I was already under the general impression that the PSP, overall, was a flop. This tears it for me.
Rehashes, blends, and clones are the only things I've seen for the PSP. The only game I've played for it that did anything new and different was the Pac-Man 3D game, and that was not a change for the better. 8-bit Pac-Man could run circles around that yellow blob with legs. Pac-Man shouldn't HAVE legs!
Not only that, but the article says that "it will feature playable characters from both series, including Final Fantasy XII's Fran and Balflear. Stages will include one based on the Phantom Train in Final Fantasy VI." So not only are they doing an "X meets Y" crossover that's never quite as good as either of the standalones, they're taking things from multiple Final Fantasy Games. Cool though it might be, I'm pretty sure no Final Fantasy fan wants to see Cloud fight Kefka. It's justn ot natural.
This article certainly raises a good question, but fails to answer it. If the game development programs offered at universities don't teach people how to design games, then what should be done about it?
The author says that "in most creative industries, the people from the outside have the brightest ideas and the cleverest approaches to solving problems." In effect, what he's saying is that for game development to flourish, the degree programs offered for game development should be ignored. Seems a little contrary to me.
Along with the fundamentals of programming, the core of a Computer Science degree, a game developer could need countless different references and sources, depending on the projects he intends to develop. A person making a football game, for example, needs to know more about sports, physics, and physiology, depending on the intended realism, whereas a person making an insightful and thought-provoking RPG with a deep storyline would want to do cultural, historical, or anthropological studies.
Because of the vast variety of secondary resources needed to develop certain different games, and because no one can really teach innovation, I say that all a game development degree can teach in order to assure its usefulness are the fundamentals of programming in modern video game design. A few more electives than other courses would certainly not be amiss, but learning to program is the only thing every game developer needs. Everything else depends on their objectives.
I know that with each passing year, with each new leap in creativity on the part of hardware and software developers, the gaming market opens up to a larger and larger section of the market. Especially with the advent of the original Playstation and some of the first impressively realistic sports titles, not everyone who plays video games is a "gamer".
Nonetheless, I definitely think it's a wise move on Nintendo's part to consider making this development kit, as well as any planned stripped down and marked down versions. The biggest, most loyal market for video games is still those of us who are just as interested in the technology and the development as we are in the games. I know people who enjoy making games more than they enjoy playing them, although they are still gamers at heart.
I don't expect Sony to have a great deal of luck competing if all they're going to do is make the PS2 prettier and cheaper, and increase development for the Eye Toy. I haven't seen any successful Eye Toy titles, and to be honest, that doesn't bother me.
Viva la Revolution!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure this post's title is self-explanatory. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably either crazy or just very badly misled.
I was already under the general impression that the PSP, overall, was a flop. This tears it for me.
Rehashes, blends, and clones are the only things I've seen for the PSP. The only game I've played for it that did anything new and different was the Pac-Man 3D game, and that was not a change for the better. 8-bit Pac-Man could run circles around that yellow blob with legs. Pac-Man shouldn't HAVE legs!
Not only that, but the article says that "it will feature playable characters from both series, including Final Fantasy XII's Fran and Balflear. Stages will include one based on the Phantom Train in Final Fantasy VI." So not only are they doing an "X meets Y" crossover that's never quite as good as either of the standalones, they're taking things from multiple Final Fantasy Games. Cool though it might be, I'm pretty sure no Final Fantasy fan wants to see Cloud fight Kefka. It's justn ot natural.
This article certainly raises a good question, but fails to answer it. If the game development programs offered at universities don't teach people how to design games, then what should be done about it?
The author says that "in most creative industries, the people from the outside have the brightest ideas and the cleverest approaches to solving problems." In effect, what he's saying is that for game development to flourish, the degree programs offered for game development should be ignored. Seems a little contrary to me.
Along with the fundamentals of programming, the core of a Computer Science degree, a game developer could need countless different references and sources, depending on the projects he intends to develop. A person making a football game, for example, needs to know more about sports, physics, and physiology, depending on the intended realism, whereas a person making an insightful and thought-provoking RPG with a deep storyline would want to do cultural, historical, or anthropological studies.
Because of the vast variety of secondary resources needed to develop certain different games, and because no one can really teach innovation, I say that all a game development degree can teach in order to assure its usefulness are the fundamentals of programming in modern video game design. A few more electives than other courses would certainly not be amiss, but learning to program is the only thing every game developer needs. Everything else depends on their objectives.
I know that with each passing year, with each new leap in creativity on the part of hardware and software developers, the gaming market opens up to a larger and larger section of the market. Especially with the advent of the original Playstation and some of the first impressively realistic sports titles, not everyone who plays video games is a "gamer". Nonetheless, I definitely think it's a wise move on Nintendo's part to consider making this development kit, as well as any planned stripped down and marked down versions. The biggest, most loyal market for video games is still those of us who are just as interested in the technology and the development as we are in the games. I know people who enjoy making games more than they enjoy playing them, although they are still gamers at heart. I don't expect Sony to have a great deal of luck competing if all they're going to do is make the PS2 prettier and cheaper, and increase development for the Eye Toy. I haven't seen any successful Eye Toy titles, and to be honest, that doesn't bother me. Viva la Revolution!