I'm a staunch supporter of the wii/ds strategy, and not because I particularly care about Nintendo's horribly marketed non-gamers motif or because I prefer cartoony, simplistic games to the latest breathtaking first person world. For me, behind the curve is the point.
I must extrapolate on what he means by artistic games, and it's hard not to take liberties with such a loaded phrase. But that we still attach such significance to names like Kojima and Wright is quite valuable for the artistically inclined gamer. It suggests game development isn't completely dictated by the whims of corporate boards and target sampling. If anything, the biggest threat to "artistic" gaming is the rapid increase in development costs. When every game takes 10s a millions of dollars to produce, every company must incorporate as much risk negation as possible into every product. They'd be fools not to. So what's that leave us with? The continuation of the trend to put out sequels and rehashes.
The ds is so interesting precisely because it's allowed brilliant young developers to put out incredibly compelling niche games. If the wii continues it's early success, undoubtedly we'll see more of this risk taking in the console space than we would in another sony dominated generation. That's not to say big 360/ps3 games are bad, it's just to say the wii offers a development space with unique attributes that would not be served by a more technologically advanced console.
That he's attaching value to how the company talks about art is pedantic and asinine. I don't even know where to begin arguing the point accept to say it means nothing. Tell me what you want when you say artistic. What fundamental attributes make Spore more artistic then Twilight Princess or Hotel Dusk or fing Halo 3? Do you really think Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo) give a damn just because they put it in a list? As an "artistically" inclined gamer, I'd love to believe it true.
WoW doesn't exist in a vacuum; it certainly isn't Blizzard's only effort to attain PC dominance. And as the competition haven't previously caught on to Blizzard's methods, I don't think it likely they'll catch em this time around. Two things mark every Blizzard release since Starcraft. The first is polish. Polish, polish, polish. There's a reason Starcraft II hasn't been announced 9 years after the fact; Blizzard rushes nothing. Every effort is the focus of incomparable time and effort (and money), and it shows. WoW has fundamental flaws, but it doesn't matter; it has so much more of quality than anything any of the competition has generated, and that's not likely to change. For one thing, not many companies have the sort of capital Blizzard has. And those that do don't operate by the same sort of fundamental cooperate properties that mark Blizzard as such a unique company. If this were EA, we would have had Starcraft II five years ago, and we wouldn't care.
The second property every Blizzard game has that I can't for the life of me figure out why other developer's don't catch on to is playability. And I don't mean easy to get into, I mean my computer can actually play the damned games when they come out, and play them damned well. Art over technical performance is I think a really hard thing for some techy types to get their heads around, and maybe that's why Western gaming often feels so stale, but Blizzard certainly seems to know where to put their money. Perhaps this would seem less a positive without the former polish, but I really wish more PC developers would try not developing for $500 video cards (you hear me Bioware - I want to play Dragon Age, not dream about it!)
I just really don't think your professor's argument can be substantiated. There is no sign of warfare or mass migration about the archeological sites, that much is agreed. Moreover, people continued to live in the cities for hundreds of years after the decline of the traditions and vast trade networks that seem to mark the cities. Information supported by Kenoyer's Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization.
Also consider a civilization of Indians (that is, in India) who existed 1,500 years ago and did not require police, advanced government, or a military to enforce rules. They lived in cities, farmed, and lived in peace until their lack of military means led to their being forced into slavery by their invadors, the Caucasions from the Caucaus mountains.
There's no truth to this. You're referring to the Indus Valley Civilization, the super cool early civilization with pluming that declined around 3000 years ago. It is true that there are no signs of large scale conflict about the cities, just as it's true that this is entirely nontopical. This was a civilization of large scale commerce and trade. The cities' decline seems due to shifts in climate, a shift in the flow of the Indus river, and probably internal problems. The Indo-European Aryans of this area didn't raid or conquer cities. Wars and raids were quite common in India 1500 years ago, however.
Meaningful survival best be at least some of our purpose, and we must see that with the current generation's shift in information distribution, tomorrow's social institutions reflect survival's needs.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right, I didn't read the entire thread. My apologies. But at least it helped me to figure out Slashdot's interface a bit better.
No, in a game against terran, 'toss can mind control an SCV to build terran buildings and units. It's possible to have both buildings. =)
I must extrapolate on what he means by artistic games, and it's hard not to take liberties with such a loaded phrase. But that we still attach such significance to names like Kojima and Wright is quite valuable for the artistically inclined gamer. It suggests game development isn't completely dictated by the whims of corporate boards and target sampling. If anything, the biggest threat to "artistic" gaming is the rapid increase in development costs. When every game takes 10s a millions of dollars to produce, every company must incorporate as much risk negation as possible into every product. They'd be fools not to. So what's that leave us with? The continuation of the trend to put out sequels and rehashes.
The ds is so interesting precisely because it's allowed brilliant young developers to put out incredibly compelling niche games. If the wii continues it's early success, undoubtedly we'll see more of this risk taking in the console space than we would in another sony dominated generation. That's not to say big 360/ps3 games are bad, it's just to say the wii offers a development space with unique attributes that would not be served by a more technologically advanced console.
That he's attaching value to how the company talks about art is pedantic and asinine. I don't even know where to begin arguing the point accept to say it means nothing. Tell me what you want when you say artistic. What fundamental attributes make Spore more artistic then Twilight Princess or Hotel Dusk or fing Halo 3? Do you really think Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo) give a damn just because they put it in a list? As an "artistically" inclined gamer, I'd love to believe it true.
WoW doesn't exist in a vacuum; it certainly isn't Blizzard's only effort to attain PC dominance. And as the competition haven't previously caught on to Blizzard's methods, I don't think it likely they'll catch em this time around. Two things mark every Blizzard release since Starcraft. The first is polish. Polish, polish, polish. There's a reason Starcraft II hasn't been announced 9 years after the fact; Blizzard rushes nothing. Every effort is the focus of incomparable time and effort (and money), and it shows. WoW has fundamental flaws, but it doesn't matter; it has so much more of quality than anything any of the competition has generated, and that's not likely to change. For one thing, not many companies have the sort of capital Blizzard has. And those that do don't operate by the same sort of fundamental cooperate properties that mark Blizzard as such a unique company. If this were EA, we would have had Starcraft II five years ago, and we wouldn't care.
The second property every Blizzard game has that I can't for the life of me figure out why other developer's don't catch on to is playability. And I don't mean easy to get into, I mean my computer can actually play the damned games when they come out, and play them damned well. Art over technical performance is I think a really hard thing for some techy types to get their heads around, and maybe that's why Western gaming often feels so stale, but Blizzard certainly seems to know where to put their money. Perhaps this would seem less a positive without the former polish, but I really wish more PC developers would try not developing for $500 video cards (you hear me Bioware - I want to play Dragon Age, not dream about it!)
http://wigu.com/overcompensating/2006/02/one-billi on-served.html
"Only two of 'em are any good"
I just really don't think your professor's argument can be substantiated. There is no sign of warfare or mass migration about the archeological sites, that much is agreed. Moreover, people continued to live in the cities for hundreds of years after the decline of the traditions and vast trade networks that seem to mark the cities.
Information supported by Kenoyer's Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization.
Meaningful survival best be at least some of our purpose, and we must see that with the current generation's shift in information distribution, tomorrow's social institutions reflect survival's needs.