't worth the opening price.
Of course I guess this could have the opposite effect too, more games put out with low budgets, fad inspired content, and flashy advertising just meant to grab the opening week sales and run laughing that they bought a bad game.
"Hey by the time they figure out the game sucks, we already have their money" -actual quote from someone I know in the industry
Yes, but the godfather part 2 was a work off of it's own merit. The fact that there was a godfather part 1 is not the reason that godfather part 2 was good. The creators of godfather part 2 created new plot and made new content and continued the vision. They didn't simply copy the previous movie.
Tell me would Arthur Conan Doyle's work be respected if in every novel he used the same plot devices. It Sherlock holms solved every mystery by talking to the exact same people and matching the villains shoe size to a shoe print at the scene of the crime in every book I think you might get a little bored by the third installment. The reason that the series was able to continue is because things changed, each book was a different story/experience.
That's the point. If a sequel is put out to continue a plot, create new and interesting things in the same universe or to expand people's thoughts on the original work then its fine, heck it's great, if done right it can take a great game into a great series. But that isn't the case here. The sequel was created just because the business model showed it would be a good idea. So they spent an extra couple of week swapping art, making a few code changes and put it out on the shelves with a different title and box art.
That's why it is my opinion that he made the wrong decision on going back on his convictions to help improve their half hearted creation.
You know I have played quite a few fighting games and even the most advanced of them do not use real fencing maneuvers like you were just describing. The closest would probably be soul caliber 2 where you could use a generic high and low parry. But those were just momentary presses where once it is established there is ¼ of a second to catch the opponent's blade. After that your left open to attack for a moment.
The games ability to learn is a gradual process, in most game the AI doesn't learn your style until after you have already hit them in the head a few dozen times. Even then all you have to do is one move that is out of your normal pattern and they are wide open again.
In real fencing flailing about is absolutely useless. But in a video game where you have instant control because of motion tracking and the AI has to take ¼ of a second to animate though their moves flailing will work a lot
If they are able to make it work well, Cool, I'll probably pick it up myself, I just have high doubts. I have seen way to many motion tracking devices flop in the past to keep my hopes up for this one.
Where is it that you saw that Nintendo said that the remote will be shipping with the analog nunchacu thing? All I have seen is "may" or "could" ship with from rumor pages.
There are a lot of games that can not me played with simple motions and 2 buttons. The fact that they are selling the controller cradles is nice because it will allow a venue for more complicated games. However the fact that it has to be purchased separately is the problem I have with it. It's already annoying to have to buy 3 more controllers for a consol to play multiplayer, now you have to buy 4 controller attachments too?
From what I have seen right now there are 3 controller peripherals coming out. The remove the nunchaku attachment and the controller cradle. So if you want to have the hardware to play the majority of the games that come out for the system you will have to buy the system, 3 extra controllers, 4 nunchaku attachments, and 4 cradles. And that's just for what's out so far, there are still dance mats, wheels, and custom game specific controller attachments.
This will either force innovation in companies to use the default remote type controller or make companies force players to buy the cradles and other attachments to play their games. From my experience with the industry though, it seems there are allot of companies that see invention and original as words to steer clear from rather then head toward because they have a higher risk.
In the end I hope it does work for the same reason stated in the article:
"If the controller fails, however... I fear the industry may become even more risk-averse, and continue its spiral towards stagnation."
I don't really like the revolution's controller. although this controller will make some games more intuitive and easier to play (Mario party, fishing games, baseball, tennis, and some platformer games) it is going to make other games much harder to play. Can you imagine trying to play a tekken style fighting game with that controller? It would be just about impossible to play well without buying the controller cradle. The user should not have to buy extra controller peripherals to play an entire genera of games.
Also think about what madden is going to do with that. The nunchaku or cradle attachment will be required in order to play well. The analog stick will be used for movement the d-pad will be used for play selection and audibles and the motion sensor will be used for juking/jumping. So in the end juking will get easier but everything else in the game will become more awkward (because of the wire between hands rather then having a solid controller) This controller will work great for simple games but for any game that takes more then 3 buttons and a d-pad it isn't going to help, only hinder.
To me it seems that Nintendo is hindering detailed control in order to make room for invention and change. I think in the end this is going to push away 3rd party developers even more. But there games will be fun and special. If Nintendo wants to bring games back to where you only need 2 buttons and a directional pad, then this is the way to go.
Wow, think about playing a mech game, going from the Steel Battalion controller to the revolution. Your loosing so many options you'll feel like your missing your arms.
You know, they have one of those types of games at Disney's Disney quest (the Disney arcade thing) and it doesn't really work.
If you take the movement of the remote directly into the game for the movement of the sword you can just flail the remote around wildly and kill and block everything coming at you before it gets a chance.
If you put a delay on the sword in game to only allow you to move it so many times per second then you have a big feeling of disconnection from the sword in game and you get frustrated that it's not doing what you are doing.
It's very hard to give balanced gameplay when you have true motion sensing. Could be one of the reasons that VR never took off and the reason that many of the eye toy games aren't that fun either.
But who knows perhaps Nintendo will be able to figure it out.
There are a ton of things game companies can do that can encourage gaming communities, none of which are easy and most of which people try to do already.
The first of all and this one is absolutely necessary is, making a good game. No matter how hard you try you can not build a community around a bad game. I'm sure developers never try and make a game that they think will be bad just for the sake of getting that quick buck before the gamers realize that the game sucks. But if you have a bad game you will not be able to make a good community around it.
To have a strong community you would have to give users the ability to feel unique. If everyone comes away from a game with the exact same experience there isn't much to talk about. This is difficult because it means you need to implement custom items in the game or multiple plot lines or things of that sort. In general those are all items that will increate the development time of a game significantly.
For online game you could add an in game feature that can give recognition to players for something. This has to be more then a simple top 10 list of who killed the most what. If someone accomplishes something have it mean more then a name on a chart or a badge you can wear in the game. Like implementing an in game newspaper written from the stand point of a character talking about other players. City of heroes is doing something a little like this. They send out a comic to the city of heroes members and in the comic are characters that players have made and fan art people have drawn. Giving someone something to shoot for and talk about other then mindless level grinding can go a long way.
Really in the end there are many things that can be done to increase community, most of it just comes down to the game. The game must be fun unique and competitive to have a good community. Just using X.M.L. like the editorial said will not make a big difference
Let me put it to you this way then. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel has long been considered art. Now imagine if you will that Michelangelo went out and painted 30 other buildings in the same fashion with only minor changes because as you put it "he has to pay the bills". The original chapel ceiling wouldn't be so special any more would it. Every time you make a copy of an original inventive work, without taking measures to make it stand apart from the first, the first work becomes less and less original and inventive; it just becomes the first in a line of work.
The matrix is a good example of this actually. The first was original in some sense. It had a huge following and was a big success. Now the sequels come out. The sequels are just forms factors of the original using nothing new and innovative just using what made the first one successfully. After the second and third matrix came out the first one has lost allot of respect and it is no longer seen as what it once was. It is no longer a great original work; it's just the first in a line of copies.
So yes painting is an art, but if you're painting a picture that you already painted 6 times before are you still truly making art or are you just making copies? Creating something using art skills purely for the sake of profit is "craft", not "art". If all paintings are considered art why aren't billboard advertisements put up in galleries?
If he would have said that he doesn't want to be part of the sequel that is tarnishing his original work at least it would have shown that he cared enough about the original that he didn't want to be part of its corruption. That if the game gets put out, it's put out without his support. The fact that he did join up on the new project showed that he supported the tarnishing of his creation, reluctantly, but he still supported it.
As far as business factors go there is no way that this sequel wouldn't have come out. It makes perfect business scene to put out a copy of the game to bring in extra revenue. Low development cost because you don't have to code/create new content so you get a higher cost to income ratio.
That's why I think this is one of the reasons why the industry can't be taken seriously as an art rather then craft because the industry(not all of it, but the majority) doesn't take it's self seriously as an art. It's just business.
I have to say I'm a bit saddened that he didn't stick to his convictions on this. If he would have stuck with "no I don't want to work on this sequel" and they did put out the other game without his support at least it would have shown as some sort of protest to making the unnecessary sequel and shown the public (well the public that hears about it anyway) that designers do actually care about their product enough that they wont be part of it's uninspired sequel.
The fact that designers are willing to let go their ideals is one of the reason I think that games aren't being taken seriously as a form of expression/art. What are you trying to express if you're willing to put a sticker on it, put it out as a sequel, and say that it's better then the previous artistic expression?
I loved the original Katamari Damacy. The visuals, game play, and sounds were all just so different then the conventional video game. I saw the game as a breath of fresh air in a game industry that is growing stale.
In my opinion, contrary to previous posters, I don't find we love Katamari worth buying if you already own Katamari Damacy. The game play and concepts are exactly the same as the last game with a shiny new wrapper. You're still just rolling a ball trying to get it bigger in every level. They may add an additional theme for a level (you're not rolling a ball this time you're rolling a thin sumo wrestler) but that's the entire difference.
To me this sequel is about as much of an addition and improvement to the original game as Metal Gear Solid VR Missions added to Metal Gear Solid. It turned an original creative idea into a gimmick.
The child can not buy this in the majority of retailers. Most retailers have made it policy not the sell M games to people under the age of 18. There are lapses in this policy because of the cashier's lack of attention but no more so then there is with adult movies and music.
This law changes it from a voluntary to a legal one.
Well there are a few things that are very easy for you to do. You could turn on the parental controls on your child's video game system. Both Xbox and the game cube have built into a feature where the parent can set the maximum ESRB level that can be played on the system. Turn it to T for teen so that your child can't play these evil M games.
You could also pay attention to ESRB of the games your child brings home. You know that shelf that your kids put there games on. Well on all the boxes and the disk art of a game you can simply look at the ESRB rating and know if you want you child playing it or not.
The video game industry may spend 100 millions of dollars making video games(not sure how this makes your job more difficult really) but your kid still has to bring it home to play it.
If you child becomes the pawn of marketing and starts buying every M game that comes out, it still isn't that hard for you to take them away from the kid or make them unusable for them.
"neither the manufacturers nor the fans do a very good job of describing why large amounts of violence are somehow integral to the games being designed."
Well here let me give it a shot then
Who said that large amounts of violence are integral to games? Violence in games is one of the major forms of confrontation used in video games. All games require a goal and something standing in the way of your goal. The getting around the items in the way for your goal is what makes up they gamplay of a game. Now if that game is based on the human world where you have a goal and the things standing in the way of your goal are other people. There are multiple ways you can go about this; you can make an adventure style game where you then get around the people by talking to them and figuring things out in conversation, you can make a stealth game where you attempt to avoid all the people in the game to get to your goal, or you can made an action game where you get around the other people by using physical and violent methods. All of these game types have been made and sold on the pro level. The reason that there has been a tendency in the industry to fall back on violent type of confrontations is because previous sales have shown that those types of games have sold more then others.
There are a lot of games that do not have highly violent factors. The point of view that games should not have violence because there are other forms on confrontation that can be used is bias to what you prefer in entertainment. To me your question of "why do games have to be violent?" is about equal to the question "Why did they have to go and make Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon when we already had the Care Bears Save Christmas?" it's just different styles of entertainment set up to cater to the target audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, that would include Mario as well.
Jumping on that poor defenseless turtles' shell repeatedly like that.
First, developers are not going to feel obligated to make game to people of all ages only to avoid their game being pushed into a back room somewhere. Financially having good shelf space or location in arcades is important.
Secondly developers will avoid this content because of the legal reproductions that are possible. When the game ships it could be seen as good enough for all audiences but later in court the jury could decide otherwise. This creates a system that is subjective and open to change depending on who is deciding weather the game is only for adults or not.
Third, (this one is a little bit tin foil hat) this will allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity. Because of the statement below statement this will allow games to be removed because of ideals or mentalities. For example say there is currently a war going on and a video game comes out with a strong anti government theme. Perhaps you are organizing protests against the country and using underhanded political tactics to undermine the government in order to evoke a revolt (like in the game "Republic: The Revolution"). Because the government is currently active in a controversial situation it could be seen that this game is instilling anarchy in our youth and should not be sold.
I'm sure many people would say that point C would ensure that that wouldn't be a problem but it's not hard to say something doesn't have a "scientific value" literary, artistically, or politically when the ideals given are controversial.
"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
You don't buy the game while it is still behind the glass door. The employee will open the door and hand you the game before you purchase it and at this point you can turn it over and read.
That is very true. The ratings are labeled on the back of the box and stores have to put the games behind glass for security purposes because it is too susceptible of a target for shoplifting.
Putting the rating label on the front of the box would be a good idea to elevate this problem.
Of course once you ask the employee to open the case for you, you can look at that back and tell them to put it back if you don't agree with the games content.
Another option is going to shop at EB, Gamestop or other game specific stores. In game specific store the majority of game boxes are out on display on the floor where the buyer can look at both sides of the box and the game disks are kept under lock at the register. When you purchase the game they put the game disk in the case and give it to you. That way you can see the ratings without having to ask for employee assistance.
So having the text "Sexual Themes," "Strong Sexual Content," or "Nudity" is confusing. But having a green, yellow, or red dot on the box will clear things up? We aren't talking about a scale of 1-20 or anything it's a scale of 1 to 3.
This is proposing going from an overall rating scaled over possible 6 age groups and 32 possible content descriptors (many of which are on a 3 tier scale) to 3 scales of red yellow and green on the box representing violence language and sex.
How is this giving you more information to base your parental decisions?
Well yah know, I like the idea of the rating system telling what the rating is for. Things like does the game have violence, sex, drugs use, and profanity. Wouldn't it be nice if those things are printed right on the box?
Oh yeah they are already doing that, Right next to the one letter ESRB rating. Here let me give you a few examples:
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Mature (17+)
Blood and Gore,
Intense Violence,
Strong Language,
Strong Sexual Content,
Use of Drugs
The Sims 2
Teen (13+)
Crude Humor,
Sexual Themes,
Violence
Halo 2
Mature (17+)
Blood and Gore,
Violence
God of War
Mature (17+)
Blood and Gore,
Intense Violence,
Nudity,
Sexual Themes
Strong Language
This really seems like an example of people not paying attention to the rating labels. The extra description for what the title contains has been on games for a very long time now. If you want to know what is in the game read a little more then the big single letter in the rating box. Also each of these extra descriptors are already rated. That's the difference between some violence, violence, and intense violence.
This stoplight rating system seems like it would be a step in the wrong direction. It would end up giving you less information.
Man, I just read about Jack Thompson saying something very similar to this. His complaint was that video games get advertised in comics. When asked what comic, he had no idea and took a shot in the dark with Spiderman. What concerns me about this is, just like video games, there are comics that are meant for adult audiences as well. I wouldn't give my child a copy of sin city, it's to graphically violent.
Magazines are the same thing. You said that we shouldn't advertise M games in gaming magazines because children may read them. How about bill boards, can we still advertise there? Children may walk past them. If that is the case does that mean that there should be laws in place that insure that video games can not be advertised in materials or places that people under the age of 18 frequent. So you can't advertise on television, comics, magazines, or billboards near schools.
When things like that start to occur can you really say that there is still freedom of speech with video games? If you really want to protect the children fine, get out there and protect them, but when you start taking away venues of speech from adults to do it you really are crossing a line for freedom of speech.
I think this was a fairly well spoken article.
The problem with EA that this article reveals to me is that EA has mixed goals. EA wants to make the highest quality games and they want to make a substantial profit. So to make the high quality games they hire and purchase the top level talent in the industry. However after they have this talent they don't give them any creative freedom and put them on projects that they have no interest in because it makes business sense. One goal is standing in the way of the other.
This article is a good example of EA making a good business move to pick up a talented company that is about to crumble and them completely messing up on the integration of the company.
The example in the article was sending the people that worked hard on Wing Commander Online to work on UO2. Although technically on paper the wing commander online team should would well on UO2 the feel and inspirations completely change and the team looses all interest in making good games. The previously talented employees start to loose their passion for the industry and start feeling like they are working in a factory rather them an entertainment company. After that the talent is either lost though boredom and stagnation that leads to EA firing them or the talent just quits and moves to another company. Later when the former employees become successful again at a new company EA will look at grabbing their new company and starting the cycle over again.
If you don't know who EA got its image or how EA handle business I would say this entire issue of the extremist is worth reading.
There is already proof of this actually. When EA made need for speed underground 2 they sold ad space in the game world, sold the space for music titles, and made deals with car companies for what vehicles would be included. The game still came out for $50 just like every other title even with that extra revenue.
Oh god I hope not. Originally online advertising wasn't bad. A banner may ruin the color scheme of a website or something like that but nothing that was actually in your way of getting to the content of the webpage. As time went on online advertisement has gotten more and more annoying. Then the advertisers have had to start resorting to what they are doing now. How many websites have you been to that have a large flash image in the middle of your screen with moving pieces and audio that you must let animate to completion before you can close it and view the page you were trying to get to? Pop ups, spyware, and information collection is possible to implement on a console if they really wanted to.
I don't want games to follow suit with the internet as far as advertising goes. I would rather games take commercial breaks between chapters like TV does. Have it bring up ads while trying to play the game would completely ruin the game. Imagine trying to complete a jumping puzzle in an action game and having one of those flash pop up come up while you're in mid air. Of course most designers should know this and hopefully will keep advertising under control.
One thing that is for certain is that it will hurt immersion into the game world. As soon as you notice an advertisement in a game it will momentarily take you out of the game and you will have to re-immerse yourself.
I was honestly watching this game with allot of interest. I really wanted to see how EA would turn out a fighting game. Although I am a huge fan of the fighting game genera, I think this is one of the easier generas to move into at the moment. There are allot of games that you can look at that did very well and at the moment there isn't much competition. Both of those factors in mind makes this game that much more of a disappointment.
The controls are more like a beat-em up action game (like streets of rage or double dragon) then like a fighting game. The things that allows fighting games to work is the fact that you can spend hours simply trying to learn everyone's moves. Practicing the motions so you can perform them at the exact moment you want to. This game is completely lacing in that. Once you know one characters move list you know all of them. So there is no enjoyment of learning the characters or being able to do things that no one else has seen before.
This thing that showed me just how bad this game was the IGN review of it, when IGN (normally very producer bias) gives an EA product a 4.8 out of 10 there is something terribly wrong with it.
Well perhaps adding more availability to used games will expand the developer's outlook on creating games. Perhaps now there will be a little less value on opening week sales of a title and more on the long term sales of a title.
Developers will just have to start making games that people will want to keep for more then a few weeks. Something they would like to play more then once yah know. How about something you can't beet in 3 hours. Increase the quality and longevity of games and people will want to hold on to them.
I know I still have a lot of old games, because I'll go back and play them every now and then. The only games I trade in are the games that I didn't think were worth the original price I paid for them. Lots of games I already wait to buy used just because I know they aren't worth the opening price.
Of course I guess this could have the opposite effect too, more games put out with low budgets, fad inspired content, and flashy advertising just meant to grab the opening week sales and run laughing that they bought a bad game.
"Hey by the time they figure out the game sucks, we already have their money" -actual quote from someone I know in the industry
Yes, but the godfather part 2 was a work off of it's own merit. The fact that there was a godfather part 1 is not the reason that godfather part 2 was good. The creators of godfather part 2 created new plot and made new content and continued the vision. They didn't simply copy the previous movie.
Tell me would Arthur Conan Doyle's work be respected if in every novel he used the same plot devices. It Sherlock holms solved every mystery by talking to the exact same people and matching the villains shoe size to a shoe print at the scene of the crime in every book I think you might get a little bored by the third installment. The reason that the series was able to continue is because things changed, each book was a different story/experience.
That's the point. If a sequel is put out to continue a plot, create new and interesting things in the same universe or to expand people's thoughts on the original work then its fine, heck it's great, if done right it can take a great game into a great series. But that isn't the case here. The sequel was created just because the business model showed it would be a good idea. So they spent an extra couple of week swapping art, making a few code changes and put it out on the shelves with a different title and box art.
That's why it is my opinion that he made the wrong decision on going back on his convictions to help improve their half hearted creation.
You know I have played quite a few fighting games and even the most advanced of them do not use real fencing maneuvers like you were just describing. The closest would probably be soul caliber 2 where you could use a generic high and low parry. But those were just momentary presses where once it is established there is ¼ of a second to catch the opponent's blade. After that your left open to attack for a moment.
The games ability to learn is a gradual process, in most game the AI doesn't learn your style until after you have already hit them in the head a few dozen times. Even then all you have to do is one move that is out of your normal pattern and they are wide open again.
In real fencing flailing about is absolutely useless. But in a video game where you have instant control because of motion tracking and the AI has to take ¼ of a second to animate though their moves flailing will work a lot
If they are able to make it work well, Cool, I'll probably pick it up myself, I just have high doubts. I have seen way to many motion tracking devices flop in the past to keep my hopes up for this one.
Where is it that you saw that Nintendo said that the remote will be shipping with the analog nunchacu thing? All I have seen is "may" or "could" ship with from rumor pages.
There are a lot of games that can not me played with simple motions and 2 buttons. The fact that they are selling the controller cradles is nice because it will allow a venue for more complicated games. However the fact that it has to be purchased separately is the problem I have with it. It's already annoying to have to buy 3 more controllers for a consol to play multiplayer, now you have to buy 4 controller attachments too?
From what I have seen right now there are 3 controller peripherals coming out. The remove the nunchaku attachment and the controller cradle. So if you want to have the hardware to play the majority of the games that come out for the system you will have to buy the system, 3 extra controllers, 4 nunchaku attachments, and 4 cradles. And that's just for what's out so far, there are still dance mats, wheels, and custom game specific controller attachments.
This will either force innovation in companies to use the default remote type controller or make companies force players to buy the cradles and other attachments to play their games. From my experience with the industry though, it seems there are allot of companies that see invention and original as words to steer clear from rather then head toward because they have a higher risk.
In the end I hope it does work for the same reason stated in the article:
"If the controller fails, however... I fear the industry may become even more risk-averse, and continue its spiral towards stagnation."
I don't really like the revolution's controller. although this controller will make some games more intuitive and easier to play (Mario party, fishing games, baseball, tennis, and some platformer games) it is going to make other games much harder to play. Can you imagine trying to play a tekken style fighting game with that controller? It would be just about impossible to play well without buying the controller cradle. The user should not have to buy extra controller peripherals to play an entire genera of games.
Also think about what madden is going to do with that. The nunchaku or cradle attachment will be required in order to play well. The analog stick will be used for movement the d-pad will be used for play selection and audibles and the motion sensor will be used for juking/jumping. So in the end juking will get easier but everything else in the game will become more awkward (because of the wire between hands rather then having a solid controller) This controller will work great for simple games but for any game that takes more then 3 buttons and a d-pad it isn't going to help, only hinder.
To me it seems that Nintendo is hindering detailed control in order to make room for invention and change. I think in the end this is going to push away 3rd party developers even more. But there games will be fun and special. If Nintendo wants to bring games back to where you only need 2 buttons and a directional pad, then this is the way to go.
Wow, think about playing a mech game, going from the Steel Battalion controller to the revolution. Your loosing so many options you'll feel like your missing your arms.
You know, they have one of those types of games at Disney's Disney quest (the Disney arcade thing) and it doesn't really work.
If you take the movement of the remote directly into the game for the movement of the sword you can just flail the remote around wildly and kill and block everything coming at you before it gets a chance.
If you put a delay on the sword in game to only allow you to move it so many times per second then you have a big feeling of disconnection from the sword in game and you get frustrated that it's not doing what you are doing.
It's very hard to give balanced gameplay when you have true motion sensing. Could be one of the reasons that VR never took off and the reason that many of the eye toy games aren't that fun either.
But who knows perhaps Nintendo will be able to figure it out.
There are a ton of things game companies can do that can encourage gaming communities, none of which are easy and most of which people try to do already.
The first of all and this one is absolutely necessary is, making a good game. No matter how hard you try you can not build a community around a bad game. I'm sure developers never try and make a game that they think will be bad just for the sake of getting that quick buck before the gamers realize that the game sucks. But if you have a bad game you will not be able to make a good community around it.
To have a strong community you would have to give users the ability to feel unique. If everyone comes away from a game with the exact same experience there isn't much to talk about. This is difficult because it means you need to implement custom items in the game or multiple plot lines or things of that sort. In general those are all items that will increate the development time of a game significantly.
For online game you could add an in game feature that can give recognition to players for something. This has to be more then a simple top 10 list of who killed the most what. If someone accomplishes something have it mean more then a name on a chart or a badge you can wear in the game. Like implementing an in game newspaper written from the stand point of a character talking about other players. City of heroes is doing something a little like this. They send out a comic to the city of heroes members and in the comic are characters that players have made and fan art people have drawn. Giving someone something to shoot for and talk about other then mindless level grinding can go a long way.
Really in the end there are many things that can be done to increase community, most of it just comes down to the game. The game must be fun unique and competitive to have a good community. Just using X.M.L. like the editorial said will not make a big difference
Let me put it to you this way then. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel has long been considered art. Now imagine if you will that Michelangelo went out and painted 30 other buildings in the same fashion with only minor changes because as you put it "he has to pay the bills". The original chapel ceiling wouldn't be so special any more would it. Every time you make a copy of an original inventive work, without taking measures to make it stand apart from the first, the first work becomes less and less original and inventive; it just becomes the first in a line of work.
The matrix is a good example of this actually. The first was original in some sense. It had a huge following and was a big success. Now the sequels come out. The sequels are just forms factors of the original using nothing new and innovative just using what made the first one successfully. After the second and third matrix came out the first one has lost allot of respect and it is no longer seen as what it once was. It is no longer a great original work; it's just the first in a line of copies.
So yes painting is an art, but if you're painting a picture that you already painted 6 times before are you still truly making art or are you just making copies? Creating something using art skills purely for the sake of profit is "craft", not "art". If all paintings are considered art why aren't billboard advertisements put up in galleries?
If he would have said that he doesn't want to be part of the sequel that is tarnishing his original work at least it would have shown that he cared enough about the original that he didn't want to be part of its corruption. That if the game gets put out, it's put out without his support. The fact that he did join up on the new project showed that he supported the tarnishing of his creation, reluctantly, but he still supported it.
As far as business factors go there is no way that this sequel wouldn't have come out. It makes perfect business scene to put out a copy of the game to bring in extra revenue. Low development cost because you don't have to code/create new content so you get a higher cost to income ratio.
That's why I think this is one of the reasons why the industry can't be taken seriously as an art rather then craft because the industry(not all of it, but the majority) doesn't take it's self seriously as an art. It's just business.
I have to say I'm a bit saddened that he didn't stick to his convictions on this. If he would have stuck with "no I don't want to work on this sequel" and they did put out the other game without his support at least it would have shown as some sort of protest to making the unnecessary sequel and shown the public (well the public that hears about it anyway) that designers do actually care about their product enough that they wont be part of it's uninspired sequel.
The fact that designers are willing to let go their ideals is one of the reason I think that games aren't being taken seriously as a form of expression/art. What are you trying to express if you're willing to put a sticker on it, put it out as a sequel, and say that it's better then the previous artistic expression?
I loved the original Katamari Damacy. The visuals, game play, and sounds were all just so different then the conventional video game. I saw the game as a breath of fresh air in a game industry that is growing stale.
In my opinion, contrary to previous posters, I don't find we love Katamari worth buying if you already own Katamari Damacy. The game play and concepts are exactly the same as the last game with a shiny new wrapper. You're still just rolling a ball trying to get it bigger in every level. They may add an additional theme for a level (you're not rolling a ball this time you're rolling a thin sumo wrestler) but that's the entire difference.
To me this sequel is about as much of an addition and improvement to the original game as Metal Gear Solid VR Missions added to Metal Gear Solid. It turned an original creative idea into a gimmick.
The child can not buy this in the majority of retailers. Most retailers have made it policy not the sell M games to people under the age of 18. There are lapses in this policy because of the cashier's lack of attention but no more so then there is with adult movies and music.
This law changes it from a voluntary to a legal one.
Well there are a few things that are very easy for you to do. You could turn on the parental controls on your child's video game system. Both Xbox and the game cube have built into a feature where the parent can set the maximum ESRB level that can be played on the system. Turn it to T for teen so that your child can't play these evil M games.
You could also pay attention to ESRB of the games your child brings home. You know that shelf that your kids put there games on. Well on all the boxes and the disk art of a game you can simply look at the ESRB rating and know if you want you child playing it or not.
The video game industry may spend 100 millions of dollars making video games(not sure how this makes your job more difficult really) but your kid still has to bring it home to play it.
If you child becomes the pawn of marketing and starts buying every M game that comes out, it still isn't that hard for you to take them away from the kid or make them unusable for them.
"neither the manufacturers nor the fans do a very good job of describing why large amounts of violence are somehow integral to the games being designed."
Well here let me give it a shot then
Who said that large amounts of violence are integral to games? Violence in games is one of the major forms of confrontation used in video games. All games require a goal and something standing in the way of your goal. The getting around the items in the way for your goal is what makes up they gamplay of a game. Now if that game is based on the human world where you have a goal and the things standing in the way of your goal are other people. There are multiple ways you can go about this; you can make an adventure style game where you then get around the people by talking to them and figuring things out in conversation, you can make a stealth game where you attempt to avoid all the people in the game to get to your goal, or you can made an action game where you get around the other people by using physical and violent methods. All of these game types have been made and sold on the pro level. The reason that there has been a tendency in the industry to fall back on violent type of confrontations is because previous sales have shown that those types of games have sold more then others.
There are a lot of games that do not have highly violent factors. The point of view that games should not have violence because there are other forms on confrontation that can be used is bias to what you prefer in entertainment. To me your question of "why do games have to be violent?" is about equal to the question "Why did they have to go and make Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon when we already had the Care Bears Save Christmas?" it's just different styles of entertainment set up to cater to the target audience.
Well if your Nintendo, EA or another company that want to keep it's family friendly image. Those stats will be read differently.
Do we want to make games that 2/3 of the market can but or that 3/3 of the market can buy?